Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2015.09.21
City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final City Council BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, September 21, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non -agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS a. Presentation by Broadway BID of a Donation to the Police Canine Unit b. Presentation bV the County on Handling Mental Health Emergencies 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 911712015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 21, 2015 a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 8 2015 Attachments: 9-8-15m i n.doc b. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 15.06 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Additional Penalties and Enforcement Mechanisms for Violation of Water Shortage Emergency Restrictions Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Ordinance C. Adoption of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 13 20 010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the City Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance d. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Hatch Mott MacDonald for Engineering Design Services Related to the Ray Park and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project City Project No 84190 and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Professional Service Agreement Proiect Location Mao e. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Contract between the City and Timberline Tree Service. Inc., for Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Services for FY 2015-16 and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Tree Pruning Bid Summary Sheet Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Contract Amendment 1 f. Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Confirming the City's Approval of the Construction of a Helipad on the site of Mills -Peninsula Medical Center. Located at 1501 Trousdale Drive Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Site Plan City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 911712015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 21, 2015 9. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with David J. Powers & Associates Inc for Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan at 1819 Trousdale Drive. Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Agreement Proposal (Work Programl h. Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between the City and Burlingame Park Square LLC Related to the Potential Development of Parking Lot E and the Downtown Burlingame Post Office Property Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Agreement Exhibit B 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearing and Adoption of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2015-16 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Letter of Protest b. City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Applications for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a manor renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes first and second story additions, on Property at 2753 Burlingview Drive Located Within a Single -Family Residential (R-1) Zone Attachments: Staff Report Appeal Letter Appellant's Letter - September 7 2015 Applicant's Letter - August 31 2015 August 10 2015 Planninq Commission Minutes August 10 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 911712015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Department Reports: August 2015 Permit Activity 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website minutes are available at this site. September 21, 2015 please contact the City Clerk at the Agenda Packet is available for Road, from 8.00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday,October 5, 2015 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 9/17/2015 r% o r C Ci C J y o �. v� ITJ o �7 o n m d Ci C��r 41 7y d o ay n o ��s moa v, N C 120 ? U N w m o 0 O E 6 V 3 N m ma3y mm O .j °° oo N z o rn 0 0 H cc m m v C m m xDQo ID va ON N O O N O < z 0 0 O N m 0j mvm C) o C, O0 --3H Kq y n 0 ° to o O N F y w H CD m CD �o� n y N o� m H FC m fC N o C1 N 01 w J .-- W A J O p W f=n 00 �P O O O O 01 W O c O � � O � d O m m D u, m o � o c m n < tj N N m O1 Oo In N 91x O .� C) VA N N v ? x O In ON J O O O C, T O O O O m j O 01 O W N O� O N O O O O O O O O 3 3 m d m Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/21/15 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of September 8, 2015 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. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Karen Dittman, 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Keighran, Nagel, Ortiz, Root MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION CA Kane advised that Council met in Closed Session, direction was given, and there was no reportable action at this time. Mayor Nagel also stated that the Council met in an Open Study Session with the Burlingame School District. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Nagel reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. INTRODUCTION OF SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN SKELLY Mayor Nagel welcomed Superintendent Skelly to the community. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he looked forward to regular communication with the Superintendent in order to establish a good working relationship. Burlingame City Council September 8, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/21/15 b. PRESENTATION ANNOUNCING THE JEFFERY T. GRIFFITH SCHOLARSHIP FUND Karen Dittman and Laura Hesselgren of the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation honored the work of Jeffrey Griffith. Karen explained that the mission of the foundation was to raise funds that provide scholarship assistance for enrollment in Park and Recreation programs. Accordingly, the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation honored Jeffrey Griffith by naming the scholarship for him. Jeffrey's wife Debra was presented with a plaque in honor of Jeffrey's work and commitment in the community. Debra presented the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation with the first donation to the Jeffrey T. Griffith Scholarship Fund. C. PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO THE STUDIO SHOP RECOGNIZING 100 YEARS IN THE COMMUNITY Mayor Nagel presented the Studio Shop's owners, the Benson -Martin family, with a proclamation on their 100`h anniversary as a retail store in Burlingame. Mayor Nagel discussed the shop's history in Burlingame including its longstanding tradition of giving back and volunteering in the community. d. PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION FOR BILL TOCI Mayor Nagel presented Bill Toci with a proclamation thanking him for his 15 years of service as a Plant Manager at the Waste Water Treatment Facility. Mayor Nagel also acknowledged that the relationship between Veolia and the City of Burlingame is the longest public private partnership with a waste water treatment facility in the United States. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Nagel asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar and Councilmember Root removed item 8f. Mayor Nagel removed item 8a. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to adopt items 8b, 8c, 8d, 8e of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 17 2015 CC Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes of August 17, 2015. Mayor Nagel made a correction to 8e requesting that the terms of Commission members be listed on www.burlingame.org. Mayor Nagel also corrected 9a stating that she was encouraging those who wanted their sidewalks repaired to contact Public Works to see if their sidewalk would qualify under the 50150 program. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to adopt item 8a; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 2 Burlingame City Council September 8, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/21/15 b. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO IMPENDING VACANCIES ON THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION CM Goldman requested Council call for applications for the two vacancies on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission by October 9, 2015. c. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR MAJOR RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING, INCLUDING FIRST- AND SECOND -FLOOR ADDITIONS. AT 2753 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE CDD Meeker requested Council set September 21, 2015 as the hearing date for an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of 2753 Burlingview Drive's application. d. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 18.07.130 TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING AN EXPEDITED PROCEDURE FOR PERMITTING SMALL ROOFTOP RESIDENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEMS CDD Meeker requested Council adopt Ordinance No. 1920. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BY ROBERT A. BOTHMAN, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 83150 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No. 83-2015. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT AND AMENDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution No. 84-2015. Councilman Root asked Chief Wollman to give a brief description of the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant. Chief Wollman stated that this was the 4"' OTS Grant (totaling $900,000) that Burlingame Police Department (BPD) had received since 2012. Wollman explained that it was a collaborative grant that included all 23 police departments in the County and CHP. He stated that through this grant traffic officers are deployed once a month to each city in the County and that that the grant is also used for dui check points, saturation patrols, training and to purchase equipment. Chief Wollman added that under the new OTS Grant the County's police departments will be holding bike rodeos in low income neighborhoods and providing bike helmets to kids. The program has received two state awards and a national award. Mayor Nagel thanked the BPD, especially Lieutenant Jay Kiely for writing the grant. Burlingame City Council September 8, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/21/15 Vice Mayor Keighran requested that the Burlingame e -newsletter include traffic and safety violation statistics on people not wearing their seatbelts and on distracted drivers. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the weekly e -newsletter could also include statistics concerning the decrease in accidents as a result of this program. Chief Wollman replied that he would work on this. Councilmember Brownrigg asked how intersections were picked for patrolling. Chief Wollman stated that it was based on different reports and traffic patterns. Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the Floribunda and El Camino Real intersection be looked at. Chief Wollman stated that it would be. Councilmember Root made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 84-2015; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY DPW Murtuza reviewed the staff report discussing the request to amend ordinance 13.20.010 to add four stop signs in the City at: (1)Rollins Road at Toyon Drive, (2) Quesada Way at Ray Drive, (3) Highway Road at Mills Avenue and (4) Ray Drive at Balboa Avenue. Murtuza stated that staff reviewed public requests for six additional stop signs in the City and presented the information to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC). From this presentation, TSPC decided against recommending stop signs at the following intersections: (1) California Drive at Murchison Drive and (2) California Drive at Trousdale Drive. Murtuza added that the reason the staff and TSPC decided not to recommend these two locations was because of the potential adverse impact the stop signs could have on traffic queuing. Murtuza then discussed the need for the four new stop signs including: safety of the pedestrians, concerns about the number of accidents, and the speed of drivers through these neighborhoods. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that his concern at the Quesada Way and Ray Drive intersection was not the traffic on Quesada Way but rather the traffic on Ray Drive. Accordingly, he questioned whether the staff looked at putting the stop sign on Ray Drive instead of Quesada Way. Murtuza stated that under the law the continuing street does not get the stop sign but rather the intersecting street (which would be Quesada Way). Council then discussed their concerns about traffic on Ray Drive. Council asked that staff create signage that would alert drivers that pedestrians would be crossing. Mayor Nagel requested that the City Clerk read the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing and Burlingame Resident Nirmala Bandrapalli spoke. Mayor Nagel directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. Burlingame City Council September 8, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/21/15 b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 15.06 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD ADDITIONAL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS FOR VIOLATION OF WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY RESTRICTIONS CA Kane reviewed the staff report and stated that the City has thus far exceeded the state water reduction targets. However, she stated that because of the severe drought, the City needs to ensure that it has adequate enforcement tools to address particular cases of overuse. CA Kane explained that the purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to add regular code enforcement mechanisms such as $100 fine per day and administrative hearings to prevent and penalize cases of excessive use of water. CA Kane stated that the first approach would always be education, but if an individual continuously violates the water shortage restrictions, this Ordinance would provide the City with options. Vice Mayor Keighran asked if excessive water usage was a problem in the City. CA Kane said that the City had received some complaints and usually through education they were able to bring people into compliance. However, in some cases CA Kane explained, the City had a more difficult time bringing the individual into compliance. Councilmember Brownrigg questioned the $100 fee a day. CA Kane said the penalty fee just referred to existing code provisions concerning violations of the municipal code. Councilmember Brownrigg stated he felt the penalty was excessive. CA Kane explained that the penalty would be used when people refused to moderate their water usage after continuous warnings. She further explained that having this penalty gave the City another tool if an individual refuses to comply. Councilmember Brownrigg stated he felt that the penalties should be capped. CA Kane explained that there was a state cap. Councilmember Ortiz wanted to ensure the rule would be applied uniformly. CA Kane stated that like all code compliance issues, if they can bring the individual into compliance they don't fine the individual, it is when the individual refuses to comply that fines may be necessary. Mayor Nagel pointed out that the City had surpassed the goal of 16% of water conservation in May by conserving 25%, June 37% and in July it was at 35%. Mayor Nagel requested that the City Clerk read the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel opened the hearing and no one spoke. Mayor Nagel directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. DISCUSSION OF RESPONSE TO BROADWAY/US-101 CLOSURE CM Goldman reviewed the staff report concerning the City's response to the Broadway/US 101 closure. CM Goldman noted that because the incident happened on US 101, the City was not the lead agency in charge. Instead CHP, Caltrans and PG&E were in charge of the incident. She further explained that the City's Burlingame City Council September 8, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/21/15 communication and safety efforts were spearheaded by an interdepartmental team of the BPD, Central County Fire Department (CCFD), Public Works and the City Manager's Office. CM Goldman briefly reviewed the incident stating that a contractor working for Caltrans struck a high- voltage PG&E tower, causing the tower to buckle. High-voltage lines fell onto the Broadway overpass, the pedestrian crossing and both northbound and southbound US 101. Luckily, this incident resulted in zero injuries. In response to the incident, the Transportation Management Center (TMC) issued a Sigalert informing motorists that the lanes were blocked and activated 55 overhead electronic changeable message signs. BPD and CCFD closed down the highway in both directions. City and partner agencies publicized the closure of the freeway, recommending that people stay off the roads and eleven SMC Alerts were issued during the weekend. DPW Murtuza stated that staff installed over 100 barricades with "Road Closed" signs, sand bags and traffic cones to control traffic. DPW Murtuza explained how traffic was diverted to alternative routes. He explained that Smart Corridor, although not finished, worked and was able to alert drivers of alternative routes. Fire Chief Kammeyer and Police Chief Wollman reviewed the work of their respective teams in responding to the emergency. Wollman stated that his staff arrived on scene first, and after assessing the situation immediately went into action shutting down all access points to the highway and pedestrian walk way. Once, the area was shutdown, they worked on maintaining the barricades and disseminating information to the public via SMC alerts and social media. Kammeyer stated that when his team arrived on scene they worked with Caltrans and PG&E to coordinate efforts and keep individuals with live wires on their cars in their cars until PG&E was able to shut off the power. As well, Kammeyer stated he worked on communicating information via twitter and other platforms. Both Wollman and Kammeyer stated that they were proud of their respective teams' response to the incident. Councilmember Root commended the City in effectively controlling the situation and distributing information. Mayor Nagel stated she had requested this item be placed on the agenda to not only review the City's response but discuss possible suggestions on how to deal with future emergencies. Mayor Nagel suggested that a unified communication post would be beneficial for future emergencies. She explained that this post would help eliminate duplication of information and streamline the message to the community. Councilman Ortiz asked for a clarification on the need for central communication. Mayor Nagel clarified that while the emergency was not the City's it would be good for there to be a countywide plan in place for a central communication post to be activated when an emergency occurred. She stated that this would allow for a consistent message throughout the County. Vice Mayor Keighran stated that duplication of information was a good thing. She stated that the amount of information she was inundated with and the SMC alerts kept her properly informed. Vice Mayor Keighran went on to state that most importantly people were kept safe, and that the crisis was handled properly and that it is after the crisis and safety are handled that information is released. Vice Mayor Keighran commended city staff and all individuals involved for getting the job done and getting the job done efficiently and effectively. 6 Burlingame City Council September S, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/21/15 CM Goldman stated that this week's e -newsletter had an article about how to sign up for SMC alerts as it is the best way for people to stay informed. Councilman Brownrigg asked if the City was able to put in a claim to the contractor for the overtime of City employees. CA Kane stated that the City would be looking into monetary recovery. Mayor Nagel opened the discussion up to the public. Burlingame Resident Jennifer Pfaff spoke. b. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE TO CALTRANS' PROPOSED EL CAMINO REAL AND FLORIBUNDA AVENUE INTERSECTION SAFETY PROJECT DPW Murtuza reviewed the staff report explaining the history between Caltrans' proposal at the El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue intersection and the City's request that a less invasive approach be tried first. Murtuza explained that TSPC had also been working to resolve this issue and improve the safety of the intersection without removing trees. However, TSPC was frustrated at the lack of a response from Caltrans on less invasive approaches. Therefore, TSPC is recommending that the City take proactive and pre-emptive action, and not wait any longer for a response from Caltrans. TSPC's recommendation to the Council is that the City prohibits all eastbound traffic onto Floribunda Avenue from El Camino Real. DPW Murtuza explained that staff believes that taking such action will have serious implications for the City including: (1) harm the ongoing negotiations between the City and Caltrans, (2) create responsibility and liability issues for the City and (3) if the City takes action on its own, it could be considered "adverse encroachment" on the State's rights of ownership to El Camino Real. Murtuza stated that he didn't believe the time had come for the City to take unilateral action. Councilmember Brownrigg asked Murtuza what the deadline is for when the City needs to take unilateral action. Murtuza responded that it would be if the EIR is certified, as it would be a signal that Caltrans' project is moving forward. CA Kane stated that certification of the EIR is a decision point that allows both the Council and citizens to challenge the report. Mayor Nagel stated that the feedback the Council received from Caltrans is that they are still assessing the project. Mayor Nagel went on to discuss the negotiations that the Council had with Caltrans and that a lot of good suggestions were made on how the City could work with Caltrans long term to assess the safety of El Camino Real. Mayor Nagel also shared her concern that the suggestion of TSPC to unilaterally forbid left turns into Floribunda would damage negotiations with Caltrans and open the City up to liability. Vice Mayor Keighran concurred with Mayor Nagel. Vice Mayor Keighran expressed her frustration but stated the City had to follow the process and take into consideration liability concerns. Vice Mayor Keighran asked if State Senator Jerry Hill had been made aware of this situation. CM Goldman stated that she has been keeping his office in the loop. Vice Mayor Keighran suggested that CA Kane look into possible options that could limit the City's liability in the future. Councilmember Ortiz asked who would be responsible for signage if eastbound traffic from El Camino Real onto Floribunda Avenue was prohibited. DPW Murtuza presented slides of what the necessary signage would look like and stated that Caltrans would have to agree to the signs. Burlingame City Council September 8, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/21/15 Councilmember Root asked if prior to implementing TSPC's recommendation the City would need to conduct a traffic study. DPW Murtuza explained that this would be part of it, and that if done properly the City would need to be able to explain effects of their proposal on neighboring streets' traffic to Caltrans. Mayor Nagel opened the discussion for public comments. Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff and Nirmala Bandrapalli spoke about the ongoing frustration that is being felt by the community and the need to protect the trees on El Camino Real. Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioner Jeff Louder spoke about why the Commission decided to propose this plan. Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission President John Martos spoke and requested that the Council keep TSPC informed about communications with Caltrans. Councilmember Brownrigg stated he understood why TSPC was requesting the City prohibit eastbound traffic onto Floribunda Avenue from El Camino Real as he was concerned that the City might wait too long before taking action. Councilmember Ortiz voiced his concern that Caltrans would push their project through and so he stated that while TSPC's action might not be the correct action for the City to take, that the City should come up with a plan of action. Mayor Nagel commented that Caltrans' decision to remodel the Floribunda Avenue and El Camino Real intersection was a result of an increase in accidents at the intersection. She suggested that if the City could show a decrease in accidents that it may help in limiting Caltrans' project. Mayor Nagel stated that the Council was requesting three things: (1) a deadline by which the City must receive a response from Caltrans on the letter the City sent; (2) staff should begin exploring the City's legal options if negotiations with Caltrans do not move forward; and (3) talk with state officials about the issues with Caltrans' project. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Ortiz requested an update on the bike lane project/proposal. 13. 14. Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 9:41 p.m. in memory of Joan Gillard and Tom Byrne. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk Burlingame City Council September 8, 2015 Unapproved Minutes a�RII�` STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8b MEETING DATE: September 21, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 15.06 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Additional Penalties and Enforcement Mechanisms for Violation of Water Shortage Emergency Restrictions RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council consider the adoption of an ordinance to amend Municipal Code Chapter 15.06 to add additional penalties and enforcement mechanisms for violation of water restrictions during declared water shortage emergencies. In order to do so, the Council should: A. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance. B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND The State of California is in a severe drought crisis. The Governor and the State Water Resources Control Board earlier this year issued consumption reduction requirements that apply to the City of Burlingame and all other water suppliers in the State. Through a robust education campaign and the significant efforts of our water customers, the City has thus far been able to exceed the reduction targets set forth by the State. However, individual reduction levels vary. While the City has succeeded in getting individuals and businesses come into compliance with the water restrictions currently in place, existing enforcement mechanisms under the current Chapter 15.06 are limited in scope and in some cases may be restricted by evolving case law regarding rate -setting and penalties. For this or a future water crisis, additional flexibility in the available water restriction enforcement tools may be necessary in order address particular cases of overuse. The Council introduced and held a public hearing on the attached proposed ordinance at its September 8, 2015 meeting. After discussion, Council directed staff to bring back the proposed ordinance for adoption at this meeting. 1 Water Emergency Enforcement Ordinance September 21, 2015 DISCUSSION Existing Chapter 15.06 governing water shortage emergencies was last amended in 1988. Since that time, the City's general code enforcement provisions have been updated to allow for more robust and flexible enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, recent case law may render some avenues for enforcement preferable to others as regards to charging increased rates for water. Currently, Section 15.06.060 provides that the possible penalties for overconsumption during a declared water shortage emergency are: a) imposing an excess use charge for each unit in excess of the allowed amount; b) restricting water flow to the home or business in question; or C) discontinuing water service. Section 15.06.070 states that the provisions of the chapter may be enforced by the water department, public works department, and the fire department. The attached proposed ordinance would add the existing code enforcement mechanisms from Title 1 of the Municipal Code to the list of permissible methods for addressing overconsumption of water during a drought. The proposed ordinance does not take away any of the existing penalties, but it adds the possibility of fines (in the amount of $100, $200, and $500 for successive violations) as well as administrative hearings for those cases that might benefit from a more thorough treatment of the underlying conditions causing the violations. Additionally, the proposed ordinance adds the City Attorney and Code Compliance Officer to the list of employees authorized to enforce the water restrictions. Those two positions are responsible for administering code enforcement under Title 1, so they are added to the list of staff in order to effectuate the Title 1 remedies. Additionally, those staff members can bring actions in court as necessary, thereby permitting resolution of the most recalcitrant cases. As a matter of policy, primary enforcement will remain with the Director of Public Works and his designees. However, adding potential enforcement tools and authorized staff would provide greater flexibility and responsiveness to deal with difficult cases. FISCAL IMPACT Minimal. Exhibit: • Proposed ordinance C ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 15.06 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD ADDITIONAL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS FOR VIOLATION OF WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS the City adopted provisions governing water shortage emergencies in 1988; and WHEREAS those provisions establish certain enforcement mechanisms; and WHEREAS the State of California is currently enduring a historic drought and cities across the State are required to meet certain water use reduction targets; and WHEREAS a review of the existing enforcement provisions for water shortage emergencies indicates that additional enforcement mechanisms could increase compliance with water restrictions and make for more efficient regulation of water use; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby ordain as follows: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 15.06 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Current Chapter 15.06, Water Shortage Emergencies, is hereby amended in the identified sections below as follows: 15.06.060 Penalties for excess water consumption. A subsection (d) shall be added, as follows: (d) Fines and penalties as provided in Title 1 of this Code. Persons violating the provisions set forth in this Chapter may also be subject to the fines and penalties set forth in Title 1 of this Code. 15.06.070 Enforcement. A sentence shall be added at the end of the existing text, as follows: In addition to the foregoing, the City Attorney, Code Compliance Officer and their designees shall are authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter through the mechanisms provided in Title 1 of this Code. DIVISION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. DIVISION 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. TERRY NAGEL, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2015 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk 2015, by the following vote: a STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: September 21, 2015 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7263 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the City Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to install new stop signs at following intersections: • Rollins Road at Toyon Drive • Quesada Way at Ray Drive • Highway Road at Mills Avenue • Ray Drive at Balboa Avenue In its action, the Council should, by motion: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND The City periodically receives requests for new stop signs to address traffic safety needs. In order to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis and associated traffic studies are conducted by staff as required by State laws. The stop sign warrant analysis includes review of traffic counts and reported accident data of the affected intersections. Other factors taken into consideration are the proximity to a school, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, as well as right-of-way assignment. Staff originally received requests to add stops signs at six street intersections, as listed below: • Rollins Road and Toyon Drive • Quesada Way and Ray Drive • Highway Road and Mills Avenue • Ray Drive and Balboa Avenue • California Drive and Murchison Drive • California Drive and Trousdale Drive 1 Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code September 21, 2015 Staff conducted the stop sign warrant analysis and had originally identified that six locations satisfied warrants for stop signs. Subsequent review by staff indicated that only four of the six locations adequately met the warrants criteria. The warrants for California Drive at Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive did not adequately satisfy the warrant criteria. Additionally, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) had also expressed concerns regarding potential queuing on California Drive by the installation of stop signs. As a result, staff is proposing installation of stop signs at only four locations at this time. DISCUSSION Below is the information pertaining to the traffic safety concerns from residents and staff's analysis and recommendation for installation of stop signs. Rollins Road and Toyon Drive intersection The residents in the vicinity of the Rollins Road and Toyon Drive intersection have expressed concerns to City staff about traffic safety while making right and left -turns from Toyon Drive onto Rollins Road. In addition, the residents have been concerned about vehicles speeding along Rollins Road. Along with citing accidents at this intersection, residents also relayed their concerns about the number of "near misses' at the intersection. A review of traffic pattern and accident data supports these concerns, and staff believes the installation of stop signs on Rollins Road at the Toyon Drive intersection will improve traffic safety and alleviate residents' concerns. Quesada Way and Ray Drive intersection Staff has received complaints from residents regarding the motorists on Quesada Way not yielding to vehicles on Ray Drive. Quesada Way and Ray Drive is a tee -intersection where Quesada Way actually terminates at Ray Drive. In accordance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21800, vehicles on the terminating roadway (Quesada Way) must yield to the continuing roadway (Ray Drive). Staff believes installation of a stop sign on Quesada Way approaching Ray Drive will help reinforce the right-of-way compliance and improve traffic safety. At the September 8, 2015 meeting, the City Council had expressed concerns regarding the pedestrian safety at the intersection due to potential speeding of vehicles on Ray Drive as there is no stop sign for motorists on Ray Drive. In response to the City Council concerns, Public Works staff is coordinating with Police Department to place a speed enforcement trailer to monitor vehicle speeds on Ray Drive, and also has installed traffic counters to assess the situation before taking further steps for recommending appropriate signage to improve safety as warranted. Mills Avenue and Highway Road intersection Staff has received complaints from residents in the Mills Avenue and Highway Road area regarding the fact that the vast majority of vehicular traffic on Highway Road does not yield to pedestrians and vehicles on Mills Avenue. Mills Avenue and Highway Road is also a tee - intersection, and in accordance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21800, vehicles on the terminating roadway (Highway Road) must yield to the continuing roadway (Mills Avenue). 2 Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code September 21, 2015 Staff is proposing a stop on Highway Road to reinforce the right-of-way for motorists on Mills Avenue. This will address residents' concerns and will improve safety. Ray Drive and Balboa Avenue intersection Residents in the vicinity of the Ray Drive and Balboa Avenue intersection have expressed concerns about the safety of school students crossing Ray Drive. Their concerns stemmed from the fact that eastbound vehicles on Ray Drive have been observed speeding to catch the green light signal at EI Camino Real and Ray Drive intersection. The downhill grade of eastbound Ray Drive, as it approaches Balboa Avenue, also potentially causes conflict with the pedestrians crossing Ray Drive at the Balboa Avenue intersection. The Ray Drive and Balboa Avenue intersection was reviewed using a school -related warrant due to its proximity to Lincoln Elementary School. The warrant analysis supports the installation of a stop sign at the intersection. Staff believes the addition of a stop sign at this intersection will alleviate the pedestrian/motorist conflict and improve overall safety. In accordance with the Burlingame Municipal Code, the installation of any permanent stop signs must be approved by the City Council through the adoption of an ordinance. Therefore, staff has prepared the attached ordinance to amend Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add stop signs on Rollins Road, Quesada Way, Ray Drive, and Highway Road for Council consideration. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with the installation of stop signs and roadway stop markings are minimal and will be absorbed within the Public Works Department operations budget. Exhibit: • Ordinance 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, the Public Works staff has received requests for and conducted stop sign warrant analysis for stop signs at six intersections at various locations in the City as follows: • Rollins Road at Toyon Drive • Quesada Way at Ray Drive • Highway Road at Mills Avenue • Ray Drive at Balboa Avenue • California Drive at Murchison Avenue, and • California Drive at Trousdale Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department conducted traffic studies and performed warrant analysis, and four of the six intersections adequately satisfied the warrants for the addition of new stop signs; and WHEREAS, the information on the proposed stop sign locations was presented to the Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission (TSPC) for concurrence; and WHEREAS, based on the Commission's discussion and public input, the TSPC and the Public Works Department recommends only four locations for stop signs installations at this time as follows: • Rollins Road at Toyon Drive • Quesada Way at Ray Drive • Highway Road at Mills Avenue; and • Ray Drive at Balboa Avenue NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. The City Council hereby adds the following to Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to read as follows: "Rollins Road approaching Toyon Drive", "Quesada Way approaching Ray Drive", "Highway Road approaching Mills Avenue", `Ray Drive approaching Balboa Avenue;" Section 3. The City Engineer and the City Transportation Engineer are directed to install permanent stop signs and stop markings on Rollins Road approaching Toyon Drive, Quesada Way approaching Ray Drive, Highway Road approaching Mills Avenue, and Ray Drive approaching Balboa Avenue. Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in the manner required by law. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing occurred at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 8th day of September, 2015, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk BURL,INGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: September 21, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Hatch Mott MacDonald for the Engineering Design Services Related to the Ray Park and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City Project No. 84190; and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a professional services agreement with Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) in the amount of $273,413 for engineering design services related to the Ray Park and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. The 2010 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan has identified the sanitary sewer pipelines in the Ray Park Subdivision and surrounding neighborhoods as the next high priority areas to be rehabilitated. The existing sewer systems in these areas consist of 6 -inch to 10 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipes that have aged beyond their service life. As a result, these mains have a high degree of storm water inflow and infiltration from cracks and loose joints. Additionally, some of the sewer pipelines have capacity deficiencies. The project consists of rehabilitating the sewer system in the Ray Park Subdivision; Trousdale Drive near Sequoia Avenue; Skyline Boulevard at Margarita Avenue; Maple Avenue, Laurel Avenue, and Linden Avenue; and miscellaneous improvements at Airport Boulevard and Hyatt Sewage Pump Stations. DISCUSSION In August 2014, the Public Works Department established a list of qualified engineering firms through a Request for Statement of Qualifications process. After a comprehensive review and ranking of the qualifications, HMM was selected as the top ranking firm to perform the engineering design work because of their high understanding of the City's overall sanitary sewer system, project approach, and quality of proposal. Staff negotiated the scope of professional services for the project with HMM in the amount of $273,413. The following is a brief outline of the scope of professional design services, which is described in detail in Exhibit A of the Professional Services Agreement (see attachment): 1 Resolution Approving a Professional Services Agreement for September 21, 2015 Ray Park and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project • Perform project management functions, including attending meetings, site visits, and agency coordination; • Perform field survey and preparation of base map; • Prepare and review preliminary data and geotechnical report; perform laboratory testing and topographic surveying; set horizontal and vertical pipeline alignments; prepare outline specifications and preliminary engineer's estimate; and perform peer review; • Complete 60% and 90% engineering design including but not limited to, reviewing and addressing City comments; updating pipeline plans to 60% and 90% completion; preparing draft specifications and bid package; and revising engineer's estimate; • Complete and submit 100% design package including but not limited to, addressing comments, finalizing specifications, revising cost estimate, and completing 100% contract document; • Complete final construction drawings, specifications, and engineer's estimate; and • Provide bid assistance including but not limited to, attending pre-bid meeting, responding to Requests for Information, preparing addenda, and preparing conformed set of contract documents. Upon completion of the engineering design, staff plans to advertise the project for bids. Assuming no delays, the project construction is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2016 and is projected to be completed by the end of 2016. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated costs related to the project development: Engineering Design Services $ 273,413 Contingency (15%) $ 41,012 Engineering Design & Administration $ 40,575 Total $ 355,000 There are adequate funds available in the FY2015-16 Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program to complete the project. Exhibits: • Resolution • Professional Services Agreement • Project Location Map F4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH HATCH MOTT MACDONALD RELATED TO THE RAY PARK AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 84190 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of 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 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 I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, 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 21 ST day of September, 2015 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES WITH HATCH MOTT MACDONALD FOR EASTON ADDITION, RAY PARK, AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 1 CITY PROJECT NO. 84190 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2015, by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and HATCH MOTT MACDONALD engaged in providing PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN services herein called the "Consultant". RECITALS A. The City is considering conducting undertaking activities for the consultant engineering design services for Easton Addition, Ray Park, and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 1. B. The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide survey and engineering services 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 professional engineering services such as survey, design, and bid assistance for Easton Addition, Ray Park, and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 1, and as detailed in "Proposed Tasks" of the attached 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 all work as set forth in Exhibit A. 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, Page 1 of 8 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. 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 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 $273.413.00; and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task. Billing shall include current period and cumulative expenditures to date and 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 Page 2 of 8 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 Tracie K. Sakakihara. P.E. 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: To City: Donald Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Consultant: Tracie Sakakihara, P.E. Project Manager Hatch Mott MacDonald 181 Metro Drive, Suite 510 San Jose, CA 95110 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 Page 3 of 8 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. 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: 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 and two million dollars ($2,000,000) aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO Occurrence Form CG 0001. Page 4 of 8 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 two million dollars ($2,000,000) each claim/aggregate 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 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 11 85 and must ccverjoint 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. Page 5 of 8 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 canceled except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by mail, has been given to the City (10 days for non-payment of premium). 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 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, (including without limitation, California Civil Code sections 2782 and 2782.6), Consultant shall save, keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, employees, authorized agents and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or Page 6 of 8 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 arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of 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, active 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 under 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. 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. Page 7 of 8 21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or 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 party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Burlingame By Lisa K. Goldman City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney — Kathleen Kane ATTEST: City Clerk - Meaghan Hassel -Shearer "Consultant' Hatch Mott MacDonald Print Name: Lee. A bra,ysv n Title: �AC cui j trC V, t, I refIJAAf Page 8 of 8 Hatch Mott MacDonald Exhibit "A" Proposed Scope of Services Easton Addition, Ray Park, and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 1 Design City of Burlingame, California Objective Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) will provide remedial pipe design and associated Contract Documents for the Easton Addition, Ray Park, and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 1, which includes the following: the rehabilitation and replacement of the approximately 5,700 linear feet of sewers that drain to Davis Drive and Albemarle Way (also known as Upper Marley) between Valdivia Way and Ray Drive which includes the following side streets: o Davis Court and Ray Drive o Quesada Way o Monte Corvino Way o McDonald Way o Marco Polo Way o Lassen Way o Coronado Way o Balboa Way the connection of the City of Burlingame sewer in Trousdale Drive with a drop manhole in the intersection at Sequoia Avenue or a possible alternative connection to the upstream sewer in Sequoia Avenue to redirect sewage flows in this area from the Millbrae sewer system to the Burlingame collection system; the rehabilitation of the Airport Boulevard and Hyatt Sewage Pump Stations, which includes coating of the wet wells at both stations and replacement of the pump shoe at the wet well bottom, railings, and top mounting hardware at the Airport Pump Station. all within the City of Burlingame wastewater collection system. The previously designed sewer rehabilitation project in Skyline Boulevard will also be included in the Easton Addition, Ray Park, and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project, Phase 1Contract Documents. The sewer project includes designing upsizes to the pipelines in Davis Drive and the associated side streets draining to Davis Drive, using open cut or pipe -bursting methods, or where appropriate, maintaining the existing sewer diameter and rehabilitating sewers using a cured -in-place lining. FAMOOk, Hatch Mott MacDonald The specific steps of this proposal are to: • Develop plans, specifications, and cost estimates ready for bid, which include: o Project management, including meetings, site visits, and agency coordination o Preparation of 60%, 90%, 100%, and final design submittals o Surveying of project areas o Geotechnical investigation and report • Bid assistance Proposed Tasks The proposed scope of services will include the following tasks: 1. Project Management Services 1.1 General project management includes project coordination, maintaining project schedule, internal filing, assigning team member responsibilities, invoicing, and monthly progress reports. 1.2 Attendance at four (4) City meetings (kickoff, 60%, 90%, and 100% reviews) by the project and design managers. 1.3 Three (3) site visits, including one with the surveyor at the initiation of field work and at the 60% and 90% plan walk-throughs. 2. Preparation of 60% Design Submittal. 2.1 Data Gathering and Review. a. Collection and review of CCTV logs of existing sewers. b. City record drawings. C. City Standard drawings and specifications. d. Data review for trenchless evaluation. 2.2 Geotechnical Report a. Field Exploration i. Exploratory Borings - Drill, log, and sample four exploratory borings in Davis Drive using conventional truck -mounted hollow - stem auger drilling equipment. The borings, approximately 11 to 18 feet in depth, will extend several feet below the assumed invert depths of the sewers. ii. Utility Clearance — Surface locate utilities and mark boring locations at least two working days prior to subsurface explorations and notify USA. iii. Permits, Site Access and Disposal of Drill Spoils - Subsurface explorations permitted and backfilled with cement grout in accordance with the County of San Mateo guidelines. Site restoration is limited to general clean-up. b. Laboratory Testing To evaluate the index and engineering properties of the site soils, the following laboratory tests are proposed: Hatch Mott MacDonald i. In-situ moisture/density tests, ASTM D2937 test procedure ii. Grain size distribution tests, ASTM D1140 and D422 c. Report Preparation Characterize subsurface conditions for new utility installation, replacement, and upsizing using data obtained from the field investigations and laboratory testing program. The report will include the following items: i. Site plan showing exploratory boring locations ii. Log of exploratory borings, including depth to groundwater, if encountered iii. Laboratory test results iv. Discussion of findings, including site conditions, subsurface conditions, mapped geologic conditions for the area, and potential geotechnical impacts. 2.3 Topographic Surveying a. Establish horizontal and vertical control. b. Perform topographic survey and data reduction to include three-point cross-sections every 100 feet. C. Field locate and plot existing visible utility piping, inlets, manholes, cleanouts, valves, vaults, boxes, and utility poles. d. Determination of fence lines in alleyways and verification of invert elevations and pipe sizes of storm and sanitary sewers and the top of nut elevation of water valves where accessible along the pipeline routes. C. Compile base mapping at 1 "=20' horizontal scale. 2.4 Set horizontal pipeline alignment 2.5 Set vertical pipeline alignment 2.6 Prepare specifications 2.7 Prepare preliminary 60% engineer's estimate of probable cost 2.8 Peer review of 60% plans 3. Preparation of 90% Design Submittal. 3.1 Review and address City comments from 60% design submittal. 3.2 Update plans to 90% completion and include details, connections to existing pipelines, bedding and trench restorations, etc. 3.3 Updated specifications. 3.4 Revise Engineer's estimate of probable cost to 90% level. 3.5 Conduct QA/QC, constructability, and biddability reviews of 90% contract documents. 4. Preparation of 100% Design Submittal. 4.1 Review and address City comments from 90% design submittal. 4.2 Update plans to 100% completion and include details, connections to existing pipelines, bedding and trench restorations, etc. 4.3 Finalize specifications. Hatch Mott ,ir""1 MacDonald 4.4 Revise Engineer's estimate of probable cost to 100% level. 4.5 Conduct QA/QC, constructability, and biddability reviews of contract documents. 5. Final Design. 5.1 Finalize construction drawings, contract specifications, and engineer's estimate of probable cost. 5.2 Provide final plan sheets and a disk of the electronic AutoCad drawing files, technical specifications in Word, and a final Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost in Excel. Forward deliverables to City for printing. 6. Bid Assistance. 6.1 Attendance at the pre-bid meeting. 6.2 Assist in responding to bidder inquiries (RFIs) and preparation of bid addenda. 6.3 Incorporation of addenda into an original, reproducible, conformed set of contract drawings and specifications. Assumptions: • The City of Burlingame will coordinate site access/permission to enter private properties if necessary. • No encroachment permit fees will be required by the City of Burlingame. • City to provide a nearby location to store drums of spoils generated during drilling prior to disposal. • City to provide general conditions and front end of specifications. • It is assumed that this project is considered an update to existing lines and facilities under the linear underground project (LUP) not covered by the NPDES general permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. Therefore, preparation of a stormwater pollution and prevention plan is not included in this scope. Items Excluded from Scope of Work: • Assessment of environmental characteristics at the project sites, particularly those involving hazardous substances. • Disposal of hazardous materials. • Preparation of permit applications other than those listed in the scope of work. • Permit application fees or any other fees that may be required by regulatory agencies. • Potholing for utility verification. • Right -of -entry onto property. • Preparation of property acquisition maps, surveying for easements and description for additional rights-of-way talking for implementation of the proposed project. • Aerial topographic mapping. • Electrical engineering design services. • Construction phase services. Hatch Mott MacDonald Proposed Budget These services will be performed on a time and materials, reimbursable, not to exceed fee basis. The fee proposed to perform the services described above is $273,413. Proposed Schedule The design will be completed within five (5) months of receipt of authorization to proceed, allowing two weeks for City review of progress submittals and assuming the requested background information is available to HMM at the date of authorization to proceed. Schedule of Charges Hatch Mott MacDonald 2015 Hourly Rates RI -In -Charge $ 280.00 ale $ 250.00 $ 250.00 al Project Manager $ 220.00 Project Engineer/ Technical $195.00 Engineer $180.00 Engineer $160.00 Engineer $ 125.00 Terson $105.00 stragve Staff $ 85.00 *Other direct costa will be billed at actual cast plus 10%. !!! [|;!!§!! H UHN !9. ! ! ■!!(.!! / R,\\\/ \B,\\!/\\§~\ | :■ . ... .\\. \.. ... ..., ,,..)1...., ...,,, .. ,... . .... !§ .. . � !! ,,...1...,. ...,., .. ,.. §)! | ) | j ! | �\ ,;............ . . .. .�. �,,,.r. B �! . .. !! . .. ;;';;;;; :;;! ! ! ! ; ;!!! ., ..... .... .... . ....F ()| ,|.!• .! ;: !. Q4!§4lg; �! ,. !; ! ! §!!»®© An - /h§tab§J§alKG9agt�|\§ .l: �`- � �� �'� � � IIS '� ��� ���� �, .� V,y�/ r' �"., �� � ����� �����`�� // � � - - � O��f �% ��� �`��j���%����� ��� �I� �� �� �'/�.� .leo ,g� ��; � �;� �I� �� �I� ������� ►fir �l �. � c�„ �� ��� �.�I��•���� � (V . � aA���� . �� � �i � , �� �� . � v � �" .�°= ,. � r �� ���� � ���% �: aBARE STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e MEETINGDATE: September 21, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 From: Margaret Glomstad, Park and Recreation Director - (650) 558-7307 Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist - (650) 558-7334 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Contract between the City and Timberline Tree Service, Inc., for Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Services for FY 2015-16 and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution renewing Timberline Tree Service, Inc. as the contractor for the FY 2015-16 Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Contract. BACKGROUND On October 6, 2014, the City Council awarded the FY 2014-15 Tree Pruning and Stump Removal contract to Timberline Tree Service, Inc. The contract provisions permit the City to extend the agreement with Timberline Tree Service Inc. for an additional year under the same terms and conditions. DISCUSSION Timberline Tree Service Inc. has competently and satisfactorily performed the tree pruning and stump removal services for the City during the 2014-15 fiscal year, and the Parks and Recreation Department desires to extend the contract with Timberline Tree Services, Inc. for the 2015-16 fiscal year. Section 1 of the Bid Sheet (Exhibit B) identifies pruning of 46 eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive. Because of their size, location under wires and required work, the cost is greater than anticipated. In order to complete the work with the current funding, staff recommends dividing the work between the FY 2015-16 budget and the FY 2016-17 budget. This year's pruning will target approximately 18 Red Gum Eucalyptus trees that staff and an independent arborist have determined to be the most critical and in need of trimming. The cost will include labor to perform the work, rental of a 100 foot crane, and coordinating with PG&E to deactivate the electrical lines in order to work safely under the high power lines. Section 2 identifies the trimming of 90 eucalyptus trees between Dufferin Avenue and Murchison Drive and will not be included in this year's contract. Minor trimming can be completed by the City Tree Crew if it becomes necessary. 1 Tree Pruning Contract September 21, 2015 In addition, Sections 3 through 8 list the other trees scheduled for pruning in FY 2015-16 as well as approximately 60 stump removals. FISCAL IMPACT The FY 2015-16 Parks Division budget, along with funds dedicated to large tree pruning in the Capital Improvement Project budget, will provide adequate funds to perform the work discussed above. CIP Funding $72,000 for the Red Gum Eucalyptus Operating Budget $235,915 remaining items The total cost for FY 2015-16 is $307,915 Exhibits: • Resolution • Tree Pruning Bid Summery Sheet • Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Contract, Amendment 1 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC., FOR TREE PRUNING AND STUMP REMOVAL SERVICES FOR FY 2015-2016 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on October 6, 2014, the City Council awarded a contract for Tree Pruning and Stump Removal 2014-2015 to Timberline Tree Service, Inc., City Project No. 84210; and WHEREAS, Timberline Tree Service Inc. has competently and satisfactorily performed tree pruning and stump removal services for the City during the 2014-2015 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the contract provisions allow the City to extend the agreement with Timberline Tree Service, Inc. for an additional year under the same terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Parks and Recreation Department desires to extend the contract with Timberline Tree Service, Inc. for the 2015-2016 fiscal year at a cost not to exceed $307,915. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council herby approves the amendment to the agreement between the City and Timberline Tree Service, Inc. extending the term of the agreement through June 30, 2016 in an amount not to exceed $307,915. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an agreement with Timberline Tree Service, Inc., for the performance of said work, in the form attached to this resolution. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, 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 21 st day of September, 2015, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk TREE PRUNING BID SUMMARY SHEET TREE PRLYN'ING & STUMP REMOVAL 2015-2016 Lump Sum Cost including all necessary tools, implcments, equipment, materials, supplies and labor to prune each specified section to meet the requirements of the Project Description Section I - Reduce and Thina proximately 46 Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive between EI Camino Real and Vancouver Avenue_,/(Red Gum -12,000.00 Blue Gum 1-1-1 r, no $ )-L{,t, 500.On Section 2 - Trim/Thin approximately 40 Eucalyptus trees on EI Camino Real (Northbound/Eastside), between Dufferin Avenue to Murchison Drive, and (Southbound/Westside), between Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive. $ 38,9 0O.Ot> Section 3 - Reduce, Thin and Trim 2 Eucalyptus trees near 2103 Carroelita Avenue in 10' easement off Vancouver Avenue. ✓ $ 2) 14 So•00 Section 4 - Thirdt im approximately 200 Eucalyptus trees adjacent to CalTrain RR tracks on Rollins Road between 1525 and 1541 Rollins Rd and between Broderick Rd and Adrian Rd. ✓ $C121000.00 Section 5 - Remove 5 diseased Monterey Pine trees at 1508 Los Montes Road. $ 1!,900.00 Section 6 - Remove and stump a Eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue near tennis courts, and i Douglas Fir in Washington Park at SW corner of Rec Building. Section 7 -Perform Restoration Pruning on approximately 230 Sycamore Trees with an average DBH of 20-22" and 30-70' in height, located between Vancouver Ave and Alvarado Avenue from Easton Drive and Adeline Drive; and between El Camino Real and California Drive from Oxford Road to Edgehill Road. ✓ $ V1,IWO.00 Section 8- Up to $30,000.00 For unanticipated Trimming and/ or Removals ✓- $ 30.000.00 LUMP SUM TOTAL FOR ALL SECTIONS (1-8) $ S O 3 D ! • OO Bid shall include a lump sum price for the removal of no to 60 stumps (generally measuring 12 - 48" in diameter), and including the notification of USA; the removal of grinding spoils; the replacing of soil with approved planting mix; and any necessary tools, implements, equipment, materials, and supplies. Work to be conducted quarterly in; September, December, and March. ✓' $ Zl�3oD•OO Emergency Call -out Hourly Rate per person, including all necessary tools, implements, equipment, materials, supplies and labor, for Emergency Work as specified in Section 14.05 of the Description of Work. Contractor must provide, when requested by the Parks Representative or police dispatcher, a minimum four-hour emergency call -out "basic crew". Contractor shall be available to respond within three hours for the period of the contract emergency work $ 1 QS. 00 The C11y of Burtingarne reserves dre right to select any, all, or none of the section bids, depending upon available fending, from the lowest responjsiibblee bidder. LL, �-�-K_.V�Signature of Bidder:W �-_ Date: g 12-1 J 5 STUMP REMOVAL BID SUMIARY SHEET TREE PRUNING & STUMP REMOVAL 2015-2016 Project Manager: Bob Disco, Park Supervisor ' 850 Burlhtgame Ave. Burlingame, CA. 9401() (650) 558-7334 Bid Submittal: Deliver to: Burlingame Parks & Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Ave. Burlingame, CA. 94010 Attn. Bob Disco Bid Due Date: AUGUST 21, 2015 @ 5:00 PM The following signatures ackno+vledge receipt and compliance with the above instructions. Return signed copy of Contractor's Bidding Instructions with your bid. Bid Amount: TOTAL LUMP SUM $ S 2 413 I S . cio Contractor Company Name ! `Yyt ��'t^ � l A Contractor Representative �-i-i-ll P�JI Cf Contractor Phone -65-0 - 6q-7 - 2 3 10 Contractor Fax -65 Q • 69'7. L} ( 39 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC., FOR TREE PRUNING & STUMP REMOVAL EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, made and entered into this iday of_, 2015, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation [hereinafter "City'], and Timberline Tree services, Inc. [hereinafter "Contractor"], amends the Agreement between the parties dated October 6, 2014 [hereinafter "Agreement"]. WHEREAS, on October 6, 2014, the City Council awarded a contractfor the TREE PRUNING & STUMP REMOVAL 2014 - 2015 to Timberline Tree Service, and WHEREAS, TimberlineTree Service has competentlyand satisfactorilyperformedtree pruning and stump removal services for the City during the 204-2015 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the contract provisions allow the City to extend the agreement with Timberline Tree Service for an additional year under the same terns and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Parks Division desires to extend the contractwith Timberline Tree Service for the 2015-2016 fiscal year fora cost not to exceed $ 307.195.00; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City of Burlingame and the Contractor hereby amend their agreement dated October 6, 2014 for tree trimming and stump removal, to extend the term of the agreement through June 30, 2016 in an amount not to exceed $307,195.00. 2. Other than as modified by section 1, above, all existing terms and conditions of the original agreement shall remain in full force aid effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendmentto Agreement on the day and year firstabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICES A municipal corporation 0 Lisa Goldman, City Manager ATTEST: Approved as to Form: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk Kathleen Kane, City Attorney a AGENDA NO: Sf STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 21, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Confirming the City's Approval of the Construction of a Helipad on the site of Mills -Peninsula Medical Center. Located at 1501 Trousdale Drive The City Council is asked to adopt "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Confirming the City's Approval of the Construction of a Helipad on the site of Mills -Peninsula Medical Center. Located at 1501 Trousdale Drive". BACKGROUND On November 14, 2004, the Burlingame City Council certified the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved the application of Mills -Peninsula Health Services for construction of a new hospital, medical office building and helipad at 1501 Trousdale Drive. On June 23, 2008, the Burlingame Planning Commission granted Mills -Peninsula Health Services' request for an amendment to the City Council's 2004 approval by permitting the construction of an additional floor atop the proposed medical office building and a modification to the helipad design to permit it to be placed atop a raised platform rather than a dirt mound, at the same location approved by the City Council in 2004. An addendum to the project's Environment Impact Report was also circulated for public review and certified by the Planning Commission. Construction of the hospital replacement project and affiliated medical office building is complete, and Mills -Peninsula now intends to commence construction of the final phase of the approved project, a helipad lying to the west of the surface hospital and medical office building, adjacent to the surface parking lot on the property (see diagram). A Caltrans permit will be required prior to construction of the helipad. Before Caltrans will issue a permit for construction of the facility, it requires a resolution adopted by the City Council certifying that the location was approved by the City Council (attached). FISCAL IMPACT None. 1 Mills -Peninsula Helipad Exhibits: • Resolution • Site Plan September 21, 2015 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CONFIRMING THE CITY'S APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HELIPAD ON THE SITE OF MILLS -PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER, LOCATED AT 1501 TROUSDALE DRIVE WHEREAS, on November 14, 2004 the Burlingame City Council certified the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved the application of Mills -Peninsula Health Services for construction of a new hospital, medical office building and helipad at 1501 Trousdale Drive, and on June 23, 2008 the Burlingame Planning Commission granted Mills - Peninsula Health Services' request for an amendment to the City Council's 2004 approval by permitting the construction of an additional floor atop the proposed medical office building and a modification to the helipad design to permit it to be placed atop raised platform rather than a dirt mound, at the same location approved by the City Council in 2004; and WHEREAS, the proposed helipad would accommodate Mills Peninsula Hospital's patients' emergency medical transport needs; and WHEREAS, environmental documentation addressing the helipad as part of the recent hospital reconstruction project was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the proposed helipad would not conflict with surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed helipad is currently being designed in compliance with Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics helistop design criteria; and WHEREAS, California Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5 requires that the City Council approve the proposal to build and operate a helipad located within a city's boundaries before Caltrans Division of Aeronautics can issue its final approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby certifies that it has approved the plan of Mills Peninsula Medical Services to build and operate the Mills Peninsula Hospital helipad at 1501 Trousdale Drive, Burlingame. Ferry Nagel, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 21St day of September, 2015, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk „n. Fiw - - ooa ff aSTAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8g MEETING DATE: September 21, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Peninsula Wellness Communitv Master Plan at 1819 Trousdale Drive RECOMMENDATION The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. for environmental review services in the amount of $197,990.00 related to the proposed Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan at 1819 Trousdale Drive. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame anticipates receipt of an application from the Peninsula Health Care District (PHCD) requesting approval of a master plan for a residential and medical services development in the vicinity of Trousdale Drive and Marco Polo Way (designated site address 1819 Trousdale Drive). The development would involve eight properties located in the Trousdale West (TW) and Unclassified zoning districts, within the boundaries of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area. The plan proposes to develop the 8+ acre site into a residential and medical services development, which is anticipated to include senior housing, senior support services, rehabilitation/therapy facilities, professional offices and research, a preschool, cafe and other amenities. Currently, the site is developed with medical and office buildings, a preschool, surface parking lots, and some vacant land. An environmental review of the project will be required. The project applicant indicates that the application submittal is imminent and that they wish to have an environmental consultant in place at the outset to streamline the review process. Staff agreed to this approach and sought proposals from environmental consultants based upon a project description prepared by PHCD. DISCUSSION The Community Development Department circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three environmental consultants qualified to provide environmental review services for development projects, and two firms responded to the RFP. After reviewing the two proposals, the Community 1 Professional Services Agreement with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. September 21, 2015 Development Department has selected David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. to perform the environmental review required for the proposed project. Environmental review is a duty imposed on the lead agency under state law, but such review is funded by the development applicant. Therefore, although the contract is with the City of Burlingame, the applicant will pay $197,990.00 to the City to cover the costs of the environmental review. The City will administer the contract and will pay the consultant on a monthly basis as services are rendered. Attached is a draft Agreement for Professional Services with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. to perform the environmental review services required for the proposed Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan, in an amount not to exceed $197,990.00 (Agreement, Exhibit 2). Because the cost of the agreement exceeds $100,000, Council approval is required. The Scope of Work for services to be provided by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. is attached to this report as Exhibit 3. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the project's environmental review is provided by the project applicant. Therefore, there will be no fiscal impact to the City's budget. Exhibits: • Resolution • Agreement • Proposal (Work Program) 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED PENINSULA WELLNESS COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT AT 1819 TROUSDALE DRIVE WHEREAS, an application is anticipated to be submitted by the Peninsula Health Care District for a proposed master plan consisting of senior housing, senior support services, rehabilitation/therapy facilities, professional offices and research, a preschool, cafe and other amenities, located at 1819 Trousdale Drive (Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review of the project must occur prior to consideration of the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. has submitted a proposal to conduct the required environmental review related to the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been prepared incorporating the Scope of Services prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $197,990.00, which was found to be adequate to provide the level of environmental review required for the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan, and the costs associated with the services to be provided by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. are to be reimbursed by the applicant; and WHEREAS, because the agreement will authorize work in excess of $100,000, City Council approval is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. for environmental review services related to the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan, consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution, for a maximum cost of $197,990.00, as stated in the Scope of Work. Costs for this work are to be passed through to the developer of the property in question. 2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the Professional Services Agreement. Mayor 1 Resolution No. I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 21St day of September, 2015, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PENINUSLA WELLNESS COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT is by and between David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. ("Consultant") and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California ("City"). Consultant and City agree: 1. Services. Consultant shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $197,990, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts ("Maximum Compensation"). Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant's signature. 3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on December 31, 2017 unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date. 4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. 5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance to City. 6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to pro -rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall, without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of Consultant's cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City's request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property in Consultant's control or possession immediately upon termination. 9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter 2 arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement. 11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier ("Courier"), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine's acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent. 3 15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural. The terms "shall", "will', "must' and "agree" are mandatory. The term "may" is permissive. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made otherwise. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSULTANT 501 Primrose Road David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Burlingame, CA 94010 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95126 By: By: Lisa Goldman John Schwarz City Manager Vice President Federal Employer ID Number: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Services Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions ���©F�� SSOCIATES. INC. s' August 17, 2015 Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Sent via email: kgardiner@burlingame.org RE: Proposal for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan Dear Mr. Gardiner, Thank you for inviting David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. (DJP&A) to propose on the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan Development project. We are pleased to offer this proposal in response to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP). We understand the project is a Master Plan to redevelop an approximately eight -acre site with a mix of senior housing and support services, rehabilitation/therapy facilities, cafe/amenities, professional offices/research uses, and a preschool and administrative space. DJP&A has recent experience preparing environmental review documents for similar projects, including the 901 San Antonio Road Comprehensive Plan EIR which evaluated the development of a mix of townhouses, senior housing and assisted living units, a recreation/community center, a preschool/daycare, and senior congregate care in the City of Palo Alto. DJP&A has served public agencies in and around the Bay Area since 1972 and we are known for preparing clear, easy to understand documents that are legally defensible and informative to both the Lead Agency and public. With our deep understanding of the region and our command of the environmental review process, DJP&A has a proven track record of providing quality environmental review documents, completing projects on-time and within budget, and coordinating effectively with clients and responsible agencies. Given our firm's experience with similar mixed-use projects, as detailed in our attached proposal, we are confident we can perform the environmental review services requested successfully, efficiently, and cost effectively. 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San Jose, CA 95126 v Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • wwwx avidjpowers.com Thank you for considering our proposal, and we look forward to another opportunity to assist the City of Burlingame. Please contact our Project Manager, Will Burns (408-454-3403, wburns@davidioowers.com) or me directly if you have any questions or need additional information. Best Regards, Akoni Danielsen Principal Project Manager Phone: (408) 454-3406 Email: adanielsen@davidopowers.com 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San Jose, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.cum David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Table of Contents ®E4© um p® 85 Section1— Work Scope.........................................................................................................................1 Section2 — Estimated Timeline............................................................................................................14 Section3 —Cost Estimate.....................................................................................................................16 Section 4 — Project Team Qualifications and Experience....................................................................19 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San Jose, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • Fax: (408) 248-9641 • www.davidjpowers.com David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Section 1— Work Scope ©E4© rillm IS DJP&A proposes the following work scope to complete the project -level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and related studies and documents for the Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan project in the City of Burlingame. This section also includes our project understanding and list of project information/data needed to complete the EIR. The EIR will be prepared in accordance with CEQA and the City of Burlingame's standards. ■ PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The approximately eight -acre project site consists of several parcels (APN 025-144-050, 025-144-190, 025-144-170, 025-144-080, 025-144-070, 025-123-080, 025-123-070, and a portion of 025-123-182) and is located at the southeast corner of Trousdale Drive and Marco Polo Way in the City of Burlingame.' The project site is bounded by Trousdale Drive to the north, surface parking lots to the east and south, and Marco Polo Way to the west. Surrounding land uses include residential and commercial uses to the north, a hospital and medical offices to the east, and residential uses to the south and west. In the City's General Plan, the project site is designated for institutions and industrial uses. The project site is in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area, within the B3 — Mills Peninsula Block subarea. The project site is designated as Institutional-Institutional/Other, Mixed Use-Office/Residential, and Residential Medium -High Density (<21-50 dwelling units per acre) in the Specific Plan. The entire project site is zoned Trousdale West (TW). Permitted uses in the TW zoning district include multi -family residential, office, accessory structures or uses supportive of residential uses, and convents and parish houses. The project site is also within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the San Francisco International Airport. Currently, the project site is developed with six buildings fronting Trousdale Drive and Marco Polo Way. The buildings are occupied by the Burlingame School District, a preschool, and dental and medical practices. A large surface parking lot is located on Trousdale Drive and is currently used for parking for the Mills -Peninsula Hospital (see Photo 1), which is located adjacent to the east of the site. The eastern half of the site is mostly undeveloped. This portion of the site is sloped and consists primarily of dried vegetation (see Photo 2). Mature trees are located throughout the project site and recently planted trees exist along the eastern boundary of the site. A City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) 60 -foot wide easement with buried Hetch Hetchy water pipelines splits eastern and western portions of the project site. The project is a master plan to redevelop the site with the following mix of uses: • 150-250 senior housing units • 100,000-120,000 square feet of senior support services 1 For ease of reference, Trousdale Drive is assumed north of site and Marco Polo Way is assumed west of the site. 1 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --_ • 20,000-40,000 square feet of rehabilitation/therapy space • 25,000-35,000 square feet of cafe/amenities • 100,000-150,000 square feet of office/research facilities • 30,000 square foot administrative/preschool space Based on the conceptual site plan dated June 2015, the project would be multi -story and include below ground parking facilities. The site plan shows senior housing and "Community Gatepath" uses (e.g., preschool and administrative uses) on the western half of the site, fronting Marco Polo Way. Professional offices and health research facilities would be located at the northeast corner of the site with commercial/office uses and senior support facilities located at the southeast corner of the site. The center portion of the site would be landscaped and does not appear to include any structures, given the existing CCSF easement. Green roofs and photovoltaic panels are also shown on the illustrative site plan. Photo 1: Surface parking lot located on Marco Polo Way used by Mills -Peninsula Hospital K SCOPE M Photo 2: Undeveloped land with vegetation OR located on-site The following work scope was prepared based upon a review of the project information provided in the Request for Proposal (RFP), consultation with technical subconsultants, and DJP&A's past experience with similar projects. DJP&A proposes to assist the City in preparing the EIR for the project, as well as related technical reports and documents including: • Photosimulations • Air quality/greenhouse gas analysis • An archaeological/historical records search • A historical resources evaluation • Phase I peer review • Geotechnical Peer Review • Transportation Impact Analysis peer review • Environmental notices (Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability, and Notice of Determination) • Draft Mitigation Monitoring and • Noise and vibration assessment Reporting Program Meetings and Hearing Attendance David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 2 This work scope includes DJP&A attendance at up to five public meetings (including a scoping meeting and Planning Commission and City Council hearings) and three staff meetings (including a kick-off meeting). If DJP&A attendance is requested at additional hearings or meetings, we can do so on a time and materials basis in accordance with the charge rates outlined in Section 3, upon authorization by the City. This scope of work does not include subconsultant attendance at project meetings or hearings. Subconsultants can attend meetings and hearings on a time and materials basis, upon authorization by the City. Superior Service and Project Management DJP&A recognizes its role and mission of providing outstanding service to our clients through effective communications, coordination and management of complex projects with tight timelines. DJP&A will provide general project management, contract administration, and coordination with the City throughout the EIR process. Email communications and short conference calls will be used to foster communication and update City Staff on the progress of the environmental analysis and any outstanding issues to be resolved. In addition to regular communications, the Project Manager will provide the City with a weekly email summary of the EIR progress, status, and activities. DJP&A commits to responding to all emails and phone calls within four (4) work hours of receipt. The tasks, including meeting attendance, scoped for completing the environmental review are detailed below. Additional information about the DJP&A project team and their experience is provided in Section 4 of this proposal. TASK 1 EIR INITIATION At the initiation of the environmental review process, DJP&A proposes a kick-off meeting with City Staff to discuss the project and key environmental issues, and to confirm the technical approach. The list of project data/information required to prepare the EIR (see list on page 13) will also be reviewed at the kick-off meeting. DJP&A will refine the EIR scope as needed, based on the City's feedback and kick-off meeting discussion. As part of this task, DJP&A will ensure that all information required to complete the technical reports has been obtained and/or requested. TASK 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION Project Description Based on the information provided by the City/project applicant, DJP&A will draft a detailed description of the proposed project, including the physical characteristics (maximum square footage/units, maximum building height, setbacks, grading and drainage, landscaping and hardscape, circulation, etc.) of the proposed development. The draft project description will be submitted to the City and project 3 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- applicant for review and comment. Based on the comments received, DJP&A will finalize the project description. Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting After finalizing the project description, DJP&A will prepare the EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP), which will alert the public that an EIR will be prepared for the project. DJP&A will prepare the NOP, in accordance with the CEQA and City of Burlingame guidelines. The NOP will include a brief project description, project location map, and an overview of the anticipated environmental impacts. DJP&A will submit a draft NOP to the City for review and comment. Based on the comments received, DJP&A will finalize the NOP and provide it to the City for public circulation. DJP&A will assist the City in identifying the responsible and trustee agencies that should receive the NOP, and mail the NOP on behalf of the City to those entities and the State Clearinghouse (SCH) via certified mail, per CEQA. The text of the EIR will incorporate significant and relevant issues raised in the responses to the NOP received during the 30 -day circulation period. It is anticipated that there will be at least one public scoping meeting for responsible, trustee, and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals. This proposal includes DJP&A attendance at one public scoping meeting. TASK 3 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT EIR DJP&A will prepare an Administrative Draft EIR (ADEIR). The ADEIR will focus on the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The ADEIR will include a preface/introduction, summary, description of the proposed project (completed in Task 2), environmental setting, in-depth discussion of possible environmental impacts, and identification of mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Cumulative impacts, alternatives to the project, and other sections required by the CEQA Guidelines will also be included. The main sections of the EIR are described below. EIR Summary A summary of the EIR that includes a brief description of the proposed project will be prepared, in tabular form, and will identify the impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures. The summary will also describe the project alternatives discussed in the EIR, and address any known areas of public controversy. Project Description The project description prepared in Task 2 will be included in the EIR. The project description will also include a list of the project objectives, necessary discretionary actions, and decision-making agencies. Maps and graphics will be provided to illustrate the text. MIMM David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 4 Existing Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The EIR will provide: 1) a detailed description of the existing project setting, based on the conditions that exist at the time the NOP is released; 2) impacts that may result from the proposed project; and 3) feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In each technical section of the EIR, a discussion of the project's consistency with applicable plans and policies will be discussed. Particular attention will be given to inconsistencies, if any are identified, and the likelihood that such inconsistencies might result in significant adverse environmental effects. The EIR discussion will reflect information from technical analyses and peer reviews prepared by DJP&A's subconsultants, as well as information and technical analyses provided by the project applicant and City Staff. The primary issues anticipated in the EIR are described below. The project information required to complete the EIR is listed at the end of this section on page 13. Aesthetics The EIR will describe the existing visual character of the site area and the projected changes resulting from development of the project. This scope of work includes the preparation of up to five (5) photosimulations by Digital Imaging Studio. The photosimulations will be accurately scaled from public vantage points in the surrounding area and could include viewpoints from designated scenic routes (e.g., Trousdale Drive and EI Camino Real). The vantage points will be decided based on consultation with City Staff. Visual issues resulting from implementation of the proposed project would include any significant adverse impacts resulting from building mass, height, shading, lighting, and possible glare to adjacent land uses. The EIR will describe the potential for shade and shadow impacts based on a shadow study provided by the applicant. The EIR will also evaluate the project's visual compatibility with adjacent properties and effects on views from designated scenic routes. Mitigation measures will be identified, as appropriate, according to applicable landscaping, architecture, and design review standards (including the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan design guidelines) of the City of Burlingame. Air Quality The EIR will discuss Federal and State ambient air quality standards, summarize the ambient air quality data for the project region, and address the project's consistency with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The EIR will evaluate the potential local and regional air quality impacts of the project, in accordance with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, based on an air quality analysis to be prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The EIR will also evaluate the community health risks to and from the project from Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) from stationary and mobile sources and construction activities. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. 5 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- Biological Resources The primary biological resources on-site are trees. The EIR will describe the existing trees on-site and impacts to the trees based on an arborist report commissioned by the applicant and provided to DJP&A. This scope assumes the arborist report will be complete and adequate for CEQA purposes. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. Cultural Resources The potential to encounter buried cultural resources will be addressed in the EIR based upon a records search of cultural resources and studies (within 200 meters of the site) to be completed by Holman & Associates. The records search will include archival research and a review of maps and literature on file, including those associated with the Hetch Hetchy water system rebuild. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. None of the six existing buildings on-site are listed in the City's Preliminary Historic Inventory (reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1982). Some of the buildings, however, could be more than 50 years old. The historic significance of the buildings on-site will be discussed based on a historic resources evaluation to be completed by Carey & Co. Inc. Any documented historic structures adjacent to, or near, the project site will be identified. The historic resources evaluation includes a site visit where the exterior of all structures on-site will be observed. In addition, historic research will be conducted at local and regional repositories including, but not limited to, the Burlingame Public Library, Burlingame Historical Society, San Mateo County Historic Museum, and County of San Mateo departments (e.g., Treasurer -Tax Collector and Planning and Building). Carey & Co. Inc. will also research the Hetch Hetchy pipeline(s) and contact CCSF staff. The EIR will evaluate the significance of the buildings on-site and identify mitigation measures for significant impacts, as appropriate. Geology and Soils The existing geologic and soil conditions at the project site will be described in the EIR based on a geotechnical investigation commissioned by the project applicant and peer reviewed by Cornerstone Earth Group. This scope of work includes two rounds of peer review. The EIR will describe the impacts to persons or property likely to result from development of the proposed project and the existing geologic (including seismic) conditions at the site. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The EIR will discuss the project's consistency and conformance with the City's Climate Action Plan. The EIR will also evaluate the project's greenhouse gas emissions based on an analysis to be prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and compare the quantified emissions to the threshold of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines or other thresholds identified as appropriate by the City of Burlingame. The project's greenhouse gas emission impacts will be estimated using the recommended BAAQMD methodology and modeling. Mobile emissions will be estimated based upon the trip generation assumptions in the traffic report. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. ��� David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The EIR will evaluate the potential for hazardous materials contamination on and near the project site based on a Phase I report commissioned by the applicant and peer reviewed by Cornerstone Earth Group. The peer review will identify and comment on any significant data gaps in the Phase I report. This scope of work assumes two rounds of peer review for the Phase I. If additional investigations (such as soil sampling) are required and completed by the applicant team, a scope amendment may be required to peer review the additional work. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. Hydrology and Water Quality According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site is designated Flood Zone X, which are areas without a high risk for flood impacts. The EIR will describe the existing hydrologic conditions in the project area and will address the changes in drainage conditions from implementation of the project, based upon information provided by the City/project applicant. The information will include existing and future (with project) areas of pervious and impervious surfaces and proposed stormwater control measures consistent with Low Impact Development requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. Land Use Land use is one of the key environmental issues that will be addressed in the EIR. The EIR will describe the existing land uses on, and in the vicinity of, the project site, and will discuss the project's conformance with relevant land use plans, policies, and regulations, including: the General Plan, North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP). As mentioned previously, the project site is within the AIA for the San Francisco International Airport. The EIR will discuss the project's consistency with the ALUCP policies regarding noise compatibility, safety compatibility, and airspace protection. Based on preliminary review, it appears that the project site is located within Safety Compatibility Zone 3. Land uses including children's schools, large child day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes in Zone 3 are considered incompatible uses. If the Airport Land Use Commission determines that the proposed project is inconsistent with the ALUCP, the City can override the Commissions disapproval by holding a public hearing on the override action, making findings that the project is consistent with the purposes of the ALUC statutes, and approving the override action by a two-thirds vote. Existing land use restrictions, such as development restrictions associated with the existing CCSF easement on-site, will also be discussed. The EIR will describe the project's height, mass, scale and setback in relation to the surrounding development and evaluate whether the project would divide an established community. 7 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --_ This section of the EIR will also address the project's impact on agricultural and forestry resources, population and housing, and mineral resources. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. Noise and Vibration The predominant sources of noise in the project area are operations at the hospital, local and distant vehicular traffic, railroad trains, and aircraft associated with the San Francisco International Airport. The EIR will describe the existing noise conditions in the project area and address noise impacts to and from the project based on the noise study to be prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The existing noise environment will be quantified through a noise monitoring survey which will include both short-term and long-term measurements. Construction -related vibration impacts to surrounding existing development will also be addressed in the EIR. Mitigation measures to reduce significant noise and vibration impacts will be identified, as appropriate. Public Facilities The EIR will describe the provision of public services, including police service, fire protection, and parks in the project area and the capacity of the service providers to serve the proposed development. Methods for meeting these demands, including payment of in -lieu fees, will be identified in conformance with state and local laws. The potential for the proposed project to require new service facilities will be identified, and the physical impacts of any new facilities will be evaluated in conformance with CEQA, as appropriate. Transportation The EIR will describe the existing transportation network serving the project site and evaluate the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed project, based upon a Transportation Impact Analysis commissioned by the applicant and peer reviewed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. This proposal includes up to two rounds of peer review. The peer review will: • Review the scope of work for conformance with the City's guidelines for preparing traffic studies; • Verify the adequacy of traffic count data; • Verify project trip generation estimates; • Review project trip distribution patterns and trip assignment on the local roadway network; • Review level of service calculations; • Review of non -automobile modes, parking, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, and emergency access; and • Review conclusions and recommendations for adequacy. The project's impact on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit services will also be discussed in the EIR. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. = W = David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 8 Utilities and Service Systems The EIR will describe the existing sanitary sewer, storm drain, water, and solid waste services in the project area. The EIR will address impacts to these services, specifically as they relate to infrastructure requirements, facilities, and capacity based on information provided to us by the City and/or project engineer. This EIR will include an analysis of any potential impacts from off-site improvements, if any. Based on preliminary review, the project may require a water supply assessment per California State Senate Bill 610. This work scope assumes that the City will prepare the water supply assessment, if required, and provide it to DJP&A. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. Energy The EIR will discuss the amount of energy (i.e., electricity, natural gas, and gasoline use) the project would consume. The EIR will describe any measures proposed by the project to conserve energy, such as the photovoltaic panels and green roofs shown in the conceptual site plan dated June 2015. The EIR will evaluate the project's conformance with the California Green Building Code and the Burlingame Climate Action Plan. Mitigation measures for significant impacts will be identified, as appropriate. Cumulative Impacts The EIR will include a discussion of cumulative impacts from the project in combination with other past, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the area, in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. A list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects will be included based upon information available from the City and neighboring jurisdictions. The EIR will analyze and describe significant cumulative impacts to which the project would contribute. The project's cumulative traffic impacts will be based on the analysis included in the Transportation Impact Analysis. Alternatives to the Project The EIR will describe alternatives to the project that would reduce significant impacts, while still achieving the primary objectives of the project. The objectives of the project will be defined, based upon information provided by the project applicant. Alternatives will be identified in consultation with City Staff, and may include a smaller size project, an alternative design, alternative land uses, and/or an alternative location, in addition to the "No Project" alternative required by CEQA. This proposal assumes the applicant's traffic engineer will provide technical assistance with trip generation analysis for alternatives (if required), including identification of the reduced scale alternative that avoids traffic impacts, if any. Other Required Sections The above discussions identify and highlight major issues and subject areas to be addressed in the EIR. The EIR will also include other sections required by the CEQA Guidelines, including Table of Contents, Growth Inducing Impacts, Significant Unavoidable Impacts, References and Organizations of Persons 9 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- Consulted, EIR Preparers and Lead Agency, and appendices, which will include copies of technical reports. Upon completion of the ADEIR, DJP&A will submit five (5) hard copies of the ADEIR to City Staff for review and comment. An electronic copy of the ADEIR will also be emailed to the City to facilitate and convey City comments/edits. TASK 4 DRAFT EIR, NOTICING, AND PUBLIC HEARING Draft EIR DJP&A will revise the ADEIR, based upon comments and revisions received from City Staff and prepare a "Screencheck." The Screencheck Draft EIR will be submitted in an electronic format to City Staff for review and final approval. Upon approval by City Staff, the final document will constitute the Draft EIR and DJP&A will provide 25 hard copies of the Draft EIR to the City for public distribution. DJP&A will also provide a PDF copy of the document to the City for posting on the City's website. This scope of work also includes DJP&A reproducing and submitting 15 hard copies of the executive summary and 15 CDs of the entire document to the SCH on the City's behalf. Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability DJP&A will prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC), in accordance with CEQA and City of Burlingame guidelines. The NOC will include a brief description of the project and the project location, and will state where copies of the Draft EIR are available for review. The public review period will also be noted. DJP&A will submit an electronic draft of the NOC for City review and comment. DJP&A will revise and finalize the NOC based on City comments. An electronic copy of the final NOC will be provided to the City. As part of this scope of work, DJP&A will transmit the NOC and required copies of the EIR to the SCH on behalf of the City. Concurrently with the preparation of the NOC, DJP&A will prepare the Notice of Availability (NOA). In accordance with the CEQA, the NOA will include the following: • A brief description of the project and its location; • The start and end dates of the review period; • The date, time, and place of any scheduled public meeting or hearing on the proposed project; • A list of significant environmental effects; • The address where copies of the EIR and references are available for review; and • A statement about whether the site is a hazardous materials site. DJP&A will submit an electronic draft of the NOA to the City for review and comment. DJP&A will revise and finalize the NOA based on City comments. An electronic copy of the final NOA will be provided to the City. MMM David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 10 This scope of work assumes that the City will coordinate the posting of the NOA in the local newspaper, posting of the NOA on- and off-site, and/or directly mailing the NOA to the owners and occupants of property contiguous to the project site. Public Review Hearing DJP&A will attend one public review hearing during circulation of the Draft EIR. DJP&A can participate in this public hearing by explaining the CEQA process, specifically the public review process, and presenting an overview of the findings of the EIR, if requested by the City. DJP&A will make note of environmental comments made and include responses to those comments, as appropriate, in the Final EIR. TASK 5 FINAL EIR, MMRP, NOTICE, AND PUBLIC HEARINGS Final EIR Upon conclusion of the Draft EIR 45 -day circulation period, DJP&A will prepare the Final EIR/Responses to Comments. In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR will consist of the following items: • Revisions to the Draft EIR text, as necessary; • List of individuals and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, as directed by City Staff; • Copies of letters or records of verbal comments received on the Draft EIR; and • Summary records of public hearings, if requested. All responses to written comments will be provided in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines (section 15088). This proposal includes 85 Project Manager hours and 25 Principal hours to respond to comment letters received on the Draft EIR. This scope assumes that no comments are received that require additional technical analysis. If additional time or technical analysis is required to respond to the comments, it can be provided as an extra work task, on a time and materials basis, in accordance with the charge rates outlined in Section 3. Up to five hard copies of an administrative draft version of the Final EIR will be submitted to the City for review. The document will be revised per the comments received, and a "Screencheck" Final EIR will be prepared and submitted electronically to the City for review. Once the City approves the "Screencheck" Final EIR, DJP&A will reproduce up to 25 hard copies of the Final EIR and deliver it to the City for distribution. A PDF copy of the Final EIR will also be provided to the City for posting on the City's website. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by CEQA, DJP&A will prepare a draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) forthe project. The MMRP will identify the mitigation measures required for all significant impacts, responsible implementation entity, monitoring schedule, and enforcement or monitoring agency. DJP&A will submit an electronic copy of the draft MMRP to the City prior to consideration of the project by the decision -makers. 11 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- Notice of Determination DJP&A will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD), in accordance with the CEQA and City of Burlingame guidelines. The NOD will include the project name (including SCH identification number), project location, brief project description, lead agency and date of project approval, determination of the project's environmental effects, statement that the EIR was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA, mitigation measures and conditions of approval, statement that the MMRP was adopted, a statement whether overriding considerations were adopted, and the address of where the Final EIR and record of project approval may be examined. DJP&A will submit an electronic copy of the draft NOD for the City's review prior to the City Council hearing on the Final EIR and project. Based on comments received from the City and the outcome of the City Council hearing, DJP&A will revise and finalize the NOD. DJP&A will provide an electronic copy of the final NOD to the City. This scope of work assumes that the City will file the NOD at the SCH and County Clerk following project approval. Public Hearings on Final EIR and Project This proposal includes DJP&A preparation for and attendance at a Planning Commission hearing and City Council hearing on the Final EIR and project. The DJP&A Project Manager or Principal will be available to describe the environmental review process, summarize the environmental issues, and respond to questions about the environmental document at hearings. Subconsultants are also able to attend meetings and hearings on a time and materials basis, upon authorization by the City. ■ PROJECT INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PREPARE THE EIR Our proposal is based on the assumption that DJP&A will receive the project details listed below concurrent with the Notice to Proceed (unless otherwise noted) in order to maintain the optimum schedule outlined in Section 2. Delays in receiving any of the information listed below will result in at least day for day delays to the overall project schedule. Plans (in PDF unless otherwise noted) o Site plan, cross-sections, landscape plan o Architectural plans and elevations of the project delivered as a Revit 3D Model for completion of photosimulations o Existing and proposed site plan as a CAD file for preparation of photosimulations o Color scheme for completion of photosimulations o On-site circulation plan o Utility plan o Drainage/grading plans ��� David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 12 Technical Reports o Shadow Study o Geotechnical report o Arborist report o Phase I report o Transportation Impact Analysis o Utility capacity studies (if required by the City) o Water Supply Assessment (due by Week 8, if required) Project Detail o Written description of project, including land uses, maximum square footage/units, maximum building heights, setbacks, etc. o List of required project approvals and discretionary actions o Project objectives o Utility improvements o Any proposed street dedication or ROW improvements (including sidewalks) o Details on project construction (total duration, estimated maximum depth of excavation, cut and fill amounts, etc.) o Proposed construction phasing, overall duration, estimated equipment use, for TAC analysis (table will be provided electronically by DJP&A) o List of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and LID treatment proposed to conform to Provisions C.3 of the NPDES permit o Square footage/area of pervious and impervious surfaces on-site pre- and post -project construction o Project water usage Other o Cumulative Projects List (due by Week 2) o Confirmation on vantage points for photosimulations (due by Week 2) 13 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Section 2 — Estimated Timeline HES© MOM 0®0 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. proposes the following optimum timeline for preparation of the EIR. Please note that some tasks overlap others. For example, while the NOP circulates, technical reports are being prepared. DJP&A can commit to maintain the schedule in the areas that are within our control. Completion of the EIR, as outlined in the proposed timeline, is based upon receipt of all necessary project information on schedule (refer to Project Information Required to Prepare the EIR on page 13 of this proposal). Delays in receiving requested information or responses by others will result in at least day -for -day delays in the overall schedule. The duration of City review, revision of administrative drafts, revision of technical reports, and preparation of the Final EIR may be completed in shorter or longer timeframes depending on factors such as number of comments received and if additional analysis is required. � � � David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 14 Elapsed Time Task Duration (with some overlap) DJP&A receives authorization to proceed and all requested project information --- 1 day Kick-off meeting 1 day 1 day DJP&A drafts EIR project description and submits to City/applicant for review 1 week 1 week City/applicant completes review of draft EIR project description and provides comments to DJP&A 1 week 2 weeks DJP&A finalizes EIR project description based on comments received 0.5 weeks 2.5 weeks DIP&A drafts NOP and submits to City for review 1 week 3.5 weeks City reviews draft NOP and provides DJP&A with comments 1 week 4.5 weeks DJP&A finalizes NOP and mails NOP to State Clearinghouse and Responsible and Trustee Agencies on behalf of the City 0.5 weeks 5 weeks 30 -day NOP circulation period 4 weeks 9 weeks Scoping meeting 1 day 9 weeks DJP&A subconsultants complete cultural resources reports and photosimulations 4weeks 6.5 weeks DJP&A subconsultants complete 1" round of peer review of applicant's traffic and Phase I reports 4weeks 4weeks Applicant technical reports are revised per peer review comments 2 weeks 6 weeks DJP&A subconsultants complete 2ndround of peer review of applicant's revised traffic and Phase I reports 2 weeks 8 weeks DIP&A subconsultants complete air quality/GHG and noise technical reports (3 weeks after TIA peer review is completed and assuming 3 weeks 7 weeks � � � David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 14 15 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- Elapsed Time Task Duration (with some overlap) traffic data is found correct during initial peer review) DJP&A completes Administrative Draft EIR and submits to City for review (3 weeks after receiving last technical report, including draft 3 weeks 11 weeks WSA) City completes review of ADEIR and provides DJP&A with consolidated set of comments; DJP&A drafts NOC and NOA and 4 weeks 15 weeks submits to City for review DJP&A revises document per comments and submits "Screencheck" EIR to City for review 3 weeks 18 weeks City completes review of Screencheck, NOC, and NOA and provides DJP&A with final edits 2 weeks 20 weeks DJP&A revises and finalizes Draft EIR, NOC, and NOA for circulation. DJP&A mails copies of Draft EIR to State Clearinghouse and provides 1 week 21 weeks copies to City for public distribution 45 -day Draft EIR circulation period 6.5 weeks 27.5 weeks Public review hearing 1 day 27.5 weeks City provides DJP&A with public comments received on Draft EIR 0.5 weeks 28 weeks DJP&A drafts Administrative Draft Final EIR/Responses to Comments and submits to City for review 4 weeks 32 weeks City completes review of ADFEIR and provides DJP&A with comments 4 weeks 36 weeks DJP&A revises document and submits Screencheck Final EIR to City 2 weeks 38 weeks City completes review of Screencheck and provides DJP&A with comments 2 weeks 40 weeks DJP&A revises, finalizes, and prints Final EIR. DJP&A provides copies of Final EIR to the City 1 week 41 weeks 10 -day Final EIR circulation period; DJP&A drafts MMRP and NOD; City reviews NOD and MMRP and provides DJP&A with comments; 1.5 weeks 42.5 weeks DJP&A finalizes NOD and MMRP Planning Commission hearing 1 day City Council hearing 1 day City files NOD 1 day 15 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Section 3 — Cost Estimate Based on our understanding of the project, the cost for preparation of the EIR is estimated not to exceed $197,990. All costs will be charged on a time and materials basis, commensurate with work completed, in accordance with the charge rates outlined in this proposal. If DJP&A does not need all the time that has been budgeted we will only bill for the time actually spent completing the work. This proposal assumes that no issues that arise would require any additional technical analysis or documentation. In the event that additional technical analysis is required, we can complete that work on a time and materials basis, upon your authorization. This proposal also includes a $40,000 contingency amount to cover unanticipated work that may arise during the EIR process. In the event we cannot complete the EIR within our existing budget, we may request to draw from the contingency amount in order to cover unanticipated work (e.g., review of multiple site plans, technical subconsultant support/analysis for alternative discussions, extensive coordination regarding peer review or project data collection) necessary to complete the EIR. Project description changes after we receive the notice to proceed may have further schedule and budget implications. Cost Estimate David L Powers & Associates, Inc. In-house Staff—Preparation of EIR, Notices, Final EIR/Responses to $ 99,065 Comments, MMRP, meeting and hearing attendance, and project management Reimbursables (mileage, reproduction, and courier services)' $ 3,800 Subconsultants' Carey & Co., Inc. (Historic Resources Evaluation) $ 12,070 Cornerstone Earth Group (Hazmat and Geotechnical peer review) $ 7,455 Digital Imaging Studio(Photosimulations) $ 4,140 Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Traffic peer review) $ 8,050 Holman & Associates (Literature search and records review) $ 1,800 Illingworth & Rodkin (Air Quality/GHG and Noise) $ 21,610 Subtotal $ 157,990 Contingency $40,000 Total $197,990 Note:' All subconsultant and reimbursable costs include our standard 15 percent administration fee. MMM David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 16 The above cost estimate includes: • DJP&A attendance at up to five public meetings and three staff meetings; Five hard copies each of the Administrative Draft EIR and Final EIR; • 25 hard copies each of the EIR and Final EIR; and • Required copies of the EIR for submittal to the State Clearinghouse. If DJP&A attendance is requested at additional hearings or meetings, we can do so on a time and materials basis in accordance with the charge rates outlined on the following page, upon authorization by the City. DJP&A Project Manager attendance at additional meetings could range from $310 to $610+ depending on the length of the meeting and preparation required for the meeting (e.g., presentation). Additional copies of Draft EIR are estimated to be $55/copy. Additional copies of the Final EIR are estimated to be $30/copy. 17 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --_ :41�' �� & ASSOCIATE S. INC. CHARGE RATE SCHEDULE Title Senior Principal Principal Project Manager Senior Environmental Specialist Senior Project Manager Environmental Specialist Project Manager Associate Project Manager Assistant Project Manager Researcher Draftsperson/Graphic Artist Document Processor/Quality Control Administrative Manager Office Support Hourly Rate $ 255.00 $ 225.00 $ 200.00 $ 180.00 $ 165.00 $ 155.00 $ 140.00 $ 115.00 $ 100.00 $ 90.00 $ 90.00 $ 90.00 $ 75.00 Materials, outside services and subconsultants include a 15% administration fee. Mileage will be charged per the current IRS standard mileage rate at the time costs occur. SUBJECT TO REVISION JULY 1, 2016. ` David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. provides regular, clear and accurate invoices as the work on this project proceeds, in accordance with normal company billing procedures. The cost estimate prepared for this project does not include special accounting or bookkeeping procedures, nor does it include preparation of extraordinary or unique statements or invoices. If a special invoice or accounting process is requested, the service can be provided on a time and materials basis. ��� David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 18 11 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. © El Section 4— Project Team Qualifications and Experience 0 u m BE DIP&A will serve as the primary environmental consultant responsible for completing the EIR. Ourteam will consist of Akoni Danielsen as the Principal, Will Burns as the Project Manager, and Ryan Shum as the Assistant Project Manager. Our project team also includes select subconsultants to provide specialized technical assistance. For the proposed Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan EIR, we have included the following subconsultants: Carey & Co. Inc., Cornerstone Earth Group, Digital Imaging Studio, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Holman & Associates, and Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. The qualifications and experience of our project team are described below. ■ DJP&A KEY PERSONNEL Akoni Danielsen will serve as the Principal for this project. As Principal for this project, he will oversee the environmental review for this project and assist with key environmental issues during preparation of the EIR. Mr. Danielsen will also review and approve the EIR prior to submittal to the City and prior to public circulation, and will attend all requested project meetings and hearings. Mr. Danielsen has over 18 years of experience in planning and preparing environmental documents. He managed numerous environmental documents for Master Plans, residential mixed-use projects, medical facilities, community facilities, office parks, and commercial developments. Mr. Danielsen is versed in the environmental impacts associated with mixed-use developments such as the proposed Master Plan. Will Burns, AICP will serve as the Project Manager for this project. As Project Manager, he will be involved with all aspects of the project and will be the primary point of contact for the City. He will be responsible for daily project coordination and administration, as well as overall preparation of the EIR. Mr. Burns will maintain close communication with City Staff and the project team, and participate in meetings and hearings on the project. Mr. Burns has over 12 years of experience preparing environmental documents. His relevant project experience includes preparing the EIRs for the 901 San Antonio Road Comprehensive Plan and Regional Medical Center (described in detail below in Relevant Project Experience). Mr. Burns also completed the environmental review for the King & Dobbin Village Master Plan, which included residential uses with residential support services such as medical offices and tutoring service facilities. 19 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- Illingworth & Illingworth & Rodkin (I&R) provides environmental air quality studies and also Rodkin, Inc. specializes in the quantification of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, I&R specializes in the assessment and control of environmental noise, and has completed more than 2,500 projects involving environmental noise, transportation noise control, and building acoustics. DJP&A frequently works with I&R to provide air quality/greenhouse gas and noise analyses for environmental review documents. Recent I&R experience in the City includes completing the air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise analyses for the Carolan Avenue/Rollins Road Residential Development EIR. ■ DIP&A RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE 901 San Antonio Road Comprehensive Plan EIR DJP&A prepared an EIR for the 901 San Antonio Road Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. The project consisted of the redevelopment of an industrial site with mixed uses. The project included an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as well as two specific development proposals. The BUILD LLC Planned Community (PC) zoning proposed up to 226 townhouses and senior affordable housing units within their four acre site. The Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life proposed a PC zoning for a recreation/community center, a preschool/day care, and senior congregate care and assisted living units within their 8.5 acre site. Will Burns worked on the environmental review for this project. DJP&A also worked with Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. to prepare the Noise Assessment for this project. DJP&A completed the environmental work on schedule and within budget. Main Street Cupertino EIR In 2009, DJP&A prepared a Focused EIR for the Main Street Cupertino Project involving an 18.7 -acre site in the City of Cupertino. The project proposed a Master Use Permit that would allow for the development of one of two proposed schemes which are evaluated in the Focused EIR: Scheme One proposed up to 295,000 square feet of retail uses, 100,000 square feet of office uses, a 150 room hotel, and 160 senior housing units and Scheme Two proposed up to 146,500 square feet of retail uses (including a major retail tenant), 205,000 square feet of office uses, a hotel with 250 rooms, and 160 senior housing units. In 2012, DJP&A prepared addenda to the 2009 Focused EIR to analyze the impacts of proposed modifications to the mix and intensity of the various land uses on- site. The project required coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding an easement for an underground box culvert traversing the site. DJP&A coordinated closely with the City and applicant to complete the project. 21 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. ��� King & Dobbin Transit Village EIR/EA In 2007, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. prepared an Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the King and Dobbin Transit Village and US 101- Oakland/Mabury Transportation Development Policy Project. This EIR analyzed two projects: 1) A Planned Development (PD) rezoning on the 24.8 -acre site to allow mixed use development of up to 1,287 residential units, 10,000 to 25,000 square feet of commercial space, and an approximately one -acre park; and 2) the creation of a Transportation Development Policy (TDP) to manage development in the US 101-Oakland/Mabury area. The TDP would include Transit Oriented Development (TOD) near the planned BART Berryessa Station, Japantown Neighborhood Business District, Jackson -Taylor Specific Plan, and Luna Park/13th Street Neighborhood Business District. Will Burns worked on the environmental review for this project. In addition, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. prepared the Noise Assessment for this complex project. Extensive coordination between various local and regional agencies was required as part of this project.q Regional Medical Center EIR DJP&A prepared the EIR for the Regional Medical Center of San Jose Expansion project, which proposed a Planned Development rezoning to allow up to 1,030,000 square feet of new medical facilities, including an expanded emergency department, trauma center, roof -top helipad, intensive care facilities, women's and infants' services (obstetrics and neonatal intensive care unit) and medical offices. The project included up to 436,000 square feet of new hospital space, 300,000 square feet of new medical office uses, and associated parking structures and lots. Will Burns and Akoni Danielsen worked on the environmental review for this project. DJP&A also worked with Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and Holman & Associates on this project. Sequoia Hospital Campus Precise Plan EIR DJP&A prepared an EIR for the Sequoia Hospital Campus/Precise Plan project, involving an 18 -acre site in the City of Redwood City. The project proposed text changes to the General Plan, the adoption of a Precise Plan, and zoning changes to allow the construction of new hospital facilities, a medical office building, and parking facilities to support the campus. The project also included the demolition of an existing nursing facility and the retrofit of other hospital facilities to meet state seismic safety standards. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. assisted DJP&A by preparing the noise assessment for this project. Top: Completed Sequoia Hospital project mmm David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1 22 San Jose Downtown Medical Center EIR In 2012, DJP&A prepared an EIR for the San Jose Downtown Health Center. The proposed project would construct a three-story, 60,000 square foot primary care health center on a five -acre site. The site formerly housed the San Jose Medical Center in Downtown San lose and is located near residential uses and along a major transportation corridor (East Santa Clara Street). DJP&A worked with Cornerstone Earth Group, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., Hexagon Transportation Consultants, and Holman & Associates on this project. No public comments were received on the Draft EIR. DJP&A completed the environmental review work within budget and ahead of schedule. Top: The Downtown Medical Center under construction Top: Side view of the Downtown Medical Center under construction Camino Medical Group Project EIR In 2009, DJP&A prepared an EIR forthe Palo Alto Medical Foundation Medical Clinic Project in the City of Sunnyvale. The proposed project included the demolition of one existing medical office building, a surface parking lot, and three single-family residences and the construction of a 150,000 square foot medical office building with two levels of underground parking and surrounding surface parking, and a four -level on-site parking garage. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. assisted DJP&A by preparing the Air Quality Analysis and Noise Assessment for this project. 23 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. --- 9 BURL,INGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8h MEETING DATE: September 21, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between the City and Burlingame Park Square, LLC, Related to the Potential Development of Parking Lot E and the Downtown Burlinqame Post Office Property RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager to execute an exclusive negotiation agreement [ENA] between the City and Burlingame Park Square, LLC concerning potential development of Parking Lot E. BACKGROUND The United States Postal Service recently sold the historic Post Office located on Park Road through a public auction process. The purchaser of the Post Office is evaluating potential development of the site. The City's Parking Lot E, which is adjacent to the Post Office, could form a part of an integrated development plan for this key downtown site. The City previously entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a prospective purchaser of the Post Office, but that entity was not able to buy the property. The Council authorized staff to negotiate an ENA with the successful purchaser on terms similar to those of the prior agreement. While some minor changes were made over the course of discussions with the purchaser, the purchaser is now ready to move forward with an ENA that conforms to the Council's direction. DISCUSSION An ENA is an agreement between two parties, in this instance between the City and Burlingame Park Square, LLC, to set forth the terms and conditions under which they are willing to conduct negotiations regarding a proposed development project. For this agreement, the contemplated project would encompass Parking Lot E and the Downtown Burlingame Post Office. The ENA provides for an 18 -month term, during which the developer is required to meet several project milestones relating to design, feasibility, and environmental assessment. The developer will be required to analyze traffic and parking, including replacement parking for the spaces lost on Lot E. Additionally, the existing historic resources covenant on the Post Office property will need to be considered in any prospective project description. The ultimate goal of the ENA is to allow for negotiation of terms for the transfer, by lease, sale, or other mechanism, of City property for purposes of building a project that meets both the City's and the developer's objectives. The City 1 Lot E Exclusive Negotiating Agreement September 21, 2015 and developer are under no obligation to finalize a term sheet if an agreement cannot be reached, and the City's discretion over development approvals is not constrained by the ENA. The analysis required to meet the milestones under the ENA will require considerable resources on the part of the developer. In order to ensure that Lot E will not be transferred to another party while that work is occurring, the developer will provide the City with a negotiating deposit of $150,000, which is non-refundable except under limited circumstances. This deposit functions as a payment for the opportunity costs of exclusively negotiating with one potential transferee of Lot E. The developer will also cover direct costs of the City through the ENA process. The ENA affirms that it is the intention of both parties to define a project that complies with the policy direction of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Replacement of parking and appropriate design for both the environment and traffic circulation are stated objectives. FISCAL IMPACT Minimal. The ENA provides for payment of a negotiating deposit in the amount of $150,000 and reimbursement of direct costs. Exhibit: • Proposed Exclusive Negotiating Agreement F The City of Burlingame CITY HALL — 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Exclusive Negotiation Agreement By and Between The City of Burlingame and Burlingame Park Square, LLC September_, 2015 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version Execution Version Table of Contents 1. Agreement........................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Diligent and Good Faith Exclusive Negotiations.................................................................1 2. Term.................................................................................................................................................1 3. Required Performance Milestones...................................................................................................1 3.1 Developer Performance Milestones....................................................................................2 3.2 Extensions of Performance Dates.......................................................................................3 3.3 Opportunity to Cure Missed Performance Date..................................................................4 4. Negotiation of Transaction Documents............................................................................................4 4.1 Negotiating Principals..........................................................................................................4 4.2 Early Negotiation and Direction on Priority Issues..............................................................5 4.3 Project Description..............................................................................................................5 4.4 Term Sheet..........................................................................................................................5 4.5 Transaction Documents......................................................................................................6 5. Required Payments..........................................................................................................................6 5.1 Negotiating Deposit.............................................................................................................6 5.2 Cost Recovery.....................................................................................................................6 6. City Objectives..................................................................................................................................7 6.1 Compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan....................................................................7 6.2 General Fund Security........................................................................................................8 6.3 Environmental Review and City Approvals.........................................................................8 6.4 Public Benefits.....................................................................................................................8 6.5 Post Office Parcel and Historic Preservation.....................................................................9 6.6 Adjacent Site Development ....................................... ............ ................................. ............ 9 7. Developer's Obligations and Rights.................................................................................................9 7.1 Developer's Costs.............................................................................................................10 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version 16184.001 3254318x2 7.2 Submittals to City...............................................................................................................10 7.3 Selection of Consultants....................................................................................................10 7.4 Obligations and Conditions Relating to City Approvals.....................................................10 7.5 No Representation or Warranty.........................................................................................11 7.6 Project Coordination Meetings..........................................................................................11 8. City's Obligations and Rights..........................................................................................................11 8.1 City's Obligations...............................................................................................................11 8.2 City Action Subject to Environmental Review...................................................................11 8.3 Timing of Conveyance of Interest......................................................................................11 8.4 Permissions for Entries and Investigations.......................................................................12 9. Prohibited Actions...........................................................................................................................12 9.1 No Assignment..................................................................................................................12 9.2 Prohibited Payments & Anti-Corruption............................................................................12 9.3 Ballot Measures.................................................................................................................13 10. Remedies of City............................................................................................................................13 10.1 Remedies of City...............................................................................................................13 10.2 Non -Liability of Members, Directors and Officers of Developer........................................13 11. Remedies of Developer..................................................................................................................13 11.1 Remedies of Developer.....................................................................................................13 11.2 Non -Liability of Employees and Officers of the City..........................................................13 12. Sole Risk of the Parties..................................................................................................................14 13. Rights of Termination.....................................................................................................................14 13.1 Termination by Developer.................................................................................................14 13.2 Termination by the City.....................................................................................................14 13.3 Failure to Agree or Failure to Endorse..............................................................................15 14. Discretion of the Parties.................................................................................................................15 15. Intellectual Property Rights to Plans..............................................................................................15 15.1 Developer Designs............................................................................................................15 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version Exhibit A Property Description Exhibit B Performance Milestones 16184.001 3254318x2 15.2 Physical Studies................................................................................................................15 15.3 Developer Warranty and Indemnification..........................................................................16 15.4 City Designs......................................................................................................................16 15.5 Survival..............................................................................................................................16 16. Press Releases and Press Conferences.......................................................................................16 17. Real Estate Commissions............................................................ ............................. .................... 16 18. Notices............................................................................................................................................16 18.1 Addresses for Notices.......................................................................................................16 18.2 Changes in Addresses for Notices....................................................................................18 19. General Provisions.........................................................................................................................18 19.1 Miscellaneous Matters.......................................................................................................18 19.2 Interpretation of Agreement...............................................................................................18 Exhibit A Property Description Exhibit B Performance Milestones 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version Downtown Burlingame Development Opportunity EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT This Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ("Agreement"), effective , 2015 (the "Effective Date"), is between the City of Burlingame ("City") and Burlingame Park Square, LLC ("Developer"). RECITALS A. The City of Burlingame owns and operates twenty (20) surface parking lots distributed throughout the City's Downtown Area. One of these parking lots is Lot E (the "Property"), which is described and shown on Exhibit A hereto. The Property is adjacent to the former site of the Burlingame Post Office between Park Road and Lorton Avenue (the "Post Office Parcel") B. On September 5, 2014, the Post Office Parcel was sold through a competitive disposition process by the United States Postal Service. Developer owns the Post Office Parcel. Developer now proposes to develop the Property and the adjacent Post Office Parcel as part of a comprehensive, mixed-use residential and retail project that would be consistent with the City's Downtown Specific Plan and would create a signature public realm (the "Project"). The "Development Site" is comprised of the Property and the Post Office Property. C. The City and Developer now wish to enter into this Agreement to set forth the terms and conditions under which they are willing to conduct certain negotiations regarding the proposed Project and Developer's proposed acquisition of an interest (by sale, lease, or otherwise, to be determined in the City's discretion) in the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, the City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Agreement 1.1 Diligent and Good Faith Exclusive Negotiations During the Exclusive Negotiations Period (as defined in Section 2 below) and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City and Developer agree to negotiate diligently, in good faith, and exclusively with each other regarding City's proposed conveyance to Developer of an interest (by sale, lease, or otherwise, to be determined in the City's discretion). The City and Developer, during the Exclusive Negotiations Period, agree to negotiate diligently and in good faith to prepare the Term Sheet (as defined in Section 4.4) and the Transaction Documents (as defined in Section 4.5). The City agrees not to solicit or otherwise entertain any other proposals or negotiate with any third party desiring to acquire the Property or develop the Property during the Exclusive Negotiations Period without Developer's prior written consent, which may be given, withheld or conditioned in the sole discretion of Developer. 2. Term The term of this Agreement (the "Exclusive Negotiations Period" or the "Term") shall begin on the Effective Date and, subject to extensions pursuant to Section 3.2 below, shall terminate on the first to occur of: (i) eighteen (18) months after Effective Date; or (ii) the date of any termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 13. 3. Required Performance Milestones Developer is required to satisfy certain performance milestones (each, a "Performance Milestone") by specified dates for performance (each, a "Performance Date"). Subject to any extension rights under this 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version Section 3, including Developer's extension rights under Section 3.2 and Developer's opportunity to cure under Section 3.3, Developer's failure to satisfy a Performance Milestone by the specified Performance Date may cause this Agreement to terminate upon written notice of termination by City. The City Manager shall make the determination, in his or her reasonable discretion, i) whether Developer has satisfied a Performance Milestone; and ii) whether, in the event of a failure by Developer to satisfy a Performance Milestone, the City elects to terminate this Agreement. Any decisions by the City Manager, such as whether a Performance Milestone has been satisfied, requests for extension or a Performance Milestone or of the Term, or whether to terminate this Agreement because of a failure to satisfy a Performance Milestone may be appealed by Developer to the City Council. The Performance Milestones identified in Section 3.1 are required. In each case, Developer and/or Developer's Consultant will prepare a scope of work to be approved by the City Manager prior to authorization. Except as expressly noted, the components of work described in this Section 3 will be prepared at the sole expense of the Developer. Sections 3.1.1 through 3. 1.8 merely provide information about the required scope and content of the submittals associated with Performance Milestones. The sequence and Performance Dates applicable to each of these Performance Milestones are identified in Exhibit B. The City Manager shall be entitled, upon the written request of Developer, to waive in his or her sole and absolute discretion Developer's failure to satisfy one or more Performance Milestones. Parentheticals at the end of each subsection within this Section 3.1 identify whether the identified Performance Milestone applies to the Property, to the Post Office Parcel or to the entire Development Site. For example, the Performance Milestone in Section 3.1.1 below shall apply to the entire Development Site. (Development Site). 3.1 Developer Performance Milestones Parentheticals at the end of each subsection within this Section 3.1 identify whether the identified Performance Milestone applies to the Property, to the Post Office Parcel or to the entire Development Site. For example, the Performance Milestone in Section 3.1.1 below shall apply to the entire Development Site. (Development Site). 3.1.1 Existing Conditions Analysis Developer or Developer's consultant will prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Development Site. Developer, at its option and in its discretion, may elect to also perform a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the Development Site and include it in the Existing Conditions Analysis. (Development Site). 3.1.2 Preservation /Reuse Strategy Developer or Developer's consultant will prepare a Preservation / Reuse Strategy that addresses: i) appropriate and innovative solutions for the preservation and/or adaptive reuse of historic resources on the Post Office Property; ii) consistency with the recorded Preservation Covenant on the Post Office Property; and iii) engagement with the local preservation community to cultivate support for the Preservation / Reuse Strategy. (Post Office Parcel) 3.1.3 Market Analysis Developer or Developer's consultant will prepare a Preliminary Market Analysis to evaluate the future demand for housing and retail commercial space in the Study Area. Reviewing area demographic and employment trends, development patterns, competitive supply, and project performance, the Preliminary Market Analysis will characterize the market support for various types, densities, and price points of 16184.001 3254318x2 2 Execution Version housing, as well as retail, and provide a basis for assumptions about future rent, absorption and other financial parameters of the development. (Development Site) 3.1.4 Traffic, Circulation and Parking Study Developer or Developer's consultant will prepare a Preliminary Traffic, Circulation and Parking Study to evaluate existing conditions and future conditions, contemplating development of the Project. The Study will build off the City's February 2012 Downtown Parking Update (and any additional information timely provided by the City) and will recommend a comprehensive parking solution. The cost of this study may be subject to cost sharing with the other selected downtown parking lot developer(s). (Development Site) 3.1.5 Infrastructure Needs Analysis Developer or Developer's consultant will prepare a Preliminary Infrastructure Needs Analysis to evaluate the public and private infrastructure improvements required to support the Project and associated environmental, traffic, circulation and parking impacts. (Development Site) 3.1.6 Preliminary Cost Estimates Developer or Developer's consultant will prepare Preliminary Cost Estimates for the recommended infrastructure improvements. (Development Site) 3.1.7 Financial Pro Forma Analysis Developer or Developer's consultant will prepare a Preliminary Financial Pro Forma that shows revenues, costs, and land payments to the City and Developer returns by phase. This will include an explanation of financing strategies for a comprehensive parking solution. (Development Site) 3.1.8 Public Outreach Strategy Developer or Developer's consultant will prepare a proposed public relations program and plans for conducting outreach to various community groups and stakeholders in the vicinity of the Project, for educating the public with respect to the Project, and for informing the City Council and other regulatory agencies about the Project (the "Public Outreach Strategy"). The Public Outreach Strategy must include: (i) a budget for publicizing the Project (i.e., mailers, brochures, Press Releases, and forums educating the public); (ii) Developer's strategy for publicizing the Project and for keeping the appropriate regulatory agencies apprised of the Project; and (iii) a schedule of presentations to ensure community groups, stakeholders, regulatory agencies, and the City are informed of its activities during the Exclusive Negotiation Period. (Development Site) 3.2 Extensions of Performance Dates 3.2.1 By Agreement Between Developer and City. Developer may submit requests to the City for extensions of the Exclusive Negotiation Period and/or any Performance Dates, which the City shall consider and approve or deny in the discretion of the City Manager. The City will not grant any such extension unless, at a minimum, (a) City is satisfied that Developer is proceeding diligently and making reasonable progress towards satisfying the Performance Milestone; and (b) Developer is not otherwise in default of this Agreement. Any extension of the Exclusive Negotiation Period, if approved by the City Manager, shall be conditional upon the payment of an additional deposit (in addition to the Negotiating Deposit described in Section 4.1 below) in the amount of Ten Thousand and No/100 U.S. Dollars ($10,000) per month of such extension (each an "Additional Negotiating Deposit"). 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version 3.2.2 For Litigation Event. The Exclusive Negotiation Period, and the Performance Dates, shall be extended for the period of any Litigation Event (as defined below), provided that any extension as a consequence of a Litigation Event shall operate to extend the date for achievement of a Performance Milestone only to the extent that the Performance Milestone associated with such Performance Date is affected by the event or events constituting the Litigation Event. "Litigation Event" means any action, proceeding, application or request before any court, tribunal, or otherjudicial, adjudicative, or legislative decision-making body, including any administrative appeal, that is brought by a third party and seeks to challenge: (a) the validity of any action taken by the City with respect to this Agreement, the Project Description, the Term Sheet, the Transaction Documents, the City Approvals, or the Project, including any action required or permitted to be performed under this Agreement and City's selection of Developer as the developer for the Property; (b) any findings upon which the items in Section 3.2.2(a) have been predicated; or (c) the validity of any other approval that is required for the conveyance of the Property as contemplated by this Agreement and would prevent the parties from executing one or more required Transactional Document, would prevent one or more required Transactional Document from becoming effective, or would require material modification to either the Project or one or more required Transactional Document. 3.2.3 For Unavoidable Delay. The Exclusive Negotiation Period, and the Performance Dates, shall be extended for the period of any Unavoidable Delay (as defined below), provided that any extension as a consequence of an Unavoidable Delay shall operate to extend the date for achievement of a Performance Milestone only to the extent that the Performance Milestone associated with such Performance Date is affected by the event or events constituting the Unavoidable Delay. "Unavoidable Delay" means an instance where performance is delayed by reason of acts of God; war; civil commotion; terrorism; riots; strikes; picketing; or other labor disputes; damage to work in progress by reason of fire or other casualty; or delays caused by extraordinarily inclement weather. 3.3 Opportunity to Cure Missed Performance Date. City shall provide sixty (60) days written advance notice to Developer of City's intent to terminate this Agreement based on Developer's failure to satisfy a Performance Milestone by the associated Performance Date ("Missed Performance Date Notice Period"). Developer shall have the right to cure by completing the missed Performance Milestone within such Missed Performance Date Notice Period. If requested by Developer, the City's and Developer's representatives shall meet and use good faith efforts to confer in person on at least two (2) occasions during the Missed Performance Date Notice Period and shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to agree upon a mutually beneficial strategy for Developer to continue to pursue and complete the Performance Milestone associated with the missed Performance Date. Only if Developer fails to cure within the Missed Performance Date Notice Period and the City and Developer fail to agree during the Missed Performance Date Notice Period upon a mutually beneficial strategy for Developer to continue to pursue the missed Performance Milestone shall City's termination become effective. 4. Negotiation of Transaction Documents 4.1 Negotiating Principals During the Exclusive Negotiation Period, the City and Developer each will assign designated principals (i.e., an officer, board member, executive employee, or other agent with management level authority, authorized to negotiate and make decisions related to this Agreement) and key staff members who will meet and negotiate diligently in good faith on its behalf in exclusive negotiations. 16184.001 3254318x2 4 Execution Version (a) The City's negotiating team will include all or a subset of the following: the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Community Development Director, the Finance Director, and the Public Works Director. (b) Developer's designated negotiating principal is Stanley Lo. (c) Designated negotiating principals can be changed by notice given in accordance with Section 18. 4.2 Early Negotiation and Direction on Priority Issues City and Developer agree that it is particularly important to promptly develop a mutually agreeable strategy and framework for: (i) addressing how and where replacement parking for the spaces displaced from the Property by the Project will be provided; (ii) identifying historic resources on the Post Office Parcel and the extent to which such historic resources may be adaptively reused as part of the Project; and (iii) establishing the methodology by which the purchase price for the Property will be determined (together, the "Priority Negotiation Issues"). City staff, City's Consultants, and Developer shall actively meet and confer as necessary to develop one or more proposals on each of the Priority Negotiation Issues within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the Effective Date. If requested by Developer, the City shall within thirty (30) days of the close of such one hundred and eighty (180) day period place the proposals developed by City and Developer on each of the Priority Negotiation Issues on the agenda of a City Council meeting to receive City Council input and direction on each of the Priority Negotiation Issues. 4.3 Project Description Developer will work with City staff and consultants to develop a development concept for the Project (the "Project Description") that, if and when endorsed by the City Council, will serve as the basis for the Term Sheet. The Project Description must include: the development program, height and massing, parking and transportation, an infrastructure plan, and development phasing. The Project Description also must include a viable financing plan that is integrated with the financial pro forma. As indicated in Exhibit B, the preliminary studies, reports, and estimates described in Section 3.1 are anticipated to be submitted by Developer prior to Developer's proposed Project Description. 4.4 Term Sheet (a) Concurrently with negotiations between Developer and City staff over the Project Description, the parties will commence negotiation of a term sheet for the Project that is based on the Project Description and is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan and the City's objectives (see Section 6) (the "Term Sheet"). The parties acknowledge that the Term Sheet is intended to be a summary of the general terms for negotiating the Transaction Documents (as defined below in Section 4.5), which will be subject to review and approval by the parties, their respective legal counsel, and the City Council. When the Project Description is complete, and Developer and City staff have agreed on the Term Sheet, the Project Description and the Term Sheet will be brought to the City Council for review, consideration, and approval ("Council Endorsement"). Following the Council Endorsement, references to the Project in this Agreement will mean the Project as reflected in the Project Description and associated Term Sheet. (b) The City Manager will have no obligation to execute the Term Sheet until it has been endorsed by the City Council. (c) The Term Sheet is a non-binding agreement, which will provide a basis for negotiating the terms of Transaction Documents, which may include without limitation a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), Development Agreement (DA), Financing Agreements, and any other documents needed to execute the transaction. 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version 4.4.2 Subsequent Changes to Term Sheet By Developer After execution of the Term Sheet, Developer may propose modifications or changes to the Term Sheet and Project Description ("Developer Proposed Changes") based on a belief that Developer Proposed Changes would be in the City's, Developer's, or the Project's best interests. Developer shall present Developer Proposed Changes to the City for review by the City Manager. City Manager shall determine, in his or her discretion, whether such Developer Proposed Changes require consideration and approval of the City Council or instead may be approved and incorporated administratively. In the event the City Manager determines, in his or her reasonable discretion, that Developer Proposed Changes require City Council review and approval, such Developer Proposed Changes shall be submitted to the City Council for review and shall not be incorporated into the Term Sheet or Transaction Documents unless and until endorsed by the City Council. In all cases, all Developer Proposed Changes remain subject to City Council review in conjunction with the City Council's consideration of the Transaction Documents. Even where authorized to do so by the Term Sheet, the City Manager may elect to seek City Council review and approval of inclusion of a Developer Proposed Change in the Term Sheet. 4.4.3 Subsequent Changes to Term Sheet By City. After execution of the Term Sheet, City may propose modifications or changes to the Term Sheet and Project Description ("City Proposed Changes") based on a belief that the City Proposed Changes would be in the City's, Developer's, or the Project's best interests. City shall present City Proposed Changes to Developer for review. Subject to the following sentence, City Proposed Changes shall not be incorporated into the Term Sheet or Transaction Documents unless approved in writing by Developer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Section 4.4.1 or elsewhere in this Agreement shall limit the City's ability to consider and implement any changes to the Project, the Term Sheet, or the Transaction Documents that are proposed in connection with City's review of the Project under CEQA and any other applicable laws, including but not limited to the City's consideration or imposition of mitigation measures, its consideration of Project alternatives, and its consideration of a "no project" alternative to the Project. 4.5 Transaction Documents Following negotiation of the Term Sheet, the parties will negotiate a DDA, or other similar agreement, which will include all of the binding terms and conditions regarding the disposition and development of the Property for the conveyance of an interest in the Property to Developer (by sale, lease, or otherwise, to be determined by the City in its sole discretion), as well as any related transaction documents, such as the DA, Financing Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding, as appropriate (collectively, the "Transaction Documents"). 5. Required Payments 5.1 Negotiating Deposit In consideration of the right to negotiate exclusively with the City, Developer agrees to pay the City a non- refundable deposit in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100 U.S. Dollars ($150,000.00) (the "Negotiating Deposit") within seven (7) days after the Effective Date. The Negotiating Deposit and any other sums payable to the City under this Agreement must be tendered in United States currency in immediately available funds when due either by wire payment or by cashier's check. 5.2 Cost Recovery Developer agrees to reimburse the City for costs it incurs in reviewing and considering the Project and negotiating the Term Sheet and Transaction Documents ("Recoverable Costs") during the Term of this Agreement. Recoverable Costs shall be reasonable in light of the work performed and applicable market rates for consultant services and shall include without limitation City staff time; outside counsel fees (including, but not limited to, outside special land use and real estate counsel to the City); and real estate 16184.001 3254318x2 6 Execution Version economics, architecture, engineering, and other professional consultants' fees incurred by the City during the Term. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, the City will provide Developer with a proposed Recoverable Cost Budget containing the City's estimate of Recoverable Costs the City expects to incur during the Term. The Recoverable Cost Budget shall include a breakdown of estimated Recoverable Costs on a month -by -month basis from the Effective Date through the City Council's consideration of the Project. The Developer shall review and approve or disapprove the Recoverable Cost Budget within thirty (30) days of submittal to it of the Recoverable Cost Budget by City. Failure by Developer and City to agree upon the Recoverable Cost Budget within the time identified in the preceding sentence shall cause automatic termination of this Agreement. The Recoverable Cost Budget will be reviewed and updated quarterly. The Recoverable Costs paid by Developer are non-refundable to Developer. A fund (the "Recoverable Cost Deposit") will be established with a beginning balance equal to 100% of the Recoverable Costs estimated to be incurred within the first three (3) months following the Effective Date. The Developer agrees to tender the Recoverable Cost Deposit to the City within 30 days of the full execution of this Agreement. The City will apply the Recoverable Cost Deposit from time to time to reimburse the City for its reasonable Recoverable Costs. The City shall provide Developer no less than once per month with copies of the actual invoices for Recoverable Costs against which the City intends to pay from the Recoverable Cost Deposit; provided, however, that City may omit or redact attorney client privileged, work product, or otherwise confidential information from such actual invoices. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of any written request by City to do so, Developer shall tender funds as needed to replenish the Recoverable Cost Deposit to an amount sufficient to cover the upcoming three (3) months of Recoverable Costs estimated to be incurred by the City by the Recoverable Cost Budget. The City will return to Developer any portion of the Recoverable Cost Deposit that exceeds the amount actually incurred within 90 days after this Agreement terminates or expires. If Recoverable Costs exceed, or the City projects that Recoverable Costs will exceed, the applicable Recoverable Costs Budget by more than 15% in a given calendar year quarter, then the City shall notify Developer of such actual or anticipated exceedance (an "Overrun Notice') within fifteen (15) days after such 15% increase occurs or is projected to occur. Following receipt of an Overrun Notice, Developer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement effective upon written notice to the City provided such notice is given within thirty (30) days after the date of Developer's receipt of the Overrun Notice. If Recoverable Costs exceed the applicable Recoverable Costs Budget by more than 15% and the City has provided an Overrun Notice with respect to such costs, then Developer's obligation to reimburse any such costs actually incurred and owed by the City shall continue, and Developer shall remain obligated for such costs either (i) up to and including the date on which this Agreement is terminated, if Developer elects to terminate as a result of such cost overruns, or (ii) otherwise pursuant to the terms of this Section 5.2 if this Agreement is not terminated. 6. City Objectives 6.1 Compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan The City and Developer acknowledge that it is the intention of each of them that the Project Description is consistent with the policy direction conveyed in the City's "Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan" key policy objectives include (but are not limited to): (a) Open Space. In addition to providing at least the minimum public and private open space requirements stated within the City's zoning regulations for ownership and rental residential units, consistent with the "Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan" the Project shall include a signature public open space/plaza amenity to serve as a public amenity and gathering place within the Project site that will enliven this central area of Downtown Burlingame and its environs. (b) Housing. The development of a wide variety of housing types of varied size within the Downtown area that will appeal to varied income levels, including inclusionary housing units in amounts and at affordability levels to be preliminarily outlined in the Term Sheet, and provide the opportunity to bring a "resident population" to the area that will enliven and enhance the vitality of Downtown Burlingame. Election between for -sale housing (condominiums) and rental housing (apartments) shall be at Developer's option. 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version (c) Parking. The Project will be required to coordinate with the City to identify and help to implement (e.g., through payment of in lieu fees or similar contributions) a program for replacing the existing parking in Lot E with parking elsewhere at ratios consistent with the standards in the Downtown Specific Plan. Creative/non-traditional approaches to providing Project parking and replacement of public parking (e.g. shared parking, parking lifts or other similar conveyances, valet parking, tandem parking, or other solutions) may be considered by the City, with the understanding that the City has sole discretion to ultimately determine and approve the appropriate solution. The City will work with the Developer to identify the appropriate location for replacement parking. If warranted, the City will consider creative financing approaches (e.g. public/private partnerships, revenue financing approaches, etc.) for public parking facilities that the Developer puts forth with the understanding that acceptance of any approach is at the sole and absolute discretion of the City Council through its consideration of the Term Sheet and the Transaction Documents. (d) Other Economic/Commercial Priorities. Consider the inclusion of one or more of the economic or commercial priorities of the Downtown Specific Plan — for example, the strengthening of retail on side streets between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue; mixed retail and housing uses in the Downtown; encouragement of a boutique hotel somewhere in the Downtown —to the extent feasible alongside the important housing and parking objectives identified above. 6.2 General Fund Security The City will not entertain any financial proposals that could negatively impact the City's General Fund revenues. 6.3 Environmental Review and City Approvals The City and Developer acknowledge that the Project Description, the Term Sheet, the Transaction Documents, and the Project shall be required to comply fully with CEQA, regulations implementing CEQA, and all other applicable environmental or planning regulations at Developer's cost. Without limitation, the City and Developer acknowledge that the City retains full authority to: i) modify or disapprove, in its sole discretion, all or any portion of the Project Description, the Term Sheet, the Transaction Documents, or the Project; fl) impose mitigation measures to address potential environmental impacts associated with the Project Description, the Term Sheet, the Transaction Documents, or the Project; and iii) consider and approve or disapprove alternatives to the Project Description, the Term Sheet, the Transaction Documents, or the Project. The City's review and consideration of the proposed Project is expected to include submittal by Developer and consideration by City of applications for the following discretionary and ministerial approvals (the "City Approvals"): • Commercial Design Review Subdivision Map Approval (if required) Environmental Review pursuant to CEQA • Demolition and Building Permits 6.4 Public Benefits It is the City's objective that the Project will result in certain Public Benefits, including but not limited to: (a) Parking. The City expects the Project to provide parking for the Project uses at ratios consistent with the standards in the Downtown Specific Plan, to identify and contribute (e.g., through payment of in lieu fees or similar contributions) towards implementation of a program to provide 16184.001 3254318x2 Execution Version replacement parking elsewhere for the parking displaced from Lot E, and to the extent possible, further enhance the parking resources for downtown businesses. (b) Housing. The City expects the Project to meet the City's housing objectives as described in Section 6.1(b) above. (c) Public Space and Streetscape Improvements. The City expects the Project to contribute to the public realm through the provision of a multi-purpose Town Square and the beautification of the Downtown area through the provision of high-quality streetscape improvements consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. (d) Fiscal Revenue. The possibility of a recurring revenue stream from development of the Project, either through conveyance of a lease interest (in the event of lease of the Property), profit participation (in the event of a sale of the Property), or by some other mechanism. The interest in the Property to be conveyed by the City to Developer shall be determined by the City in its sole discretion. (e) Sustainability Goals. The City and Developer acknowledge that it is the intention of each of them that the Project incorporate both systems and planning principles to achieve the highest level of sustainability that is economically and otherwise feasible based on current technologies. 6.5 Post Office Parcel and Historic Preservation (a) The Post Office Parcel is a critical element of the Developer's proposed Project. The costs associated with Developer's recent acquisition and proposed development of the Post Office Parcel are the sole responsibility of the Developer. The City can neither subsidize the purchase nor write down the value of the Property to help finance Developer's acquisition or development. (b) Both parties acknowledge that it is their intention that the Project, if approved, will comply with any mitigation measures or other requirements under CEQA relating to historic resource impacts of the Project at Developer's sole expense. 6.6 Adjacent Site Development (a) The City does not object to Developer acquiring one or more additional adjacent sites to improve the efficiency or feasibility of the Project at the Developer's sole expense and risk. (b) In the event Developer proposes to include any adjacent property in the Project, Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Project Description, submit to City evidence that Developer is authorized to do each of the following as to such added property: i) negotiate on behalf of the owner; ii) submit and pursue applications for City Approvals consistent with the terms of this Agreement, including Cost Recovery pursuant to Section 5.2; and iii) develop the property. City shall have thirty (30) days to review and approve Developer's evidence pursuant to this Section 6.6(b) and Developer shall be responsible to include such time for review prior to the Project Description Performance Date. 7. Developer's Obligations and Rights Developer must pursue diligently and in good faith all of its obligations under this Agreement during the Exclusive Negotiation Period. In furtherance of this Agreement, Developer agrees as follows. 16184.001 3254318v2 Execution Version 7.1 Developer's Costs Developer is responsible for furnishing the non-refundable Negotiating Deposit described in Section 5.1 and for funding and reimbursing the City for Recoverable Costs as described in Section 5.2. Developer will be solely responsible for all costs (including fees for its attorneys, architects, engineers, consultants, and other professionals) Developer incurs related to or arising from this Agreement, the negotiation and preparation of the Term Sheet and the Transaction Documents, the negotiation and processing of City Approvals (as defined in Section 6.3), and the development and construction of the Project. Developer will have no claims against the City for reimbursement for Developer's costs (except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement) even if: (a) the Project is not feasible; (b) the Project is determined to be inconsistent with the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan; (c) one or more City Approvals necessary for development of the Project is delayed, conditioned, or denied; or (d) the City Council fails to endorse the Project Description or the Term Sheet or elects to disapprove or take no action on the Term Sheet, one or more Transaction Documents, or the Project. 7.2 Submittals to City Developer shall provide copies to the City of Developer's reports and studies on material aspects of the Project, including all non -confidential environmental, engineering, and other reports associated with the Performance Milestones identified in Section 3.1. 7.3 Selection of Consultants Developer shall use the following planning, architectural and engineering consultants: DES Architects + Engineers, unless Developer notifies the City in writing that it desires to use other consultants. Any change in the consultants to be used by Developer in connection with the Project shall require the consent of the City Manager, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 7.4 Obligations and Conditions Relating to City Approvals (a) The parties acknowledge that the Project is required to be consistent with the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan, City Zoning Code, Adopted General Plan, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, if applicable. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and review and consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council are required in connection with the City Approvals. (b) Developer agrees to cooperate with the City to develop and adhere to a Public Outreach Strategy that will include at least two public workshops with the City Council in attendance. (c) Any conveyance of an interest in the Property — whether by lease, sale, or otherwise — from City to Developer shall not occur until Developer has obtained all City Approvals (other than any building or site permits) and the City Approvals (other than any building or site permits) have become Final Approvals. A City Approval shall become a "Final Approval" upon the latest to occur of: (i) the date upon which any appeal period for such City Approval expires with no appeal having been timely filed; (ii) the date upon which any applicable statute of limitations relating to such City Approval under the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning & Zoning Law, or other federal, state or local law has expired with no legal challenge having been filed; (iii) the date upon which any claim, writ, litigation, or appeal with respect to such City Approval has been prosecuted and resolved through dismissal with prejudice or final judgment in a manner that is not subject to any further appeal, petition for review, or remand to any lower courts or governmental agency; and (iv) if a referendum petition relating in any adverse way (as determined by Developer in its reasonable good faith discretion) to the Project is timely and duly circulated and filed, certified as valid and the City holds an election, the date the election results on the ballot measure are certified by in the manner provided by applicable laws reflecting 16184.001 3254318x2 10 Execution Version the final defeat or rejection of the referendum. City Approvals shall not include any site or building permits. (d) Developer will be solely responsible for applying for, obtaining, and paying all costs associated with all City Approvals. City agrees to expeditiously process Developer's application for City Approvals consistent with the City's Municipal Code and state and federal law. 7.5 No Representation or Warranty Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City has made no representation or warranty that the City Approvals can or will be obtained. Developer acknowledges and agrees that City retains and will exercise full discretionary authority for review of, and approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of, the Term Sheet, the Transaction Documents, the Project, and the City Approvals. 7.6 Project Coordination Meetings Developer and the City will meet monthly to discuss Project coordination, Transaction Documents, entitlement issues, and other Project -related matters, unless the meeting is waived or rescheduled by mutual agreement. B. City's Obligations and Rights 8.1 City's Obligations The City agrees to: (a) gather and provide all available reports, studies, and documentation pertaining to the Property; (b) cooperate with Developer in expeditiously processing all applications by Developer for City Approvals; (c) if required, assist Developer in filing and processing all Environmental Approvals; and (d) respond promptly to requests for coordination, consultation, and scheduling additional meetings regarding the Project. This Section does not limit or otherwise constrain the City's discretion, powers, and duties as a regulatory agency to independently review and consider the Term Sheet, Transaction Documents, Project, and City Approvals or to comply fully with CEQA, including but not limited to exercise of the City's authority to impose mitigation measures, consider alternatives to the Project, and disapprove or take no action on the Project. 8.2 City Action Subject to Environmental Review The City will not approve any Transaction Documents or take any other discretionary actions that will have the effect of committing the City to the development of the Project or disposition of the Property until the City has complied fully with CEQA. The City retains absolute discretion to: (a) modify the Project to mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts; (b) select feasible alternatives to avoid significant adverse impacts of the proposed Project (including the "no project" alternative); (c) require the implementation of specific mitigation measures to address adverse environmental impacts of the Project identified in the applicable CEQA documents; (d) reject the Project as proposed if the economic and social benefits of the Project do not outweigh otherwise unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the Project; or (e) approve the proposed Project upon a finding that the economic, social, or other benefits of the Project outweigh unavoidable significant adverse impacts of the Project. 8.3 Timing of Conveyance of Interest Conveyance of an interest in the Property from City to Developer — whether by lease, sale, or otherwise — will be conditioned upon Developer obtaining all City Approvals and such approvals becoming Final Approvals. 16184.001 3254318x2 11 Execution Version 8.4 Permissions for Entries and Investigations The City will reasonably cooperate with Developer in obtaining permission for access to the Property for the purpose of performing tests, surveys and inspections, and obtaining data necessary or appropriate to the negotiations described in this Agreement and to obtain all City Approvals for the Project, upon the written request by Developer to the City. Prohibited Actions 9.1 No Assignment Developer acknowledges that the City is entering into this Agreement on the basis of Developer's interest in the Post Office Parcel and Developer's intent to pursue coordinated development of the Development Site. This Agreement is personal to Developer and, except as provided in this Agreement, may not be transferred without the City's prior consent, which may be withheld in the City's sole and absolute discretion. Any transfer in violation of this Section will be an incurable default under this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer shall have the right, subject to City approval which shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or conditioned, to assign or transfer its interest in this Agreement to any partnership, limited liability company, or other entity which: (i) retains a greater than fifty percent (50%) ownership interest in, and control over the management, operation, and future development of, the Post Office Property; (ii) has net assets of at least Twenty Five Million and No/100 U.S. Dollars ($25,000,000.00); and (iii) has at least fifteen (15) years of experience developing residential and/or mixed use retail and residential projects of fifty (50) units or greater in the San Francisco Bay Area. Any other proposed transfers -- including, for example, proposed changes in control or management of Developer -- shall be presented to the City Council, along with any documentation requested to facilitate the Council's review, and the decision whether to grant or deny such transfer shall be within the sole discretion of the City Council. 9.2 Prohibited Payments & Anti -Corruption 9.2.1 Prohibited Payments Developer may not pay, or agree to pay, any fee or commission, or any other thing of value contingent on entering into this Agreement, any other Transaction Document, or any other agreement with the City related to the Project, to any City employee or official, or to any City consultant for the Project. By entering into this Agreement, Developer certifies to the City that Developer has not paid or agreed to pay any fee or commission, or any other thing of value contingent on entering into this Agreement, any other Transaction Document, or any other agreement with the City related to the Project, to any City employee or official, or to any City consultant for the Project. 9.2.2 Anti -Corruption. To the extent applicable to each of them, (a) Developer and City each represent and warrant to the other that it is in compliance with anti -corruption and anti -bribery laws applicable to it ("Anti -Corruption Laws"), (b) Developer and City each agree not to commit any offense under Anti -Corruption Laws in connection with this Agreement or pursuit or consideration of the Project or Transactional Documents; and (c) neither Developer nor City nor their officers, employees, agents, contractors ("Associated Persons") shall engage in any activity, practice, or conduct which would constitute an offense under any Anti -Corruption Laws (including paying or accepting bribes, commissions, facilitation payments, or rewards; granting any rebates to any person; favoring or discriminating against any person with gifts or entertainment of significant cost or value in relation to the obtaining of any approval or permit or execution of any agreement). If either Developer or City becomes aware, or should reasonably be aware, of (i) any bribery or fraudulent or dishonest activity by it or its Associated Persons or (ii) any breach of the foregoing by it or its Associated Persons, such party shall immediately notify the other parties in writing and shall cooperate 16184.001 3254318x2 12 Execution Version fully with the other party in an investigation of such bribery of fraudulent or dishonest activity or such breach. 9.3 Ballot Measures Developer expressly agrees not to initiate, or to promote, support or pursue directly or indirectly the initiation of, any ballot measure relating to the Property or to the Project unless either: i) a ballot measure is proposed by the City Council or by residents that would adversely affect the Property or the Project, in which case Developer retains the right to initiate, promote, support or pursue a counter -initiative or other ballot measure in response; or ii) the City Council has previously consented to the measure by resolution in open session. 10. Remedies of City 10.1 Remedies of City Any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the City hereby waives and relinquishes any claim it may hereafter have arising from or in connection with any default by Developer under this Agreement, it being agreed that the sole remedy of the City for such a failure will be to terminate this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.2 and to retain the Negotiating Deposit (subject to the terms of Section 5.1(a)) and all Recoverable Costs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall be entitled to recover from Developer upon termination of this Agreement for any reason all outstanding, unpaid Recoverable Costs incurred by City hereunder and payable by Developer pursuant to Section 5.2. 10.2 Non -Liability of Members, Directors and Officers of Developer Without affecting the obligations or liabilities of the entities comprising Developer, no member of the entity comprising Developer or any member, director, officer, agent, consultant or employee of Developer will be personally liable to the City for any claim, loss, expense or liability arising from or in connection with this Agreement, and the City hereby waives any such liability. 11. Remedies of Developer 11.1 Remedies of Developer Any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, Developer hereby waives and relinquishes any claim for money damages, including actual, consequential, special, or punitive damages, it may hereafter have arising from or in connection with any default by the City under this Agreement, it being agreed that the sole remedy of Developer for such default will be, at Developer's election, to either: i) terminate this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.1 (in which event Developer is entitled to recovery of the Negotiating Deposit in full, provided Developer is not in default); or ii) bring an action against the City in equity for specific performance and/or injunctive relief to compel compliance with City's obligations under this Agreement. The City and Developer acknowledge and agree that the City would not have signed this Agreement but for the waivers and agreements set forth above in this Section 11. 1, which form a material part of the consideration received by the City under this Agreement, and that Developer's right to terminate this Agreement and seek recovery of the Negotiating Deposit due to the City's default will constitute an adequate and sufficient remedy under such circumstances. 11.2 Non -Liability of Employees and Officers of the City No employee of the City nor any Councilmember, Commissioner, officer, agent, or consultant of the City will be personally liable to Developer for any claim, loss, expense or liability arising from or in connection with this Agreement, and Developer hereby waives any such liability. 16184.001 3254318x2 13 Execution Version 12. Sole Risk of the Parties Subject to the provisions of Sections 1.1, 10 and 11, Developer and the City acknowledge and agree that they are proceeding at their own risk and expense (except with respect to Recoverable Costs to be reimbursed to City, to the extent otherwise provided in this Agreement, and except as otherwise hereafter agreed in writing by the parties) until such time as a DDA and/or other Transaction Documents are executed and without any assurance that the parties will mutually agree on the terms of the DDA and other Transaction Documents, or that a DDA and other Transaction Documents will be executed. The parties further understand and agree that there is no assurance that Developer will receive all necessary City Approvals for the Project, and Developer is proceeding at its own risk and expense until such time as City Approvals may be obtained. 13. Rights of Termination 13.1 Termination by Developer 13.1.1 For City Default Developer may terminate this Agreement upon at least twenty (20) days advance written notice to the City in the event of default by City of City's obligation to negotiate exclusively and in good faith provided that City has not cured such default within such notice period. Upon termination by Developer pursuant to this Section 13.1.1, the Negotiating Deposit shall be returned to Developer. 13.1.2 For Infeasibility In Developer's Discretion. Developer may terminate this Agreement upon at least twenty (20) days advance written notice to the City in the event Developer determines, in its discretion, that the Project is infeasible. Infeasibility for purposes of this section may be based on either generalized conditions such as the status of the market or upon Developer -specific circumstances such as a shift in strategic focus or financial priorities. 13.1.3 Effect of Developer Termination In the event of any termination by Developer pursuant to this Section 13. 1, (i) Developer shall continue to perform its obligations under this Agreement until the effective date of the termination; (ii) the obligation of the City to negotiate solely with Developer shall expire upon the effective date of the termination; and (iii) the City may negotiate with any other party selected by the City for such purpose and may terminate the Project or may take such other course of action as the City may determine after the effective date of the termination. Upon termination by Developer for any reason other than default by the City, including termination by Developer for infeasibility pursuant to Section 13.1.2 or for any other reason pursuant to this Section 13.1.3, the Negotiating Deposit shall be retained by the City following termination. 13.2 Termination by the City The City may terminate this Agreement: (a) upon at least twenty (20) days advance written notice to Developer in the event of a default or breach by Developer under this Agreement (except a failure to meet a Performance Date, which shall be subject to Section 13.2(b) below) provided Developer has not cured such default within such notice period; or (b) upon at least sixty (60) days advanced written notice to Developer in the event of a failure to meet a Performance Date subject to the procedures and cure provisions of Section 3.3. In the event of any termination by the City pursuant to this Section 13.2, on the effective date of the termination: (i) the obligation of the City to negotiate solely with Developer shall expire and the City may negotiate with any other party selected by the City for such purpose, may terminate the Project or may take such other course of action as the City may determine, (ii) Developer's Negotiating Deposit shall be retained by the City; and (iii) Developer shall have no obligation to perform any obligations under this Agreement. If requested by Developer, the City shall cease to incur any 16184.001 325431 Sv2 14 Execution Version Reimbursable Costs following the City's issuance of a notice of termination pursuant to this Section 13.2 The City shall not be entitled to reimbursement of any Reimbursable Costs incurred after the effective date of a termination pursuant to this Section 13.2. 13.3 Failure to Agree or Failure to Endorse 13.3.1 Failure to Agree. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, provided that the City and Developer, respectively, have complied with the other provisions of this Agreement, failure to reach agreement upon the Term Sheet or upon one or more of the Transaction Documents shall not be considered a default by City or Developer. 13.3.2 Failure to Endorse Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, provided that the City and Developer, respectively, have complied with the other provisions of this Agreement, a decision by the Planning Commission or City Council not to endorse the Project Description or the Term Sheet shall not be considered a default by City, provided, however, that in such event, the City shall, upon Developer's request, meet with Developer to discuss potential alternatives to the rejected Project Description and/or Term Sheet and any requests by Developer for extensions of related Performance Dates pursuant to this Agreement. 14. Discretion of the Parties By entering into this Agreement: (i) the City does not commit itself to enter into any other or further agreement regarding the Property, the Development Site, or the Project; (ii) the City maintains full and unfettered authority to approve, approve with conditions, approve alternatives to, or disapprove the Project or any of the Transaction Documents; and (iii) Developer does not commit itself to enter into any other or further agreement regarding the Property, the Development Site, or the Project. 15. Intellectual Property Rights to Plans 15.1 Developer Designs Developer hereby agrees, following the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement and upon a written request by City, to provide to City (to the extent of the intellectual property rights, if any, then held by Developer) at no cost to the City for the City to use those portions of any graphics, images, drawings, logos, models, films, simulations, artwork, copy, posters, billboards, photographs, videotapes, audio tapes, systems designs, software, reports, diagrams, surveys, studies, source codes, intellectual property rights, designs, plans, specifications, cost estimates and copyrights or any other original works of authorship and design of Lot E prepared by or on behalf of Developer in connection with the Project (collectively, "Developer Designs") pertaining to development on the Property. Developer's delivery of the Developer Designs shall be without any representation or warranty whatsoever as to their contents, completeness or otherwise. 15.2 Physical Studies If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 13 by either party, or at the end of the Term, Developer shall deliver to the City copies of all engineering designs or reports or environmental studies pertaining to Lot E in Developer's possession or prepared by or on behalf of Developer (the "Physical Studies"). Developer shall deliver the Physical Studies within thirty (30) days after written demand from the City, which obligation shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. Developer's delivery of the Physical Studies shall be without any representation or warranty whatsoever as to their contents, completeness or otherwise. 16184.001 3254318x2 15 Execution Version 15.3 Developer Warranty and Indemnification Developer hereby warrants and covenants that, upon Developer's delivery to City of Developer Designs pursuant to Section 15.1 and/or Physical Studies pursuant to Section 15.2, Developer has the authority to transfer to City pursuant to this Section 15 all necessary rights, including any applicable intellectual property rights, in the respective Developer Designs and/or Physical Studies. 15.4 City Designs All graphics, images, drawings, logos, models, films, simulations, artwork, copy, posters, billboards, photographs, videotapes, audio tapes, systems designs, software, reports, diagrams, surveys, studies, source codes, intellectual property rights, designs, plans, specifications, cost estimates and copyrights or any other original works of authorship and design of the Project prepared by or on behalf of the City, including all iconic representations of the Project (collectively, "City Designs"), shall remain the property of the City. Developer shall be prohibited from using City Designs, except in furtherance of the Project, without the advance written permission of the City. 15.5 Survival This Section 15 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 16. Press Releases and Press Conferences Developer shall not issue, or authorize any other person or entity to issue, any written press release, statement or advertisement (individually and collectively, "Press Release") to any media outlet (including newspapers, radio and television stations and web sites) relating to the Project, the terms and provisions of this Agreement or any other agreement between the City and Developer ("Press Matters") without the prior written consent of the City, except that Developer may describe its involvement in the Project as a part of materials describing their business activities generally, such as in firm brochures. Developer shall not hold any press conference relating to Press Matters without the prior written consent of the City. The provisions of Section 18 notwithstanding, any consent required to be obtained pursuant to this Section 16 may be given by electronic correspondence, copies of which are addressed to the electronic mail addresses of each of the persons referred to in Section 18. 17. Real Estate Commissions Developer and the City each represents to the other that it engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby. In the event any broker, agent or finder makes a claim, the party through whom such claim is made agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other party from any costs or losses arising out of such claim. This Section 17 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 18. Notices 18.1 Addresses for Notices Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed given and received (i) when personally delivered, (ii) the next day following the deposit of such notice with a commercial airfreight delivery service under circumstances where next day delivery is requested or is standard, or (iii) upon receipt when deposited with the United States Postal Service, first-class postage prepaid and return receipt requested. Electronic mail correspondence is generally acceptable except in the case of final execution of documents requiring authorizing signatures. 16184.001 3254318x2 16 Execution Version (a) In the case of a notice or communication to the City: The City of Burlingame Attn: Mr. William Meeker, Community Development Director Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road — 2nd Floor Burlingame, California 94010 Phone: (650) 558-7255 Fax: (650) 696-3790 e-mail: wmeeker@burlingame.org With copies to: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Phone: (650)558-7243 Fax: (650)556-9281 e-mail: Igoldman@burlingame.org and Kathleen Kane, City Attorney City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Phone: (650) 558-7263 Fax: (650) 556-9281 e-mail: kkane@burlingame.org (b) And in the case of a notice or communication sent to Developer: Burlingame Park Square, LLC Attn: Rene Y. Wang -Lu 533 Airport Blvd., Suite 400 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650-373-2118 Fax: None e-mail: renewlu@gmail.com Stanley Lo Green Banker, LLC 398 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650-373-0007 Fax: 650-373-0066 e-mail: stanleylo@greenbanker.com With copies to: Attorney as designated in writing by Developer. 16184M1 3254318x2 17 Execution Version 18.2 Changes in Addresses for Notices Any mailing address or electronic mail address may be changed at any time by giving written notice of such change in the manner provided above at least ten (10) days before the effective date of the change. 19. General Provisions 19.1 Miscellaneous Matters This Agreement contains all the representations and the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by the City and Developer. No waiver made by either party with respect to the performance, or manner or time of performance, of any obligation of the other party will be considered a waiver with respect to any aspect of the particular obligation of the other party beyond those aspects expressly waived, or a waiver in any respect of any other rights of the party making the waiver or any other obligations of the other party. If any provision of this Agreement, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid by any court, the invalidity or inapplicability of such provision shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement or the application of such provision to any other person or circumstance, and the remaining portions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Agreement as so modified by and in response to such invalidation would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all of the circumstances or would frustrate the fundamental purposes of this Agreement. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind the respective successors and assigns of the City and Developer, subject to the limitations on assignment by Developer set forth in Section 9.1 above. This Agreement is for the exclusive benefit of the parties hereto and not for the benefit of any other person and shall not be deemed to have conferred any rights, express or implied, upon any other person or entity. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If either party fails to perform any of its respective obligations under this Agreement or if any dispute arises between the parties hereto concerning the meaning or interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, then the defaulting party or the party not prevailing in such dispute, as the case may be, shall pay any and all costs and expenses incurred by the other party on account of such default or in enforcing or establishing its rights under this Agreement, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The subject of this Agreement is a private development with neither the City nor Developer acting as the agent of the other in any respect. None of the provisions in this Agreement shall be deemed to render the City a partner in Developer's business, or a joint venturer or member in any joint enterprise with Developer. 19.2 Interpretation of Agreement Initially capitalized terms shall have the meaning given such terms in this Agreement. The use of the terms "including," "such as" or words of similar import when following any general term, statement or matter shall not be construed to limit such term, statement or matter to the specific items or matters enumerated, whether or not language of non -limitation is used, it being agreed that language of non - limitation was omitted in reliance on the provisions of this Section 19.2. Rather, such terms shall be deemed to refer to all other items or matters that could reasonably fall within the broadest possible scope of such statement, term, or matter. The use of the term "incur" or "incurred" or words of similar import, when used with respect to costs or expenses, means having the obligation to pay for goods or services or other things rendered at the request of the party having the obligation, whether or not a billing or invoice for such goods or services has been delivered and whether or not such obligation has been satisfied by payment. Whenever a section, article or paragraph is referenced, it refers to this Agreement unless otherwise specifically identified. The captions preceding the articles and sections of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only. Such captions shall not define or limit the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm's length and between persons sophisticated and knowledgeable in the matters dealt with herein. In addition, each party has been represented by experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel. Accordingly, any rule of 16184.001 3254318x2 18 Execution Version law (including California Civil Code Section 1654) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this Agreement against the party that has drafted it is not applicable and is waived. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted in a reasonable manner to effect the purposes of the parties and this Agreement. [Signatures on Following Page.] 16184.001 3254318v2 19 Execution Version IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have duly executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY The City of Burlingame By: Name: Its: Approved as to form: By: Name: Its: DEVELOPER: Burlingame Park Square, LLC By: Name: Its: DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATIONS AGREEMENT by and between The City of Burlingame and Burlingame Park Square, LLC '2015 16184.001 3254318x2 20 Execution Version Exhibit A — Property Description 16184.001 3254318V2 LF �� G l0 .per y POST LOT N <, LOT J u. 1T LOT W I.Nk L lOT F� h � 16184.001 3254318V2 Execution Version 16184.001 3254318V2 Exhibit B PERFORMANCE MILESTONES y Due Diligence to submit to City a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. its option. Developer may submit a Phase II Environmental Site sessment (it warranted in Developer's judgment and discretion). liminary Development Analysis Exastmg Conditions Analysis Preservabaon / Reuse Strategy Market .Analysis Traffic, Circtlation and Parking Study Public Outreach Strategy Concept and Project Description. Developer to submit a Project Description sufficient to commence CEQA compliance, including: the development program, height and massing, parking and transportation, an infrastructure plan, and development rrmal Planning Review, Priority Negotiation Issues and mining Reports per Section 3A reloper to work with City Staff to perform work specked in Section 4.2 hire consultants to procuce the following reports based on the design Ghon that is established during this time period. Infrastructure Needs Analysis Cost Estimates Financial Pro Forma Preliminary Public Outreach i r Time for Performance I ESA: Thirty (30) Days After Effective Date II ESA (if elected by Developer): Phase I ESA tal Date + Sixty (60) Days (60) Days After Effective Date Hundred Twenty (120) Days After Effective Date Hundred Eighty (180) Days After Effective Date Completed Two Hundred Seventy (270) Days After Effective Date 1 Exhibit B PERFORMANCE MILESTONES Performance Milestones Time for Performance Althotsgn a wA be more formally established as required in Section 3.1.8, it is thet during a three month period public meetings will be sctveueje'= er esa community groups, stakeholders, regulatory agar-. and the City are informed of its activities. This process may cveriap #h 2c. �t3 1 11preltrn3natry Tenn Sheet Two Hundred Ten (210) Days After Effective Data I Devert v to submit preliminary draft of Term Sheet 4. (f Planning Commission and City Council Endorsements EPla.nning Comzz s. — n recommendation on whether to endorse Project Planning Commission Consideration of Project IkDe&cnptran. hx !ng whether suitable to commence CEQA process and Description: Within Sixty (60) Days After Developer whether consis-eni " Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. Submittal of Both Project Description and Term Sheet City Council to ccnsx3er whether to endorse: (a) Project Description, City Council Consideration of Project Description: including whether suitable to commence CEQA process and whether Within Sixty (60) Days of Planning Commission consistent with Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan, and (b) Term Sheet. Recommendations. City Council Consideration of Term Sheet: Within One Hundred Twenty (120) Days After Developer Submittal of Both Project Description and Term Sheet 5. Developer and City Manager Execute Endorsed Term Sheet Within 10 Days After City Council Endorsement 0STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 0 MEETING DATE: To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director— (650) 558-7222 9a September 21, 2015 Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2015-16 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: 1. Hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District (BID) assessments; 2. Close the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City; and, 3. If protests do not represent 50% of the majority of the assessments, adopt the resolution approving and levying the 2015-16 assessments. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2015-16 Downtown Burlingame Avenue BID assessments on August 17, 2015 and established September 21, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing date and time. If there is a protest by businesses that represent a majority of the value of the assessments, then the resolution cannot be approved. As of the time of writing this memorandum, the City had received one protest; protests may be presented in writing before or at the hearing. Anv and all protests must be received by the Citv Clerk at or before the FISCAL IMPACT Approximately $90,000 in assessments are collected annually from businesses within the district; all of these funds are forwarded to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for improvements as authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame has in the past covered the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID. Exhibits: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2015-16 Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Letter of Protest RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND LEVYING THE 2015-16 DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS ON THE WITHIN THE DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the City Council of the City of Burlingame adopted ordinance 1735 in 2004, establishing the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID) for the purpose of promoting the Downtown Burlingame Avenue business area; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing on the District Assessments for the year 2006- 2007, the Council determined that a majority protest had been made and no further assessment was levied; and WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to re-establish the DBID and to impose a new assessment formula; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, after a public hearing at which it received public comment and written protests, the City Council determined that a majority protest had not been made and adopted the ordinance re-establishing the DBID; and WHEREAS, the DBID has operated successfully during the past five years as evidenced by the DBID's annual reports; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to levy the 2015-16 assessments on businesses within the District and copies of said resolution and notice of public hearing were mailed to all businesses within the District; and WHEREAS, the DBID has provided important services in enhancing the downtown Burlingame Avenue business area, its businesses and properties in the past year; and WHEREAS, the basis of assessment on the businesses within the District will remain the same as the prior year; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine and find as follows: 1. The City Council finds that all of the facts stated herein and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The City Council determines and finds that there is no majority protest within the meaning of Streets & Highways Code sections 36523, 36524, 36525, and 36542. The City Council approves the method and formula of assessment for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District. 4. The City Council approves and levies the 2015-16 assessments on the businesses within the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District as delineated in assessment list attached hereto as Exhibit "A" which is by this reference incorporated herein. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from the assessment. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 21st day of September, 2015, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk to N N N C4 N T LL Q LL H F Z W h tn W Ln U Q u F '^ U V Z— r Co W O F C v n. N N W Z co 00 Z O F Z 3 O 0 m m O O n 0 m N ut N O O O O O N O ul d' O V O N O m a 0 a d' O O W m vt O O O N N 0 O N O N 0 N O N V O V O n O N 7 0 d' N O O N V01 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 p 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . O tll 0 0 0 0 0 0 vi O N6 0 0 0 of O O m 0 0 m O vl vl O O O ut V1 O M O N m N m O N� N ill �0 N V0 N a0 tn0 0 NN00 Vi yA L} VT N N th N VT H tR iA N 1/} VT VT VF U} Ul Vl V} N ih iA 4T VF VF VIT il} to iR O O O t00 W N 000 0 0 0 0 m m 0 ON 0 0 0 0 N 0 t00 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 v01 00 O N O O O O O O N O N O O O O N O N O N O O N O N N O O O N N N ci N N N N N e -I N N N N H N N N rl N N N N N N N N N �i N N N N O O O O O O m O 0 0 0 0 O N 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 w O O O O O O N O m dN' W ONl O W n W N m O Ont N N V Ont O m O N rl N N N N N N N H M t0 N m Ifl W O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Oa O O O O m m a a a v rn m rn m rn m m m rn m m m m rn m m m m� m o m Q a Q Q Q¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ Q Q Q Q vm¢¢¢ Q a U U U U U U V V U V U U U U V U U o ¢ ¢ O Q z Z U a V u V U u u u u LL w w w w w w w2 w w w w w2 u7 w w w2 w u w w w w w w ui ua >> 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2i:ii 2i t5 :E o 2 2 2 2 z 2 cy cr ¢ a a¢ a¢ a a a Q Q a a a a Q a¢ ¢ z Q a Q a Q a a a a w w U' l7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U' 0 0 U' U' 0 U' 0 U' 0 0 0 0 0 z l7 l7 C7 C7 WD WD z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z J z o z w z z z z Z z J z z 0 cf V1 J J U m m m m m m m m m Q Q m a N O ; W > N > > `^ > Ol m > `ti > Q m. W twit z aU' vwi a N W w a >> wK w a ° a te¢>a aLL> aa Q> aQ QQ¢Oa > O7 Q C7 Q U Clz C7 Q¢ l7 N¢ a rn m O m z 0¢ z 0¢ O z z Z z z a z z Z w z O z¢ Z z p Z p z Z o 0 3 l a z a° 3° ° w a 0 z a a g 'Q N N J 2 O rG O 2, S K 0 W 7 0_' S 2 O 2 w p S C a u m 2 0 a x a m U m u O 2 p m p 3 m Z U 2 m U to m m U O m m O O1 dam' O N m O a N N O Ing d' Om1 N N M l0 Z t�Yl N O N O O rl m a m M N O V N O •-I V d' a a N N a a n N— d N m� l0 � M N o o m m c-1 m e -I m N ''-I N .--I rl ci M 'i m H m It e -I a e -I . H H H m H m 0. m Y w n Q 2i K C w w v > m¢ w S w >� O Z m V Ob w Z O J Z F J Q Ul Z = z ymj ¢ a W m U w w p O O0 F u z O Z uZ UZ Z V w z O z z Q Q z a aQ " u O yup N OJ 0 F g ¢ O a w m o: w z U° Z J u a 0 tail two d. m Q LL N w o u K w p m a CL 0 F- 3 z w G" o w o a< w a u u oo o a w w u w O OJ w J Z u w U iwil a s �n ww Y:it 0. >' z N Z O m w z z O a Q m rn 3 0 0 u> K¢ Z z m LL a m 0 Z Z a a� m w g w , Z m m Z n v m a a a a a a a a a a a a a¢ a a a a d a a a a a m m m m m N ci m N N N N m e m. N N m N H m a m� m N. m. rl m m N c-1 e -I t0 H LA N O N } LL O LL In z Z W V) N W V) V) 1 I n n l0 • e N w h O I t n n N n w n• N 0 O w e N r m n n n N n O O O N O N m m C N O O O m 0 0 0 0 ul O W lD O N N 1� N m n n Ol 01 N N .-i M N N N I� .-i h O ill Ol m Ot N N M N N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ut 0 0 0 0 vl O N O O O O N w v1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O V O m l0 w I� m O O O N O N O O N N O l0 N w m N 0 l0 O O 0 N O O O 0 m O Ll Vl N Ifl N c -I N N N .-I N M N N N N N N I� N N M V e -I Vl '7 N N N rl N N M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a m l0 tD M m O O O w l0 Ifl O w m 0 l0 N 00 V V N N N N N t0 N N M a M N N O O O O O O O M O O O O vl O N O O ul O O vl vl O vl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O N O O O O N O N O O N O O N N O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c -I N N N H N N N rl N N N N N N N N c-1 N N N N N N N N H N N N N N N d' O l0 O O N v O O O W O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N O O O O O O O O m 0 0 V N O m m ill N Vl O w H O H N W N M N m v m m vl m n cl a w m o I co m o v ry L6 ifl N N N t0 N N M a N M n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m rn m m m m m m m rn m m m m N m rn m o Q a rn m m m m rn m m m m u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u rn u u u O1 m p u u u u u u u u u u LL LL G wLl LL Ld ui Li w w w w w w Ld Li w Q w , L'u uN wcwcwcwCwGL we wcLL w G C G G G C2m :5 cCGGG G cu CG c G yj O U G G G G G G G G G G a a a Q a Q Q a a a a a a a a a a B a a a O w z a a a a a a a a a a z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z o z z Z¢ c a m Z z z z Z Z z z z Z J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J u J J J I:J G w J J J J J J J J J J C z z z m¢ m m z z C CL C m¢ K K Z K K K yl Z Z z== W W W w z z m mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmOUmmm N mmmmmmmmmm � O o u # w> Q a> p p > w J N O> Q# lJ a s O m# K Q> m# o # W# mw a a w w w# Qa # w v3l w3 Q w Qti ##Q Q o¢aaOca# a a> a > 2 (D w zzZ-Zw waa ZE # aw Nw m waax az aamapo 3zmOmmQm ¢O m . 0Qm ¢ =¢ =u 2 o o o 2 o o o UaaumUmu 0> U U O a o mQ rn o ti M rn n .� .ti o o ry o am ul o n 0 o o v la o .-+ o .ti o m o m m M v o v o 0 o m m o vl o M O m H M m c -I 'i u Z u F Z Z Z J O w U OK m U F- a Q d w Y w m a U J N Z w Z Q i¢it m m Z U x m m Z w 7 U w J m F- O U x Q > O� Q > z w w m u O m d (7 O w 2 Z O a p0 2 2 2 ZZ Z Z c� O d >> a (Q7 0 la7 O G J J O N p G Fx_, < J W �- z Z z >> VI O W W Vl 0 V~1 O uaj ¢ C) O W W C7 pJ J J J O O K d' K CG CL m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N N x v � N N N U m n �o m Io m m m n m �o Y N M N N a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m V O 0 N m N O N m m O h 1� n 0 O 1� 0 O m 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 d Ol m 01 m N e -I M rl N N M m N m m m N O h m L OO a+ O N a 0 o 0 0 0 N m O N w N N N O m N m O m 0 l0 O O O N > 0 O o o 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 _ N�o vi o o v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o vi o 0 0 o vi m N m N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O m N 1p m m l0 N 0 a V V 0 a O N 0 m O O N O in N N N a a rl rl m rl N N N m N N N V m N N N N m m Ill N m N 1p N N N N N N a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y m m N O O N O m N tp m m lO N V [Y a a O m O m � m m at .-� d- .-i m y .-i •+ o v v v m .a t u N O m 0 0 m 0 0 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 m O O O N O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � m LL � O m m m 0 0 0 m O O d' O O O O m O It m O O O O O m O m O O O O O O lD O m d' O w W a V V m N O l0 N l0 O O O I� M O O rl W m V m y rl m ry v .�; d' .ti v ili '-T .�; vi vi ui vi a N Q m t O 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 O O O O ymj 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O ci N ri ci N ei e -I 'i N c -I O rl rl N ci .-I 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O �} O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Ol Ql m m Ol Ol 't M � 0 M M 7 m N V m V m V m Q� U a a v v v v v a a a v v N M M O1 m m 01 Ol Ol dl Ol 01 m Ol m M m u u u¢¢ u a u a U a U a U a¢ a � a o¢¢ o a¢ a a H a a m a a o p x U U U U U U U U U V m O1 U V Q U V m f0 ul u3 ui w mm ui I.t LL ui u? ¢ u7 O W L L Z u7 W w W W W W L ui ua Iu U m u �i 22 w2 < O u y a a a a a a a a a a L a a a a a¢ a a a a a a a¢ a w¢¢ V C7 l7 l7 U` 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 m 0 l7 U' a U' 0 0 0 0 0 U' l7 "' 0 0 0 l7 (7 Z z z z y z z z z z m z z z z U z Z w z z Z z Z Z p z z z c a z z J J J J (� J J J J J m J J J J Q J J Z J J J J J J J J J G J J a Q m' m' K m' K J �' J C d' m' m K W' Z M CC w OC 2' K Z CL K m 7 z>>> 0 7) 0 D 7 7 0 D 7 D 7 D D D¢ 0 0 7 Q D D m m m m F m m m m m m U m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m N O 9 O �y N N m x O L6 V O m N LL M O H m> Q 5i It m m o m 7k J# p p N 4 Z Q Yt p N - w W W W :I pl ii Y w K K Q a W w W w D R [[ w W m' ¢ f V Q¢ Q Q> Q> ¢ ¢¢>> p o W> a a '~^ g Q Q¢ Q > Z J 0 z o M¢ a a¢¢ L ¢ z z m m a a a z � 'o �¢ 3 z z V 0 Z z 0 0¢¢ z Z 0 a m Z¢ ¢ J 0 m a W Q m m 0 m� m w Q Z 0( 0 0 z Z K m F. 0 z 0 Z m W 0 K K m� Z J Q m 0 W 0 0 0 I' J' 0 2 m¢ 2 0 0 m J w w¢ 0 0 2 2 rc m x O O m m 2 U Q u V Q a m x Q V rt O Q ti a m o ti o m m a a 3 m ti J u z a a u a a 3 u m J m N O N O N O O l� m N tD N o N M m 0 0 0 l0 H 0 O O N N N N m v W N O O V 0 0 0 m V m Z m M M M V O 0 2 z Z qji w w z O ¢ r 7 a 2 w 3 Z O x g m m w = E w w Om <a u Li LL¢ m U z z Z 0 u 3 O ID W Q m O W Z Z Z 02{ c G Y O 0 C U¢F- w W K F' V Z Q Q Z J 0 C¢ J w rc U M U G m K Z Q K ul W p Z UU Y Y Y F m Y Z m O m X g O F Q H J J �f UJ K W W GG G W� a m Q Q W N Z O a Q Q U a Z W W x Vl Z O uw O O Ou Q (D fD<< Z J J Z Q Q a m O W Z O U X U W W U S K 2P Q O O m Z m T O o m O J w M W Z w 2i x N K K d C K K V 6 0 0 0 Q w K N 5 � m m w 0 > > >>¢ a¢ a a a W== x x x x x t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� w z m m u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u m u N u m u N u N u N u m u M u N C O N ei 0 O } LL 0 LL CA z Z w 2 EnH W U a w" F aUoe z 4A z _ J 0 � F m W LL 0 > F 0 v a 2 N En W z_ co m z 0 z 0 0 h h i� N n n n n n Ill n M r n n n m 01 h 1� n n O n n r n n M W n n H 1� O O O N O N O N m 0 O N 0 0 0 0 H M O O O O O M O O O N H O M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 o vl o vl o m ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O N O N N m O N O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 L} O d' O O O N m O m O m H H H N H N H N M Vl H N H H H H H M H H H H H M H H H N H H M N H Vf V} L? UT i/T VT V} VF l/1l/} 4/F i/} V} 1/i LY V} iR Vf iA {/1• ih Vf � VF LF W N VT �A LT VT i/} V/T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vl O O O m N m 0 V N m V l0 H H H N a H N N H N H O O O Vl O IA O Vl tll O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O N O N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e -I e -I ei e -i e -I e -I ei ei e -I e -I ci 'i ci 'i rl ay e -I 'i e -I e-1 e -I H e -I ci H H a -i ay ei e -I H ci ci O O O vt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 O H O N O O w O vt O vl O N O m V N N l0 N N N N N N w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .H -I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m< m m m m m m m m m rn m u m< rn m m m u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u p u u u u u u W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N W w W W W W W W W W N W w W W W W a a a a a a a a a a a a a a¢¢¢ a a a a a a Q a a a z a a a a a a 0 l7 u U' C7 l7 0 U' l7 U` 0 0 0 0 0 U Q C7 O' l7 l7 C7 0 0 o U' ¢ w 0 l7 U' l7 l7 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z I„ z z z Z z z z z z z z z z z z z z J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Z J J J J J J J J J J LL J J J J J J m m O N Q M OH W W W W W w W O N W W w p > > > > > W > > p N N > > > N V ry O Q Q O a a Q W > Q Q H N W O a Q Q O O O �¢ w w¢ w w m w> m m w w w � W w Q w w w ¢ w w Q N w U w O 2 o 0 0 0 w w>> O w `� 0 0> w O tx 0 > z ¢ > ¢ a a a ¢ > a ¢ ¢ ¢ '^ > > a ¢ a a > Q � m a > z o o z o z z z o z z� z w z z z z w z z Q a o z z z o z u o o¢ z o p [[ J (L J J J O J Z O O J J> O O 2� 2� m O m z 0 x 0 7 0 m 0 0 .J D>> 0 c 0 0 >> z z V 0= Q p m u m¢ m m¢ m 0 Q a m m N p p x x m m 0¢ m Q¢¢ x u¢ a J a o m m a m o U o H U U 0 d. O J J ti o a m m J a N a a a w H a a m V O a a O a tp H N N O H N Ol N a N N a M M H M n V H t�vl 0 0 U J 2 z W ¢ K W C CK 0 w F N G U Q > I�il m O Q Q z z O v F Z WcW w H m 'w O p Z o Q 021O G ¢ Q a w Z O¢ OLL a � u z z ¢ w a g F w z N a a °g w m a z z o z Z g ¢^ o u u o z u g mZj Sm Z � O O aO OO pam O 0 O ao z Z W J W p p p O m> J C O a W O Z p Q I_ a u.I W Z H Y m Z 4. J> J Z z z Q Q w w w w O w Q �_ Z_ JO zO a z OU 0 3 O F W J O N v~i z U O O LL x J J w� Z � 0 0 � D � � m m m H N H m H H N m N m m m m N N m m m m m N N m M N N m N N m x El 1 n N m r m r n n r n m l b n n e 1 m m W m I n N r r• l I n r r b m a [Y O h vl O O O O O m O O m N cY M O r O O w N O O O m N e O N M M N N O M O O n H M O N O M N e m� O a 0 0 N H N N 0 fmYl N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 6 0 0 0 O O d O 6 d O O O O 6 O 6 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 N w 0 of O u O O O O vt vt 0 0 w O N O M a0 O O M O O N m N N O V m IA W i/f th Vf V} V} VT ih V} VL iA VT iA V} UT VF M v/! LT i/F L} VT L! Vl V} VT VT i/1 V} Uf V} K {n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 ul O O N O O Op O m 0 m O N m 0 vt W m 0 0 a m ci N N rl e -I N l0 N .--I N .-I V N rl e -I rl N O �n O vt O N O u O O O u O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O v 0 0 0 0 vl m 0 0 0 O N O N O N O N O O O N O N O O O O O O O N O N O O O O N N O 0 0 N N rl N N N N ei N N N N N H N N N rl ci N N N rl N N N N N N N N N N O O m N O O O O O O O O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a d' O l0 1 rn n V I� d� m W m a O m ut m V rn rn rn W cl t0 4 N N c-1 I� N N N N c� d� N w N O N N p m M 0 0 0^ N O O O O�O 0 0^ O� 0 0 0 O O O rn O m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N O 0 0 0 0a 0 0 o x O Q O o 0 O O O a V a d' a d' C V' O d' N 7 d' V V a U m V V 0 F- V U m v m m m m m m N m m m rn v rn rn rn m m m rn m m m a MWU a a a a a a z" a a a a° Q aaa z a L a¢ a a a a o u o a o u u u u u u W a u u u u a 3 u u u u o u J u u u U U U w U m N w w w w w Wi 0 w w" w w U j O w uI L Lo x Wi ui L ud ui ui z¢ z u z a a a a a Q W z a a a a a z a a¢ a z a a a a a a Q Q a l7 l7 l7 (7 0 0 O O (7 U l7 l7 H ¢ 0 U' O W (D g (7 l7 Q) Q l7 l7 C7 m Z m w Z s Z Z Z Z Z Z �y m Z Z Z Z w Z W Z Z Z l7 Z❑ Z Z Z Z Z Z LL J LL¢ LL J J J J J J O {/� J J J J F. J J J J j J O J J J a J J J Z Z N m Z CL C CL 1' CL R' m ¢' m m m VI O Z O K OC m W OC C 1' < m< 0 Q< m m m m m m Q a m m m m ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 == M rn O O O M m m U m 3 m m m m m m m W X� xc z oN > i i i % 0 0 N m o 0 0 O O O O N N m O N 1p N O N m O N O O m eY O N O O O N O O O N O O d' O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 M O ul 0 0 0 0 vl O 6 0 0 M 6 O M 0 0 0 O O 6 O O LIl O O N O O O O N lO N O N m m O O O N N O n O O O m O r O O N O O f� ih th iA iA V} VT Ui 41 LF LT VF lA VT Vl VT U} VT UT Ul VT 'IA {A 4T i/� {A V} Uf 1/F � t/} {/} iA VT L} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N tp O O m 1p N vl N O V1 l0 111 Vl Vl 0 0 0 0 0 0 v O m O O O O w 0 M O O to N O N 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 m O O ill O o 0 0 0 o N O N O 0 0 0 N O N O O N N O N O 0 0 0 o N O 0 N O O N N N N N H e -I N N N N N N N e -I N N N N rl N a -i ti N N rl N N N .-1 N N N N N O O O O 111 v1 O O O m d' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O m O m O O m O O O N I� O m m O N O N n O Ol T Ol N a m tD 1� m m 01 O m N N Yl a a O Vl 7 O N N N N W N .-V V N ti N N N N N n 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O o O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M o x o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m O O o 0 o m o 0 0 0 a a m m m m ¢ m m m m m rn o m o m m m m rn m m< m a m m m rn m a rn m m u u u u u u N u u u u m u u 0 u u u u u u u U u u u u u p u u u wwwwwWMwwwwawZwwwwwwwww wwwWwuwww a a a a a a u a a a aF:I a m a a a a a a a a a o a a a a a Z a a a O O z O o z O z CW7 z z z z z z z z o z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z y m m m¢ m m m m m m m J m 2i m J m m m m m m m m O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o m m m m m m z m U m m m m m m m m m m m m m m of m m m v o O w> 2>> > xt oN a> x w w yk N O O Fk a H O M a Q O¢ O XC YG O a 0 0 O a a QQ 1Il a m W W W O a 3k W W a W a W w a W a N a W W >aa°Q�a a°p`amo o�aa z a a z a G a a N m a a 0 0 N 0 s Q W a W o O¢ w O O Z a 7 0 a w p a W 0 0 a¢ m m a a m Z pm O p Z Z J m a~c J o z o -J' m O X s=>> O x O z i a¢ a 0 a 2 m O 2 S p m¢ p U m m m 2 p 2 c ro s a I- m m U a a a J U m O m J J m a m 0 o a N W M .ti vl N Ol O I� tO O O n l0 m l0 O In O V N .-i 1� ei ri O O o O O v1 m N O V fmYl d0' N d0" N N tail �-1 H M N N tom(] n m M N N N N N d N m H M ON N a N H W a W O m N w N W a U W W U Z W J w m Z w a w Q a J o z 3p o oo. LD (D a wo m p>o w w o W a a LL z U z w w z w o! m z 3 a s w w z a w T O ul '� vl vl m� w m J w a p r m m w H 0 N U m wm>"l cwa tga za r-�z uoZ0() aZO wz�¢Yoz� M F d LL o x� O w O l¢ o Z ZO w Z m 0 Z C27 a w ¢ Z z o> 'z z a w w w 3 a w w z a¢ w z g O a 0 D a u o O z Z> U¢¢ v w �_ O O O O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y M M m m N N H m H N N m N N m N m m H r N e m m m N m H m m N m m N ^ 000waNaOOOO^O VNNOVO ONOO 0 0 m O O O O O a m O M O O O O O a N N O a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 N N e -i O N O N m O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 O Q a p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ui 0 0 0 0 m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O O m 0 m m 0 0 0 0 m m w N O O O O O m I� n t` n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r m m 0 I� O n h 0 m 0 0 0 VT V} L} Vl 1/} V} V} lA LT to VL N iR Vf VT V} U} L} i/F iA i/T i/L i/} U! i/F v/T W N lM1 iA VT Vf V} V? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m N m m m m m m m ill N m N N N m N N N c-1 N V m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m N m O O O O O O O O O O m O O O m 0 m m 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O N N N N O O O O O O O O O O N O O O N O N N O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 .ti m 0 0 0 m O N O m N .ti m m N 0 V O st m rl M N Rl N N N �-I N V m m O O O O O O O .Hi O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O p 0 0 0 0 0 o m o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d' o 0 0 0 o m v<r v��r�r a aa�aaaaavaaamavv�`vavaa ry m m m m m m m U m Q¢ .-i Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m Q¢ Q u Q Q¢ Q Q U o U u U U U u p u u u v u u u u u u u u m u u u z u u u u u= w w¢ w w w w w- w w w w w w w w w w w w¢ w w w p w w w w w 0 Z u U U U m O a s¢ a a a Z a p a a¢ a a¢¢¢ a a¢¢ a¢ a 0 a¢ a¢ a 0 L'sN z z o z z z z m z o z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z z z z z z m Z J J J J J J W J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J W J J J J J tG m Z m m m m Z m p o > > ¢ > > > > ¢ x w > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O m m m l7 m m m m m x m 0 N # N W 0 0 ## > > > N N O N m O M m N# W W m O w N W W# m ¢ ¢ ¢ •-+ # m o a # m o# m p a> m#¢# ¢ p a p p Q Q# W w w w w w# m w# w# Q W E F w W W W ¢ w Q w ¢ Q Q Q> Q Q> p p>> a Q Q 0¢< Q a j o o z > a> z z z N z u Q o z o¢ o z a z o z z o a z¢ z o o z o u O J W J Um O m W O O C -:5 O QO J N m (r J ¢ o x z » o o z o z m o o x m ¢ xm lo EE r > O m E -L m xO OxO m x x m 7 W m m o m m m m N a N N N 0 7 m m N m O m m m O m 1� n m N N O m I� N O O O o o m N N N N m N o m o m N m a N a m a a m N M N O m m e -I N m w H N N H e a M N c m m N m m a M m r H e m e M m N m w u p z J - aN m_ p W W Z Z K H z OJ U' O J LL: O m m O a m U Z U W ¢ (7 J p N m w p Z m Z m m w O 2 Z 0 - O l7 �WiI w z Z F w> Q a d ¢ z Z �zm wD�m., ow�3ucx.>>aw z uZ~ a W O D U U mW W U Q O C C a LL W OJ W K J p W a p Z¢ K J Ln Eip d W k tl' LL LL LL O O O Z m z Z w F' D O J Cl LL z a w u>' l7 ¢ m E 0 0 0 0 0 W W J 0¢ W 3 z OW u a Wp W Q J :� a W w Z �-' pW, m U U U U U U U W U (LL/1 W J O> O F' LL a Z Z Z m U 3 3 Z Q m LL LL LL LL LL LL LL z X W W m x m W J} p Z i m O m j U LL LL LL LL LL LL LL W a O Z W Q GJ Z J x W a W m a O O O O O O O c W Y t/Q� c F-' F-' F-' H r W K �• m O W z W' G p m J W LL u U J X a G z Z a ¢a a a w w u z x 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 w w W w o >>> >> r r r J J J J J J J J J .+ m m m m m N .+ .-i. ti c+ m m m m m m m m m m .--i N N N H M .-i N N N m m m N N 0 } LL 0 LL N f.. Z W H H W LA EA U a cw C cal Z J � f m W LL 0 ; F 0 � a En V) W z_ co ro Z 0 F Z 3 0 a m � O N n N n r r <D n n r a n n m� mm O 0 0 m 0 0 Oa 0 0 0 N O O N 0 O O O 0 O M M 0 0 0 t0 O 0 N 0 0 N O N O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 6 6 0 6 0 0 6 6 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 6 6 0 6 6 0 6 6 6 O O O Q O O O Q O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 N N O N O O N O 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 O O N w m 0 0 0 a 0 m M 0� �0 0 w � v1 M N .Nw -i N O N O O O m O O N 0 0 0 VT L} U} Vl Lf LT V} L1 Ll Ll UY Vf i/T 1/t L1 V} Vf LT VT VT lA 1/T cn N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t0 O m t0 O O m N N m t0 N m O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O O O O m N O N O O N O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O N O O O O O O O N O O O O O N N O N O O N O O O O O O N N O 0 0 N N N N N N c -I N N N N N N N N N N rl N N N N N N N N N N N N N H c -I N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 O O N O 00 N O O V N N m N m m m m N Ow a O O N r M m m m O N N N 'i ti M m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 N a a V ¢ a a a a a a a' a m a a a a a O a a Q a a a a a a a l¢ a a a a u u u u u u u u p u a u m u u u u a U m U U U u U U U U p u m u u u w w w w w w w w u w U w Q w w w w u w a w w w w w w w w u3 ¢ ui ui ui U }u u U U Cal Cal aU' aU' aU' aU' aU' (a7 Q aU' aU' I- Cal Cal lQ7 Cal U Cal z CQ7 aU' CQ7 0 Cal aU' 0 0 Q Cal z Cal aU' lag z z z z z z z z¢ z a z u z z z z w z p z z z z z z z z z z p z z z J J J J J J J J w J U J r J J J J F J J J J J J J J J w J J J J z z z o; J m C' 1' 1' N C J C m m K C' m K 1' Z > > > > > > > > a a a > > > > o w > > > > > > > > ¢ w > > > w w w w N w w w w w O =k Q Q O O m 0 Q 6 M Q Q Q Q O Q M O ¢ w w w¢ a a F yk w w > w> w w w w a w g a w¢ � O w m w ¢ w a a w w O w Cl a a w w> w 0> F. a 0 0 0 C, a Z a z Q 0> Q a w O v a > w N N�I�I�NNamo au IDz(D< S d¢tJ�a 0l� aml��aN*� Oy z z O O z O a Z Z a Z O Z Z z z Z Z O p O Q Z F Z p 0 ya J J (L K O C' m O a J J J m L 2 W J J J¢ p J J m CY p7 J Z p (`� m o m K F F. O ¢' O m Y w Q N m J m F. K K Y Y N m F- Y O>> w p z>> O p m x N>>> O¢> U m z x p o s s s x m m z cc O J O O m p m a m u w m o_ m x O m m a E Q p m p ac ¢ ay O N a a J w ti J w m m a U o N m m m m J �o O a w w m m m m m O m '^ .ti 3 ti m o O N N N 10 O N O O N M m N 0 7 N N N d' N r1 d' N V O m O m m a 0 0 N N N N N d' N V N M l0 c -I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a N d N M M V N N w K F- h Z z C O J x > Z a m w Z O Y N w z N O a a OZ= U U1 O Q LL m K 0- w Z U G w Z O Q m m a Z O Icx-- m z vwJt Z z x Z G a - m w U N Q J w G O 2 O U ¢ 0 Z J a? Z z a o W o a u= o J?? o a o l7 w J Q Q w O n. >i x ti O z ¢. H Z O o j Q g pU tr J w 3 0 N m 06 z z m w w Z a a a m H 17 O a w u K O a Z o Q z u a z g a z 3 Z Y= z z 3 w m= a 'JJ ¢ o 0 Z a z NES 2E~ m== w w Cay o z z a z a>> m x m Q Q Q¢ Q u tui w Ow a U U Y J J z O o o o o>> 3 m h~ H a w J 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2�E 2:E 2 z z z z z z z z N m m H N m N m N m N H N m N N m r N N� N m e m M m N N M r m m m w N N 0 } LL 0 LL H F Z W N V1 W {A Ln U FQ � U z H Z — m W Q W I_ 0 u a 4n V) W z co m z 0 z 0 0 n r n w r n m N r n n r m r m m r r ry ry io N o m o m o o a o 0 nN w �n mM r r N �n NN 0 0 o o m m o m w m�� a oN r o m O N O N O O� a m O O O r O. N O O a N N N N O N O M' O m M M a' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 6 0 0 0 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 NN N N 0N 0N N M NM 0N 0N 0.-I Nn ON ON O O O N N N N O O O O N N O O O O u N 0 w00 wwN000N0mNOOr rNrmONONn O mOOn N N N N MN lN N M MM M M N t? L1 N V! 1/} to L} L} iA Vf Vl N VT iA V} i/T i/f V} lA VT V? VT VF V} U} U} i/4 �A U! LT to tR VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m 0 O m N N N O N lD N O N m O O N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O N O O O O O N N N N O 0 0 0 N N O O O O N N O N O O O O O O N O O O N O O O O O N N N N O O O O N N O O O O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O N O O O N O O O O O N 0 0 0 0 7 a 0 0 0 m m M Ol O O N M n m N O O O m N N m O O N d' N tp N N O m M N m a m N m N m V N O N tvl ci O rl N N M N N N N N lO N N N ti � a o 000000 �0000N,"-�o000 0 000000 0�-io 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 o N m o 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 o N m o m m m rn m rn N Q rn m m m r¢ rn m m m r m d. m o m rn m m m rn ry al 0¢ m u u u u u u m Q u u u u �' p u u u u a u o m m u u u u u u m u O1 p u ul ui ui ui w Lj u N W- W, W, W, O_ u w w ui ui V I �o Q u w" w w' w w w Q w u N w V Z V p' V u U' l7 UQ' ( l7 l7 w Q l7 ( l9 ( Q l7 (7 U' l7 w (7 O w U' 0 0 0 0 0 O O Q CQ7 z z z z z z o m z Z z Z z m z Z z z g z� u m z z z z z z z z¢ m z J J J J J J V W J J J J¢ w J J J J W J QLL d J J J J J J J U' W J W W C Z Z W d' d' C Z Z w w w K N K U d' w m w tr m m Y w N Z w m m m m m m UU m m m m m l v m m m m z m V LL V m m m m m m O m� of m m O N d Yk YC O N O O� O# N r # 3k > # > > f' > > N > W > >c-1 > > m w > ¢¢ O O N N¢¢ 0 0 O¢> Q¢ N O Q¢ N ¢ w w JmS JmS 0m>o>> 3 QO QONF" < wm0m W Ko < w a a a >wa z >> wm wam >F- Z oaaw a zz z zzz zor, oz D z o zo¢o Xz o z 0 z o z> O m J zJ 0 0dJ0¢ O W ¢ O J zK S = ¢ Qx ~Sr wazJ Q> m m a 2 Q s l7 x m m a z N p u= m? m x p p m m p N Q d U d N d W Q J a m N z V J J a J m u O Ol N N M Ol O V V N Ol N N M N M M N N N N CY M N m m m N� N N a N N N a N N M M d' .-1 N M N N N M N uu V W J > V Z Z Z a U w V :5d Z U O Z V Z Z m Q U Qa d d d V d u D F" W V' U d w N w w r ZO U v� F O w O Z rr Z o Z w Q O ac U l7 Q O V M Q O �^ u O p N w o j w w w} a¢ m LL z Q Z o s° w Z m z Y ¢ w a o a 0� 2 o g 3 a Y o 0 QNxuwz W w,Q„�ww V u}°gg¢uN�F-,,,zNUNN0z�a= H Y f' Z O m W x p W N w w ¢ w w g F Z Z d a W N W U O 7 V U J z z m S Q Q¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ W W W W d \NJI N Q z z Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d a a d a m� m N m m N N c m m M N M N N M M N N N N N M N m N N m N N N N N u Ld IQ V Z J M m LL Q V N N N f11 N m d' N N N N (T M O M N H N N M N m N R e -I H N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 (] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tJ O (J O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . O O m6 O O m 0 0 0 0 m6 m6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N m O m N O O O O n N n N O 0 0 0 N 0 m O N O O O O O O O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O m W O m N Ill N N m O m a m N N N N N rl N V m O O m O O O m 0 0 0 0 m O m O O O O O O o 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N O O O N O O O O N O N O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N e -I N N N N N rl N c-1 N e -I r1 N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O m 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O O . O O n l n O N O O a Wm m m N A N O N m m O a m O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o m o 0 0 0 0 0 o W O m o o ti o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o m o Q m Ln m m m m m ^1 m o m m `� rn m m rn Ln Ln Ln m mm m m m Q Ln Q m m a a a a a Q a a a a a o Q a a a m a a a a < a a a a a u a" a o p u u u u u u u u u u u n u u u u¢ u u u u u u u u u= u 0 u m N w' w LL Lai w Lai LliU a ui ui Ld Oi Ld w w Ld u ui ui U1 Lu ui ui ui w Wi O' w N L U 2i 2 m:5 uj 2 2 2 2 2 2 O 2:5 :5 2 2 2 2 2 2�3 2U: Q z a a a a a a a W a o a a= a a a a a W a¢ a a a a a a a 0 a Z a r z z z z z z z a z¢ z z o z z z z z z z z z z z z z z m z< z Z W J J J J J J J F J C7 J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J m J W J W z r r r r r e r m Le m e r 3 r r r z r Lr e e r Le r r J Le z Le o ¢ > > > > > > > O O p > > F. > > > > > a O 7 > > 0 > > > 7 J 7 m m m m m m m m u m J m m LL m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m x m Ia/1 m LL n O m N u u a 0 0❑¢ MM ¢ a Q W W W >> W 0 0 0 W ❑ Z> W W > W a Q Q K K K❑ m¢< ¢ z z o z ^ z o z 0 a a 0 o z J (Y 0 o J z o 0 z a J J m a J z 3 3 r o 0 3 e m e x 3 c a o o x w p x z x x o > x x m Lr cc z m Le „ l x m oma x m o rn o o a a a m a a m �y n m Ln a o 0 m Ln o o m o m n m m M o o ti m o rI NN M m m d' m O H m m rl N V O N o N M N N N m m M N m M N N N [L N N H N W L J Z m_ 0 L 0 w ^ W W z o O u w ¢ ¢ o N (7 m W K Q =i m Q m z❑ Ll W m pj W O ❑ m M m L (7 Z J J LL' m Ia1 O Q Q IZai Lr j O a u F- O u w J u Le L m J 3 w W W g z w a Z u w L i7 m K [Y m~ w Ln H y m 0 x L P: O C7 a m I_~il �O dW' K K rG rL K K Le 7 O>> a 0 0 0 m L W a a a W a a a a a a Cf d rc Lr Lr Le Le L rl M m rl N M N N M M m N e N N N M m t K V N m w w w a w ui O Q V Q a U a ❑ w a W > Q O W N W W> N p a r a r � a ❑ aw m Z z z ❑ z m `l' m Z¢ < O 0 a z o m K N > o M o= m a m m= m m 5 a x mm o In ti °.tel o v 0 0M umi m m N N N M N N N N N N N N M [1 J i 0 _ o_ u gU _ LL LL • z Q 'o W Y H n i N LY ¢ W 0 u a z z o z m W )xt� zo Z 00 a �0<U z '_ ❑ a_ � O = Q Z Z J a Lr¢ v~i vai 0 z Lr O ' o a w J a a d= Z Q a z N [Y C O O W O Z 3 p 0❑ , a Q w �c ¢ u❑ w W U a u Z> W D u m u>� W z W W w W W W o o o s m z w '1 M N M N M rl M m m m m M M M N W N LA N } LL 0 LL N H Z W 2 N N LU 4A � a ui a N Z J � F Z m W Q ; v a in N W Z m Z 3 0 z Z 3 0 a N r 0 0 0 m O O N O V 0 0 m 0 0 N O N N O cOmc�l n N 0 0 0 N a 0 N O d O e -I M 0 0 0 N O O e M N O O N O O m O h N O C m d' O m O m N 0 d0' O m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O O N 0 0 0 0 N O O N O O N O N O O O N O O O O N ill O N O O O m m 0 0 0 a 0 0 m l0 N O O O O m 0^ m O V m V N M H N N H m N v! vT VF L! VT to Vl Vf v� � T vF vT uT ih VT VT N LST V! VT L~} VT V} LT Vf L} VT ah t/f t/T L} VT vF �/1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m O N m O N N N O m N O W O N N N O O N O O O ill O O O O N O O N O O N O N O O O N O O O O N ill O 0 0 0 O N O O O N O O O O N O O N O O N O N O O O N O O O O N N O N N O 0 0 c -I s-1 N N N e -I N N N N N N N N N N N N e -I N N e -I N N N N rl N N e -I N N N N N 0 0 0 0 d' O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 m N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n N W O O O m N O O O O N N N O m N N m N O n O N O a 7 O m N n N N N M O n N M N N tYl d` W cvf N V N VN N 7 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c-1 O O O O p 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 ono 0 0 0 o m o 0 o m O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o o m 0 0 0 0 0 m< m m m u rn m m u m rn m m rn m m N o Ol a m m N m m rn m m u¢ u a v u u u u p u u u p u u u u a u u u ww a u" u u �l u u u u u U n w w w O w w w w w U� w W W ,� w w w w w w w °i m w ui w p w w w w w �a aaaa C a° a a a a a a a 0 U 0 w(D Q) l7 (D 0 0 0 0 U¢ 0 0 0 l7 m 0' l7 l7 w w l7 0 l7 C7 Z 0 C7 C7 l7 C7 z z m z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z J z z o z z g z z z z z J F J J J J J J LL J J J LL J J J J a J J J W J 0 J J r J J J J J n z 0 D M 0 D¢ Li M w 0' 0 0 1' 0 M D 0 o ¢ > > > > > Q > > > ¢ > > > > Q > > > w w m w > > o > > > > > m LL m N m m m m m N m m m N m m m m N m m m N W m fL m m LL m m m m m o_ r 7 l7 N Y N m> N> > N w > > O O> i Q N Q Q a N> Q m W> N O U a O Q O W K Q a w w w w w w J K w O F- > o: Q w w ¢ w¢> w ¢ r m¢¢> Q Q Q a> r¢> a to m Q> Q a Q Q¢ y G z N N o o° a J o Jar ? a o o a z g a Z o o 0 Q a? o? o Z a W w�Z3�i...�3No:3�.��..F-�.�}2izwm.-igp3zd.�z�z3 ¢ O w� O x O z a M z x �c 0 0 7 x x z O x 0 0 ¢ O¢ N 2 m O m 2 I- m x p ¢ p m O N x 0¢ 0 0¢ m x m O m¢ O x u m a o 0 o m o o N O dm' Ql O m N V d0' d' O N a M a N N W a O VNl N N m 0 0 0 tp N O O M 0 0 0 N M C ci N N M N H V a-1 N M N M N ci d N N N M LL W G ci N N W a N V N N J W w 0 3 z O w x LL Z OJ W ° W D a pLL 2 4 M N U K w U W Z l7 W N Z oz� Uu�Fz �� 'zu �� a w o a J N N 0O LL o�mFja om d rU(D �(D a g z°° o W o w z w z r c ¢ z �s O z N O x Q Z°_ m LL 3 0 z m z Q w O N LL w z U¢ N Z p d Z N Z Q° K¢ w z J r1 r Z O ci x° 3 U Y Qu =t N J rJ W CJ D Z N w O] I_ U m Z J W W ci 2 I- J JO rl Q W 0' acl = U H a r°> c w U LL w Q w' U W Q U :7 m LL' V N r 0' } Q C a o 0 0 Q g o w 'm o a o o o g u m w g > a M o� Y g asaaaaaaasauww=o�oou���F-F-rW-rF-rF-�>>>� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M N m m N N c -I m m rl N N H M N N M N N N M N M N N M N M N N I m e m o l W N^ t w 1 ^ W w m 1 m^^ m^^^^^ I ^^ N e m N I O O ap l/1 m N V H O a N 0 0 e N m o l M O W O O O O i0 O O N N h M O m Ul O N If1 m c -I N w m m N m m O M N- N N V O a ti 0 0 M N O N O N O M 0 0 0 O O N N N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Ll w 0 ui O O O Li O O O O� 0 0 0 ui 0 0 0 0 0 0 u O O 111 O O O N O N N O N O N 0 0 0 m 0 0 V} LF i/F i/1 VT VT VT V4 4T L} L} iR to i/F UT V} N (A Vl L} 1A Vf iR iM1 N +/} L} i/} OF l/F VT i/T Vf VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O lD N V1 m O w O m O m N N N O m 111 t0 N 1I1 O O O O Ill O m vl O vl 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 v O O O O O O w O O v 0 O O O O N O N N O N O O O N O O O O N O O O N O O O O O O N O O N O N N N N N N N N N N e -I N N N N N N N N c -I N N N N e -I N N c -I N N N N N N 0 0 00 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 l/1 O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 ill O m 0 0 0 0 tp 0 0 O m M O N tp O O N vl N O N N O N O ti N N O m^ a rl N N N K1 r4 N M N N rl N N f/1 ^ N O O O O O N O H 0 0 0 0 0 o m O o 0 0 0 0 o m^ o 0 0 0 0 o W o o^ o 0 0 o 0 0 0 N T `-' m m m¢ OQl m m m m Oal N¢ m OQl m Owl m m m o m m v m m m m m m m a s a a a a QQ a a a a a" 00 a a a a a a m a p> U V u v u U m U Va O a a a m a a¢ a u u M u u u p U U u U U u u ¢ u u u m u U V v w Ld a w w u1 N u7 ui L' ui ui w ui N Z w w w w w w" U w w u w w w< w w ui w "a aaaa0a aa aaZ a Z a a c a a 2 a ° a a a o a a a a l7 U' v l7 C7 l7 Q 0 0 l7 V 0 0 0 Q 0 0 W 0 0 0 w 0 l7 ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 U' V` Z Z 0 Z Z Z¢ Z Z z z z Z Z K w Z z Z Z z Z m z z a z z z a z z z z J J J J J LL J J J J J J J LL J J J J J J d J J L% J J J J J J J C K Z CL K w Z K K K C C CL K Z z K K C K K K OC C' Z K K K} m K K > > ¢ > > > a > > > > > > > Q w > > > > > > a > > ¢ > > > a > > > > m m ul m m m vl m m m m m m m vl x m m m m m m U m m m m m m x m m m m 0 O J LL w W W W W W } W w W W W W N W > > > > > >2� > > > > > l++ > o > M = r x¢ a ¢ a a a a o a a a w a > a N a o w p W W Cl w w w w w d W a w W w W> W ¢ w W W N Q vl Q 2 w � 2 � w� 2 2 M w 2, 2 2 G 2 Q � u+ m¢ O Q Z O (07 Q m 1Q7 (D Q l07 1.0.7 C07 z NO 0 w 0 1.0.7 � 1Q7 m 0 Q�� 1.07 ¢� Q� 0U' Q a O U a J O~ Z w Z Z J J Z O Z o Z J a? d? d U a J d Z 0 0 Z K F. F- w m z z m a z z z m 3 oc ¢ z >> ¢ Q 'c r g z Y O s O O O¢ ac O x O¢>>> Q 7 >> O 7 U O x¢ O O 2 > O< m 0 m o w m m In o o W d m m ul o u w U o .� m o d m a N lD l0 e -I M N m M O m H M N w O Q F0' z C V a Z d 02S g� a a w w LD w= W = z z N JUOO } 3 J W a vwi 7Na LL wu Z w O Z >Q O a M ¢ m Z p z Q w OO pY > a m " a O¢zY 0Ou a }Zvi H W d O¢ gO O ~d w¢¢YQ a U V u ud < z z a ¢ a> z z a-= W W W W w ww w w w w w w w w w w w 0 0 O= O Q Q w l7 F- F F0- Iw- Fw- F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F H O O O O H H N N H M N N N N N N N M ti N M m N N N M N N m N M N M N M N M m N N N N M n n N n n N N m 1 e v n r w n n r N n n n n w n n W n n n n n N m n O O ti 0 0 a m m O m m O m N O O O O O O O O N O O N O 0 0 0 0 d' N O O O a 0 0 N N N LNO 00 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 d g O O O o 0 0 0 0 6 g q 6 6 6 q 0 0 0 0 q 0 0 q 6 O O 6 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 O O m O O n 0 0 0 n O O O O O O O O O O O M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n O n OOOOn Om000mO000NOOm0000 0 n m N N N M N rl N N N W C V N N N N N N Ln N N N N n N N N N N N �i N N N N Vf i/T V1 VT y N N N N H y N N N i/T VT VT VT Vf vi v? v! VT vF vT vT �A +A L/T V} V} VT v} V} 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln N LO N m� Ln W m m O m N m O O O v 0 0 W 0 0 0 Ln N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N O O N O O N O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O N O N O O O O O W O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 m O a n o m o O m o O o O m n O o H mm mo a m La o Ln Ln N m m N a -I N c -I b M M N O ul H N Ln 0 Ln O O O O O O N p N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vOv avvvuotivNvao aoaaaaaa0,`�mO1vv°1v�aaa m m Ln m m Ln rn m < m Ln < m m m m m m mm Ln o o Ln Ln u Ln rn m m ¢ m V u u u u u U u d u Z u u u u u u u u u u u a a p u u p u u u u u LL ui Ld Lr; ui 'd w LL Q ut p w LLi Wi ui D u7 Lo w w" L LL L11 u Lai Lu u LL7 w7 L ui w 2 2� 2 m 2 S 2 Le 2 2 2 20 2 2o 2o� 2 2m 2 w w u V 2 2 2i 2 2i a s a a a a a a a o a a a a o a a a a a a a z z z a Q z a a a a a Q z z z z z o z o z Z z z z z 3 z z z z z z z co ° z z z z z z z J J J J J J d J Q J W J J J J J J J J J J J J G C LL- J J Z z D D Z J J 0 J m J 0 J Le s rG Le z 3 z LC w [C ¢ to K Lr rc Le Le ¢ Lr vL Ln Z K m Z m W W a m m a m m m m m m m m m m m Z w m m m m m m m O p vL m m h m m m m m m m O O O J N N N N m u n a m Q N O O yx M W W w w M W a W M W W V U a m M N W O W 3k O Q Q p Q Q O d N> N>> a Q O o> '-1 w Q w w Q w Lu w y� Lr Q p O w w w w F j m Q w w w a > ([ zJ zJ zJ^ a¢zeZoam W=Q > z>Q Q QZ Q a¢ Qza a o o Z o z a o o z WcOzzz O O Q Q 2 O Q ([ ([ J J z [C LC o_>> > XOMD ma m vmi a mo m in o m m� a u d N a w umi o a Ln 0 0 `� pJ 2 a a m x m O N O n N O N to cl Ln O W V) O O r N O M M 001 m O O n O N M N N O d' O m d' O H m O N M N N a N d N N N d M N M M W N N m N N N N N ri N M N N M M N N N LD c O J O J We � d J G O J O x Q 2 w w U z Z vwi Q d 3 0 Q Q - U� �� zw Z m -' W w l7 Q z O O U w w_ Q } d aiLV m p� } a z�Y�� W '^`L010L c z Lo S�z moo>ac z J w d Y o x J Z O O w d o 0 0 0 a¢ x lw- V y i 0 LL LL > m Q F 7 °ti° m O O IQ- Q w Y Q O Q w m m¢ m w N 0 g i U O a m N O Y m Q w Q W w Z (7 LC } Q Q Q K F U E O}~~ O Z m Q Q [Y O d' W x O W LL LL LL Z W Z W VI (] L Q O Z H> 2 0~ m m Z Z} a m_ Q)J C F" > x J J J O¢ Z F Z O CL m>>>>>>>>> 3 3 3 3 3 � 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m m m m N N m m m N m m m m H m m N m m m m m .� L t0 N LA ei O N } LL 0 LL z Z cW C LA Ln W H Ln u Q w F U Q OC z N Z — z CO W LL 0 w �0 v z CL H W z 7 m z 3 0 z z 3 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 O m N O m a -i N N M N V1 Vf VY V? iR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti ti H N ti H 0 0 0 0 0 H N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o m vmi o m m .-i N m N N m a c v v a v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 O m N O m a -i N N M N V1 Vf VY V? iR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti ti H N ti H 0 0 0 0 0 H N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a 0 0 0 0 my 0 0 0 a c v v a v rn m m m m m m a a a a a a a U U U U U V U w w w w w w w a m O m = Zca.�Z ZcZZZ O ti z z Zz z z z J J J J J J J m m z � rc s ac Z O w o a a m m m m m m m r a m O m = O ti ¢ Q Q z cl 0 0 0 Z Z o m Z g ¢ 0 o o YYgYI- o r vai Q Z O w o a a a a o 0 J a a a a J J N O1 O V1 m O m N N m N m ill N N N N N N N M r m m = m = O N W H 0 W a U z Z g ¢ 0 o ¢ o m o vai Q Z O w O} Y a�a z X Y} N N N N N N N N N EAG % "'era, "Empowering individuals with Strategies to exprese their unique learning style" September 3, 2015 N n Carol Augustine, Finance Director City of Burlingame • City Hall — 501 Primrose Road N Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 0 o Re: DBID Assessment m U Dear City Council: F I am writing to say that as a professional Educational Therapist in private practice the proposed assessment of $100.00 annually is not commensurate with the services and representation the Downtown Business Improvement rD Development organization has provided for my business through the years. s N As a sole proprietor, so many of the DBID events, and other `benefits' have m not really benefited my client base nor has it assisted with advertising or o marketing my business. I have never understood why such a business as • mine was ever considered in this `mix' of other businesses assessed under this particular City of Burlingame umbrella. I do not agree with the current fee of $100.00 annually to contribute to the DBID fund. I do not have an actual storefront business on the Avenue itself and my business does not have a direct street front access. I do not benefit U from tourists or visitors who come to our town on the trolley.- LU rolley.w Thank you for receiving my `voice' on this matter. I have been boin and raised in the town of Burlingame. I've witnessed all the changes of our `village'. I attended both St. Catherine's and Mercy High School and I am oproud to be a contributing business owner in my hometown. m Sincerely,i 7; T Darlene Rose DeMaria MA BCET v" Educational Therapist Board Certified Educational Therapist 0 2 9 BURL,INGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: September 21, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 21, 2015 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director—(650) 558-7255 Subject: City Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Applications for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a Major Renovation of an Existing Single Family Dwelling which Includes First and Second Story Additions, on Property at 2753 Burlingview Drive, Located Within a Single -Family Residential (R-1) Zone RECOMMENDATION The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following actions: • Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the application; • Grant the appeal and deny the application; or • Remand the application to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Following the City Council's action, staff will prepare a resolution memorializing the action for adoption on the next regular City Council agenda. BACKGROUND Project Description: The proposal is to demolish the existing second floor, as well as portions of the existing left side of the house that have non -conforming side setbacks. The existing attached garage will remain, and there will be first floor additions at the rear of the existing house, as well as a new second story. The proposed project will have a total floor area of 4,113 SF (0.41 FAR) where 4,300 SF (0.43 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch exemptions). The applicant is requesting a Hillside Area Construction Permit for this major renovation and first and second story additions. The existing highest ridge, at the left side of the house, is 24'- 0" above average top of curb, and the height of the highest section of the flat roof (at the center of the house) for the new second story addition is 30'-0" above average top of curb. The exterior walls of the existing attached garage and the existing code -complaint uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage will remain. The number of bedrooms on 1 Appeal — 2753 Burlingview Dr. September 21, 2015 site will be increased from four to five and the on-site parking requirement will be increased from two spaces (one covered and one uncovered) to three spaces (two covered spaces, one uncovered parking space). The interior width of the garage will not be altered; it provides the minimum width for two covered parking spaces (18'-0" existing and proposed). Several interior structures (such as a furnace, water heater, and stairs) will be removed to increase the interior length in the garage. Because the parking space length is being altered, the required length must be 20'-0" to comply with code regulations, and the design provides 20'-0". There is a protected size tree at the left, front side of the property that will be retained with construction. The applicant has submitted Certified Arborist Reports, date stamped March 11 and July 31, 2015, to detail protection measures. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant requests approval of the following applications: • Design review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010,a,2); and • Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61.020). A copy of the August 10, 2015 report to the Planning Commission is attached to this report and contains a detailed analysis of the proposal. Planning Commission Action: At its meeting of August 10, 2015, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's requests with a vote of 3-2-1-1. The project was directed to come back as an FYI item to include the additional landscaping offered by the owner at the public hearing. At the hearing, some members of the Planning Commission expressed the opinion that substantial design changes had been made to the original proposal to take into account the concerns of the neighbors. In particular, the side setbacks on the first and second floors meet or exceed the required minimum; the massing is handled well; there is mature landscaping in place to help screen the addition; and there are no view concerns. Other members of the Commission expressed the opinion that more could be done to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors and that the design of the house is still too massive, in part because it sits at the top of the street. Appeal of Planning Commission's Action: Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action, the property owner to the right of the subject property, Terry McAloon, submitted a timely appeal of the Commission's action. Mr. McAloon's appeal letter and a subsequent letter providing details of his bases for appeal are attached to this report. Exhibits: • Appeal Letter • Appellant's letter, dated September 7, 2015 • Applicant's letter, dated August 31, 2015 • August 10, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes • August 10, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report • Project Plans 2 City Clerk City of Burlingame, California Dear Ms Hassel -Shearer, RECEIVED 'CITY OF BfURLINGAME -0r)-PLANNING DIV. Subject: Design Review of Residence At 2753 Burlingview Dr August 14, 2015 On August 10, 2015 the Burlingame Planning Commission approved a design for a new residence at 2753 Burlingview Dr. I live at the adjacent residence at 2759 Burlingview Dr. I wish to appeal the Planning Commissioners' decision to the Burlingame City Council. I enclose my check for the required fee of $485.00. Sincerely, Terry McAloon H -ph -344-4201 C -ph -773-4350 Email- jojtlmca@aol.com Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame, California September 7, 2015 Subject: Review of Design Application For Residence at 2753 Burlingview Dr Dear Mayor and Council Members, I believe the proposed design for the residence at 2753 Burlingview Dr is out of scale for our neighborhood and should not be approved. Our neighborhood consists of forty-two homes whose architecture is almost entirely made up of single story, two thousand square foot houses (ref Exhibit 1, att.; photo of Burlingview Dr to get an idea of the look of the neighborhood). In reading the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook, I believe the intent of the City is to balance new construction with respecting the Intent of the original neighborhood developers. As stated in the Introduction to the Guidebook: "...it is important that we respect the intentions of the original designers. We do this by looking at their work, supporting it and adding to it in ways that are harmonious." The Introduction to the Guidebook goes onto say that: 'The neighborhood is a place with a character and boundary. "...a neighborhood's architectural identity is based more on common patterns shared by all houses. "The essential nature of the neighborhood is most often embodied by the patterns shared between the original houses that formed the neighborhood. "Where the original houses define the neighborhood, newer houses and additions should support that definition." In my opinion, the Guidelines quoted above applyto the current case since the houses in our neighborhood were built in the 1950's and are fairly described has having a common architectural character. The house at 2753 Burlingview is 4300 sq ft in area and two stories in height. So basically, It would be twice the size of contemporary neighborhood houses! I can appreciate that I do not have the background to understand the nuances that go into determining how a residence design gets approved. But based on the Guidebook's clear intent to "conserve the valuable character of the original neighborhoods", I'm not sure that I follow the applicant's comments regarding the architecture of houses scattered throughout the Burlingame hills. In the architect's July 30, 2015 letter to the Planning Commission (ref Ex 2), the first bullet states in part: "The massing is very similar to many of the 1950's, 60's and 70s homes in the hillside area that have a garage at either the left or right fagade, and a two story mass extending across the property (see attached photo examples.) "Therefore the only real difference between those homes and the applicant is the style or appearance." So I can only assume that the point of the above statement is to suggest that since there are houses somewhere in the Burlingame hillside area similar to the design under review, then such houses can be built anywhere in the hillside area. This seems to me to be overriding the intent of the Guidebook. The Guidebook states that neighborhoods have a character and a boundary. In light of this, It is hard to understand why photos of houses outside the boundary of our neighborhood (per Mapquest, some of the homes are two miles away]) have any relevance to the design of the house at 2753 Burlingview. (I can't help but feel that the first bullet In the referenced letter should be restated as:" The only real difference between the houses on Burlingview and the applicant is that the applicant's house will be twice the area and twice the height of existing houses".) I believe that the Guidebook emphasizes the intent to preserve a locale's architectural character when it goes on to say: "...we have adopted an intention to define a neighborhood at a smaller scale by the immediate characteristics surrounding a given project." So isn't the Guidebook narrowing down the area to look at for architectural compatibility rather than expanding it as seems to be the case in the applicant's July 30 letter? There are some eight homes (not counting the applicant's) adjacent to or across from the site in question. All of them are single story and approximately 2000 sq ft in area. So how does the proposed design comply with the Guidebook where, in referring to older neighborhood houses, it states that: "They warrant respect and emulation." The intent of my objection is not to ask the applicant to design a house that uses plans from fifty years ago. The applicant is also currently building a house at 2747 Burlingview that is designed by the some architectural firm as the house in question. This house is also 4300 sq ft and I'd assume is considered as "modern architecture" (ref Ex 3; photo of this house). It is not a two story house; It is a single story place. In their submittal for this other house, the applicant made a point of stating that the building would be as low or lower than existing structures (ref Ex 4). As a result, the building has a height of 19'-11" as opposed to the 30' height of the building in question (ref Ex 5; Design Review permit). So if there was this commitment to the neighborhood's architectural identity once, why can't there be a second time? Instead were looking at a house that towers some six to eight feet over my roof line (ref Ex 6; photo of story poles shot from my roof). When I raise my objections to the proposed design, I am not alone. While three members of the Planning Commission voted for the design; two voted against it. Four households in the immediate vicinity of the proposed house wrote letters to Planning Commission raising objections to the design; two other household members attended the Planning Commission August 10, 2015 meeting in support of our objection to the design. So my 'straw poll' of the voting on the design is as follows: For Against Planning Commission Neighbors 0 6 Total 3 8 I understand that the applicant can say that the design is within regulations and thus he has the right to have it approved. But we who have lived in the neighborhood for decades also have rights that, if they mean what they say, are protected by the Design Guidelines. We live in our neighborhood for a reason: it has a graceful symmetry to it that we find attractive. I appreciate that the City has to wrestle with applying the Design Guidelines while at the same time determining the suitability of "modern style" homes. I cannot compete with a skilled architect In discussing the various forms of "modern design". However, I did come across one discussion of such a design that indicates a form of "modern design" includes: "Low, horizontal massing, flat roofs, emphasis on horizontal planes and broad roof overhangs" (ref Ex 7). To my untrained eye, this definition matches what we have at the applicant's house at 2747 Burlingview, This residence, it seems to me, is a reasonable compromise in updating our neighborhood with "modern design" while at the same time "respects and emulates" the older neighborhood houses as is called for in the Design Guidebook. I don't see how the proposed house at 2753 Burlingview in any way attempts to respect the architectural legacy of our neighborhood. So I'd again ask, why can't the applicant propose a design that follows the form of his first house rather than inserting a design into the neighborhood that 1 believe is clearly out of place, i.e. there is no other house like it in our neighborhood, i.e. 30' high; 4300 sq ft in area. If the design is approved, then we've missed the chance to preserve the character of a neighborhood that has had a graceful place in Burlingame for some six decades. I'd expect that with this approval other similar designs would follow in the years ahead. This would cause the neighborhood to have a chaotic look instead of the common pattern now shared by our neighborhood's houses. In my opinion, the objection to the proposed residence is in line with the purpose of the Design Guidelines: to support the positive characteristics of our existing neighborhoods. So, as stated above, I'd ask that the proposed design for 2753 Burlingview Dr not be approved. T -10t < :z c Terry McAloon Address -2759 Burlingvlew Dr; H -ph 344-4201; C -ph 773-4350; email-jojtlmca@aol.com yet o.r {{ + - 7• .r vp, I• I L -..� 1. �.. � r - � i � � •. - Fd'HiaiT � V I %\ Dreiling Terrones Archiiecture Inc. .V aHl ec I.,. I ,n lm s l me tare I E.,Iro em enu 30 July 2015 To: Burlingame Planning Commission REc 2753 Budingvlew Drive — response to Design Review Study comments Dear Commissioners and Staff, Thank you for your continents at the Design Review Study hearing on 7113115. The following Is our response to comments, and a description of a few minor revisions to the exterior elevation draurings. Building Mass I Story Poles: As you have seen, the story poles were erected and certifled. The outline of the story pole flagging reflects the articulated massing in our revised design reviewed an 7113. In regards to the house's mass and the concern for the context of the neighborhood, we Would rote the following: o The massing is verysimilarto many of the 1950's. 60's and 70's homes in the hillside area that haven garage at either the left or right front facade, and a two story mass extending across the property (See attached photo axarrV,".) Many of these are "two story ranch houses" with gabled roofs and are generally accepted as vernacular to the hillside area. Though their plate heights might be lower, they have the same Impact due to the high gable root_ Therefore the only teal difference between- these homes and this application,- is the style or appea i'�ZB- o The City Council and Commission have Indicated that pending further resolution on the appropriate neighborhoods for "modem style homes, the hillside area is generally an acceptable area for the modem style. o We have articulated the massing and details so that there Is a variation in roof lines with parapets, awningsloverhangs and materials. o previous projects at the -creat' of a street, in which the Commission has asked for revisions to height, have generally had uniform continual root lines or parapets that are not articulated. o We have stepped back both the right and lett corners of the front fagader — particularly in regards to the only impacted neighbor an the right side. o There are no view Issues that are affected by the massing of the house. o Weare not asking for any special considerations for height or setbacks. Our height calculation is near the maximum only because of the up -o loping lot o The house is setback on the sides more than the required minimum of 7'-0'. Tha setback on the left Is 11'-0", and on the right, the setback Is 10'-2' an the first floor and 71'-9' on the second floor. o We have minimized any view windows on the west elevation, facing McAloon at 2759 Burlingview Drive. We can further minimize the impact if we obscure the bathroom window on the second floor west elevation. o The only potential neighborhood Impact is along the front elevation, which Is masslvelyscreened by two huge mature protected size trees. The Commission has often asked applicants to consider landscaping as a means to help screen a fagade... this elevation could hardly be more screened with landscaping. o The two dimensional elevation drawings are deceiving. The front fegade In fact has several major steps In plane from thefront of the property, including: o Garage plane o Office I Laundry plane . o Second Floor Bedrooms 213 o Second Floor corners — Bath #3 and Master Bedroom Sitting area Squirts Footage: The total square footage proposed Is somewhat skewed by the existing attached garage which counts as square footage, and the two story volume which counts twice towards our overall FAR — but this two story volume is at the back of the house and has no real neighborhood impact. rlNlwcr,a Aremo ewe: mo. Co6Fvrdu&0,0 Lvii<'+:!••^ �n n,� !�.!•u fnd,:::• 114 CeMl rSlmel rTX Nes bw .Canomin 9.NB 89A96 t2:'9 Na ,rsa0 ?. 7 sal M, 'ft. '. : t Iwo Y ; t.0 ,,, ' 2 i .;,kli.°� Sy '` '. �.Y . - — ' ','nF lM a \ �� > }k =lit; :n)'a'tt3. *t 5,t'.... �kNitoiT �{ IL City,ofBurlingame PlamiagDepainiont 501Pfiawse Road P(650)558-7250 P(650)696-3790 www burtt� rn 10 , ,.. 1 , � CITY OF BURLINGAW °p , ;,;�PECIAI, PERlVIII•P: APPLICA,TION., . R = t,tTY OF Axl 9 init.L4M5 The PlatmingCotmmbsionisrequu'edbylawtomakefindingsasdefinedbythe,Ctty'sO ivanCccc(P(ia eNlt° 01V Section25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assistthePlanning t.,otnurissioninmalting the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Pleasetype or writeneafly in ink Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. I. Expkin why the blendofmass, scale and dominant sirrectaral characteristics ofthe Relp construction or addition are consistent with the existingstraetares design and with the existing street and neighborhood The proposed project Includes an attached garage In a °basement" story, Therefore a ceiling height greater than 6-1/2 feet is needed to accommodate automobiles.'" ---e garage for the proposed building is being placed below grade in order to keep the building as low as possible (and lower than adjacent IwiWias). The adjacent storage room in the bessmentis necessary to minimize the mass end bulk of the house, and therefore needs to be usable and graterthan 6-112 feet in height. Attached garages in the front part of the property are the norm on the side of the street where the project is located due to the topography of the area, and a common design throughout the Burlingame Hills neighborhood. 1. Explala how the Variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the ecisfing structure, street and neighborhood The proposed project is replacing an exlsflng building, and the style and exterior flnlsh materials are consistent with other modem style buildings In the neighborhood, The character of the neighborhood will not be affected by the project, as there are similar buildings throughout the Burlingame Hills that sit In a mix of different Was of buildings, mostly dating form the mid 20th century period. Partially underground "Basement" can be found in the adjacent properties and throughout the neighborhood as a response to the area's topography. 3. Flow will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city /CS. 25.S7)? t. The architectural style le compatible wfih that of the neighborhood, as the neighborhood exhleils a blend of different styles, including modem buildings like the proposed project, with attached garages, 2. Attached garages at the tmnt of the property are found III most houses an the title of the simetwhere the Project Is located. Tl's-proposed basement location forthe garage Slows the proposed building to remain low to the ground therefore harmonizing with the adjacent naighboncGod, 3. The project Is consistent with the massing and bulk of the e"ng structure b be replaced and matches surrounding buildings in height and size. The existing house, though being removed Includes an attached garage. 4. The proposed structure does not affect surrounding allucturm- 6. Pr000sed trees are seasonal, "dor and lamely iransoerent to keep them from obstrudlna views. 4. Explain howthe removalofany trees located withinthefootprintofany newstracrare or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City's reforestation requirements, Mid mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate, One protected bee is being proposed for removal, and will be replaced by (7) New Us%. The tree removal application will be obtained after the planning process Is completed. SPnCPEM.FRM Design Review Amendment 2747 Barlingview Drive The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for a basement ceiling height that exceeds 64". The proposed basement storage area and hall at the right side of the house has a ceiling height of 9'-0". A total of 600 SF of basement area and 100 SF of utility areas are exempt from floor area calculations. No part of the attached lower level garage is exempt from floor area calculations. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design review for anew house (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61.020); and Special permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)); and P 9 9 ()) M Special Permit for a basement height greater than V-6". (C.S. 25.26.035 2747 Burlingview Drive 1 (0.32 x 10,065 SF) + 1100 SF = 4321 SF (0.43 FAR). 2 A special permit is required for a basement ceiling height that is greater than 6'-6" (C.6. 25,26.035 (f)). s A special permit is required for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.03 (a)). Staff Comments; See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. 4 What is modern: characteristics of modem architecture — a2 modern I mode... Page 1 of 4 zrx# o/i �> MOD a2 ERN Search... • contact • resources • research • buildings • architects • events • home April 9th, 2011 What is modern: characteristics of modern architecture research Comments Off What is different about modern architecture? a2 modern member, Greg Jones, A.I.A., summarizes some of the common characteristics of this period of architecture. Characteristics of Mid -Century Modern: • Lack of ornament: Decorative moldings and elaborate trim are eliminated or greatly simplified, giving way to a clean aesthetic where materials meet in simple, well -executed joints. • Emphasis of rectangular forms and horizontal and vertical lines: Shapes of houses are based boxes, or linked boxes. Materials are often used in well-defined planes and vertical forms juxtaposed against horizontal elements for dramatic effect. http://a2modem.org/2011/04/characteristics-of-modern-architecture/ 9/7/2015 What is modem: characteristics of modern architecture — a2 modem I mode... Page 2 of 4 Low, horizontal massing, flat roofs, emphasis on horizontal planes and broad roof overhangs: Modem homes tend to be on generous sites, and thus many, but not all, have to have meandering one-story plans. Many examples hug the ground and appear of the site, not in contrast to it. Use of modern materials and systems: Steel columns are used in exposed applications, concrete block is used as a finished material, concrete floors are stained and exposed, long -span steel trusses permit open column -free spaces, and radiant heating systems enhance human comfort. • Use of traditional materials in new ways: Materials such as wood, brick and stone are used in simplified ways reflecting a modern aesthetic. Traditional clapboard siding are replaced with simple vertical board cladding used in large, smooth planes. Brick and stonework are simple, unomamented, and used in rectilinear masses and planes. • Emphasis on honesty of materials: Wood is often stained rather than painted to express its natural character. In many cases exterior wood is also stained so that the texture and character of the wood can be expressed. • Relationship between interior spaces and sites: Use of large expanses of glass in effect brings the building's site into the building, taking advantage of dramatic views and natural landscaping. • Emphasis on open, flowing interior spaces: Living spaces are no longer defined by walls, doors and hallways. Living, dining and kitchen spaces tend to flow together as part of one contiguous interior space, reflecting a more casual and relaxed way of life. • Generous use of glass and natural light: Windows are no longer portholes to the outside, but large expanses of floor to ceiling glass providing dramatic views and introducing natural light deep into the interior of homes. • Use of sun and shading to enhance human comfort: The best modem homes are efficient. They are oriented to take advantage of nature's forces to provide passive solar heating in the winter, while long overhangs and recessed openings provide shading to keep homes cool in the summer. http://a2modem.org/2011/04/characteristics-of-modern-architecture/ 9/7/2015 t �St Dreiling Terrones = Inc. 31 August 2015 To: Burlingame City Council RE: 2753 Burlingview Drive —Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Dear Madam Mayor, Honorable Council and Staff, Thank you for this opportunity to present our position regarding the appeal of the Planning Commission's Project Approval for 2753 Burlingview Drive. First, let us state that the property Owners — the Chan Family — are very excited to reconnect with this neighborhood where Alvin grew up, be adjacent to his Parents who live around the corner on Bella Vista, and become members of the community. They have been very respectful of Mr. McAloon and the other neighbors, and have gladly met with them to discuss their project. In regards to the issues of appeal, we submit the following "arguments": • It would appear that there is no basis for accepting the appeal and overturning the Planning Commission's approval of the project: o The applicant asked for NO special considerations for height, setbacks, FAR, lot coverage or declining height. The project in fact exceeds the required setbacks on all sides. o There are NO view blockage issues resulting from the project additions and massing o Mr. McAloon's only basis for objection at the Commission hearings appeared to merely relate to an interpretation of the Design Guidelines and issues of neighborhood context. • The rear, Hillsborough neighbor Mr. Feldman suggested at the Planning Commission Hearing that there were view issues from his property. The views from his one story structure appear to be entirely blocked by existing trees and fencing. • In regards to the Design Guidelines, the Planning Commission has already judged that the project fits the neighborhood context and approved the project based on their interpretation of the Design Guidelines • Mr. McAloon and A few neighbors have argued that the house is "too big" for the neighborhood. The proposed square footage of 4,113 sf (per Staff Report), includes 498 at of attached garage (most of which would be exempt if detached) and 136 at of high ceiling open area that is at the back of the house and not affecting any neighbor. Therefore the proposed living area is approximately 3,500 at. • The Neighbors' suggestion that this is an area of only one story homes, is not accurate. • We are not aware of any statute or guideline that requires a house to be a certain square footage, or a given percentage below the allowable FAR, if neighbors object, or if there are a certain number of existing houses with less square footage... • The only potential interpretation would be if the massing of a house that is less than the allowable square footage, nonetheless has some negative impact on the neighborhood... • Massing: o We have articulated the massing and details so that there is a variation in roof lines with parapets, awningsloverhangs and materials. o Previous projects at the "crest" of a street, in which the Commission has asked for revisions to height, have generally had uniform continual roof, lines or parapets that are not articulated. o We have stepped back both the right and left comers of the front facade — particularly in regards to the only impacted neighbor on the right side — Mr. McAloon o We are planning no large view windows that look out to Mr. McAloon's property o As noted to the Planning Commission, the front elevation is massively screened by two huge mature protected size trees. The Commission has often asked applicants to consider landscaping as a means to help screen a fagade... this elevation could hardly be more screened with landscaping. 2753 Burlingview Drive City Council Appeal Page 2 Planning Commissioners in fact commented that the story poles revealed that the massing was quite nice, and reflected a massing that was smaller than might be expected. The two dissenting Commissioners wondered if there were any other solutions that could have been pursued "be more compatible" or "reduce the massing": o Any alternative solutions would have to start with the two basics of where to locate the garage, and where to set the first floor elevation. o The Owners have no desire to throw away the existing garage and the first floor and put them in a landfill. The only area being removed is the previous unsightly addition. o Even If the site were scraped, the ONLY location and grade elevation for the garage is the EXISTING location and grade. Any other location would severely harm the two existing protected trees in the front yard. o Regarding the first floor, while the existing elevation is approx 6-9" above the average top of curb at the front, it is only V-2" above grade at the rear. Therefore the ONLY elevation for the first floor is the EXISTING grade — unless the house were to be sunken into grade and have to step UP to get out to the back yard. o Options for relocating or sinking the garage or first floor are fairly unreasonable, when again, the proposed project is within the allowable height, FAR, Lot Coverage, Declining Height and Setbacks. Style! Additional Neighborhood Context: The City Council and Commission have indicated that pending further resolution on the issue of appropriate neighborhoods for "modem style" homes, the hillside area is generally an acceptable area for the modem style. There are in fact several homes in the immediate vicinity that have a somewhat modern or contemporary feel—including Mr. McAloon's home. In conclusion, we believe we have designed a well -styled home that fits into the Hillside and Neighborhood context, and serves the needs and desires of the Chan Family who will soon be contributing members of our Community. Thank you for your further consideration. Sincerely, U�'0 Wayne Lin, Project nager Dreiling Terrones Ar hitecture, Inc. cc Alvin Chan / Jacqueline Yuen — Owners attached: rendering --_ i „ .0l9;, i.. , ,. City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CIN HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, August 10, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Alvin and Jacqueline Chan, property owner) (31 noticed) Staff Contact: Enka Lewit Attachments: 2753 Burlinqview Dr - Staff Report 2753 Burlinqview Dr -Attachments Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item as he has a business relationship with the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent met with three neighbors: the neighbor immediately adjacent uphill, and the two across the street. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Wayne Lin, Dreilling Terrones Architects, represented the applicant: > Story poles have been installed. > Owners have met with neighbors since story poles were installed. > Have articulated massing and details so there are variations in rooflines with parapets, awnings, overhangs and materials. > Stepped back front and right comers of facade. > No view issues are effected by the mass of the house. > No special considerations for either the height or setbacks. Height is near the maximum only because of the upsloping lot. > Side setbacks are greater than required on both sides: 11' on the left side; 10'-2" on the first floor and 11'-9"on the second floor of the right side. > Has minimized view windows on the west elevation. Front is screened by two large mature protected size trees. > Rendering shows different planes in the facade. > Existing 2 -car garage counts towards floor area, and the two-story volume counts twice towards FAR. > Rear elevation windows revised, roof overhang extended. Additional windows on west elevation but will not be view windows. Alvin Chan spoke as the owner: > Met with neighbors Sunday evening. > Would like to make changes to plan as compromise to address neighbor concerns. > Proposes planting purple hopseed bushes for privacy between adjacent neighbor. > Proposes adding a third tree at front corner at comer of garage - Japanese maple. > Suggests adding an additional parking space on the curb to the right of the driveway. Questions to applicant: City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 811712015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2015 > Have addressed the concems of neighbors? (Chan: Can't speak for them. Have made suggested changes as a result of the meeting.) > Story poles show the house will impinge on the to Sequoia tree. (Lin: Arborist report mentions preserving tree so it remain in good health.)(Chan: 5-10 lower limbs will be removed according to the report.) > How to ensure the health of tree? (Chan: Arborist report is very specific with protection measures including fencing around the tree, and arborist involvement during construction.) Public comments: Terry MCAloon, 2759 Burlingview Drive, spoke on this item: > Design guidelines are there to preserve good qualities of existing neighborhoods. > Guidelines say a neighborhood can be interpreted by its common characteristics, its general pattern exemplified by the original homes. > Guidelines say new houses coming into neighborhood should support existing homes, emulate the design and respect the homes. > Characteristics of neighborhood are single -story 2,000 square foot homes. Does not see how a two-story 4,300 sq ft home fits. > Homes on Atwater are similar to what is proposed, but that is a different neighborhood. Not sure why need to accept something from a different neighborhood. > Does not believe design complies with Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Gary Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive, spoke on this item: > Submitted letter. Concerns mitigated by landscaping but still stand behind letter. > Concern with mass and height of house. Will be taller than houses on each side so will be out of character with the neighborhood. > Impacts neighbor on pleasure and use of their home, loss of privacy. > Amenable to improvements and neighborhood upgraded, but wants to see if owners could meet their requirements for their home without as much impact on the neighbors. Merrill Feldman spoke on this item: > Lives behind the property. > Concerns stated by others > Nature of neighborhood would be changed by a house of this height and size. > Issues taken into account in terms of front and side views, but not considered from behind. Story poles show impact to view from the rear. Applicant response: > Height point of departure (finished floor level of first floor) is 6'-9" based on hill topography. > House is set back beyond the required 7 feet. First floor is 10'--2", second floor 114" to distance from the neighbor's side. Vice -Chair Loffis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: > Difficult, as Burlingame is changing. Applicants want largerhouses as property values increase. > Applicant has worked hard to take concerns of neighbors into account. Difference between this design and earlier is significant > Massing is handled well, and held back significantly from the setbacks. > Does not impact distant views as specified in the Hillside Construction Permit ordinance. > Will be a larger house than the neighborhood at large. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 8HD2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2015 > Well screened by existing mature trees. Additional tree will help further. > Story poles seemed to show house would fit well. Flat roof allows height of the house to be brought down. > All neighborhoods are changing, so need to focus on quality of design, This is a high-quality design. > Has done a good job of mitigating neighbor concerns. However apparent massing seems large as it is viewed from the west, sitting out on the promontory. Other large houses fit in better when they sit back into the hill, not on top of a promontory. > 2751 Summit example also sits on a promontory and is two -stories. It overshadows the houses around it. > Existing house mitigates the massing by pushing second story back into left corner. > Would like mass decreased. All houses around are single -story houses. This house is setting the standard. > Concern with trimming the limbs on the tree. > Story poles show house will not be as massive as might be anticipated. House is increasing overall height only 5.3 feet at the highest point of the ridge compared to existing house. > Building is sculpted nicely. Facade steps away on upper floors. > Does not need to reproduce architecture from the 1950s. > Tree is large and will be able to endure trimming. It has already been trimmed previously. > Project can be supported with the proposed landscaping additions coming back as an FYI. Parking space may require an encroachment permit so should be pursued but not a requirement. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the application with the following condition: > Applicant to return with an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit indicating landscaping proposed by the applicant, including the screening trees on the right side of the property and the Japanese maple at the front left of the property. Proposed parking space should be pursued with Public Works but is not a requirement. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Loftis, Sargent, and Gaul Nay: 2 - Gum, and Bandrapalli Absent: 1 - DeMartini Recused: 1 - Terrones City or Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 8/17/2015 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CIN HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Monday, August 10, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Alvin and Jacqueline Chan, property owner) (31 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 2753 Burlinqview Or - Staff Report 2753 Burlinqview Or - Attachments Commissioner Teriones was recused from this item as he has a business relationship with the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent met with three neighbors: the neighbor immediately adjacent uphill, and the two across the street. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Wayne Lin, Diellling Terrones Architects, represented the applicant., > Story poles have been installed. > Owners have met with neighbors since story poles were installed. > Have articulated massing and details so there are variations in rooflines with parapets, awnings, overhangs and materials. > Stepped back front and right comers of facade. > No view issues are effected by the mass of the house. > No special considerations for either the height or setbacks. Height is near the maximum only because of the upsloping lot. > Side setbacks are greater than required on both sides: 11' on the left side; 10'-2" on the first floor and 11'-9" on the second floor of the right side. > Has minimized view windows on the west elevation. Front is screened by two large mature protected size trees. > Rendering shows different planes in the facade. > Existing 2 -car garage counts towards floor area, and the two-story volume counts twice towards FAR. > Rear elevation windows revised, roof overhang extended. Additional windows on west elevation but will not be view windows. Alvin Chan spoke as the owner., > Met with neighbors Sunday evening. > Would like to make changes to plan as compromise to address neighbor concerns. > Proposes planting purple hopseed bushes for privacy between adjacent neighbor. > Proposes adding a third tree at front corner at comer of garage - Japanese maple. > Suggests adding an additional parking space on the curb to the right of the driveway. Questions to applicant: City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 811712015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2015 > Have addressed the concerns of neighbors? (Chan: Can't speak for them. Have made suggested changes as a result of the meeting.) > Story poles show the house will impinge on the to Sequoia tree. (Lin: Arborist report mentions preserving tree so it remain in good health.)(Chan: 5-10 lower limbs will be removed according to the report.) > How to ensure the health of tree? (Chan: Arborist report is very specific with protection measures including fencing around the tree, and arborist involvement during construction.) Public comments: Terry MCAloon, 2759 Burlingview Drive, spoke on this item: > Design guidelines are there to preserve good qualities of existing neighborhoods. > Guidelines say a neighborhood can be interpreted by its common characteristics, its general pattern exemplified by the original homes. > Guidelines say new houses coming into neighborhood should support existing homes, emulate the design and respect the homes. > Characteristics of neighborhood are single -story 2,000 square foot homes. Does not see how a two-story 4,300 sq it home fits. > Homes on Atwater are similar to what is proposed, but that is a different neighborhood. Not sure why need to accept something from a different neighborhood. > Does not believe design complies with Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Gary Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive, spoke on this item: > Submitted letter. Concerns mitigated by landscaping but still stand behind letter. > Concern with mass and height of house. Will be taller than houses on each side so will be out of character with the neighborhood. > Impacts neighbor on pleasure and use of their home, loss of privacy. > Amenable to improvements and neighborhood upgraded, but wants to see if owners could meet their requirements for their home without as much impact on the neighbors. Merrill Feldman spoke on this item: > Lives behind the property. > Concerns stated by others > Nature of neighborhood would be changed by a house of this height and size. > Issues taken into account in terms of front and side views, but not considered from behind. Story poles show impact to view from the rear. Applicant response: > Height point of departure (finished floor level of first floor) is 6'-g"based on hill topography. > House is set back beyond the required 7 feet. First floor is 10'-2", second floor 11'-9" to distance from the neighbor's side. Vice -Chair Loftis closed the public hearing Commission discussion: > Difficult as Burlingame is changing. Applicants want larger houses as property values increase. > Applicant has worked hard to take concerns of neighbors into account. Difference between this design and earlier is significant. > Massing is handled well, and held back significantly from the setbacks. > Does not impact distant views as specified in the Hillside Construction Permit ordinance. > Will be a larger house than the neighborhood at lame. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 8/17/2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2015 > Well screened by existing mature trees. Additional tree will help further. > Story poles seemed to show house would fit well. Flat roof allows height of the house to be brought down. > All neighborhoods are changing, so need to focus on quality of design. This is a high-quality design. > Has done a good job of mitigating neighbor concerns. However apparent massing seems large as it is viewed from the west, sitting out on the promontory. Other large houses fit in better when they sit back into the hill, not on top of a promontory. > 2751 Summit example also sits on a promontory and is two -stones. It overshadows the houses around it. > Existing house mitigates the massing by pushing second story back into left comer. > Would like mass decreased. All houses around are single -story houses. This house is setting the standard. > Concern with trimming the limbs on the tree. > Story poles show house will not be as massive as might be anticipated. House is increasing overall height only 5.3 feet at the highest point of the ridge compared to existing house. > Building is sculpted nicely. Facade steps away on upper floors. > Does not need to reproduce architecture from the 1950s. > Tree is large and will be able to endure trimming. It has already been trimmed previously. > Project can be supported with the proposed landscaping additions coming back as an FYI. Parking space may require an encroachment permit so should be pursued but not a requirement. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to approve the application with the following condition: > Applicant to return with an FYI prior to issuance of a building permit indicating landscaping proposed by the applicant, including the screening trees on the right side of the property and the Japanese maple at the front left of the property. Proposed parking space should be pursued with Public Works but is not a requirement. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Loftis, Sargent, and Gaul Nay: 2 - Gum, and Bandrapalli Absent: 1 - DeMartini Recused: 1 - Terrones City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 8/1712015 t PF '^r flt �$�gg�, y dot: S' .�" • r' _ r b P 'g ca3 s TQY6T.. '`•. £s!•. �. a�" �tY wee r� Item No. 8a Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2753 Burlingview Drive Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling that includes first and second floor additions. Applicant and Architect: Richard Terrones, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. APN: 027-261-030 Property Owner: Alvin Chan Lot Area: 10,000 General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing house is two stories with an attached garage. The applicant is requesting Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and second story additions. The proposed floor area for the new house will be 4,113 SF (0.41 FAR) where 4,300 (0.43 FAR) is the maximum allowed on site (including covered porch exemptions). With the proposed project, the existing second floor will be demolished, as well as portions of the existing left side of the house that have non -conforming side setbacks. The existing attached garage will remain, and there will be first floor additions at the rear of the existing house, as well as a new second story. The applicant is requesting a Hillside Area Construction Permit for this major renovation and first and second story additions. The existing highest ridge, at the left side of the house, is 24'-0" above average top of curb and the height of the highest section of the flat roof (at the center of the house) for the new second story addition is 30'-0" above average top of curb. The exterior walls of the existing attached garage and the existing code -complaint uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage will remain. The number of bedrooms on site will be increased from 4 to 5 and the on-site parking requirement will be increased from two spaces (1 covered,1 uncovered) to three spaces (2 covered spaces, 1 uncovered parking space). The interior width of the garage will not be altered; it provides the minimum width for two covered parking spaces (18'-0" existing and proposed). Several interior structures (such as a furnace, water heater, and stairs) will be removed to increase the interior length in the garage. Because the parking space length is being altered, the required length must be 20'-0" to comply with code regulations and the revised design provides 20'-0", eliminating the previous request for a parking variance. There is a protected size tree at the left, front side of the property that will be retained with construction. The applicant has submitted a Certified Arborist Reports, date stamped March 11 and July 31, 2015, to detail protection measures. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design review for a second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010,a,2); and Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61.020). Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2753 Burlingview Drive Lot Area: 10,000 2753 Burlingview Drive Plans date stamoed: July 31. 2015 ' Existing, non -conforming setback to the attached, single door garage. 3 Existing, non -conforming right side setback (5'-0" existing, where T-0" is required). 3 (0.32 x 10,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,300 SF (0.43 FAR). Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting the Commission had several comments regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division and story poles installed and surveyed. Please refer to the copy of the July 13, 2015 Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the Planning Commission comments on the design of the structure and the role of story poles of evaluating the project. The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped July 31, 2015. The story poles were installed and certified on July 22, 2015. The installation of the story poles showed that the proposed second story would require trimming of the protected size Sequoia tree on the property. The applicant has submitted an updated Arborist Report, dated stamped July 31, 2015, to address this impact. The conditions of approval require that tree protection measures be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to any demolition on the site and that a Certified Arborist be present for any tree trimming of protected size trees. Staff would note the following items that in addition to the previously submitted letters, the Attachment section of this report contains four additional letters submitted by neighboring property owners and one additional letter -2- EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS j Front (1st fir): 34'-8" No change 23'-7" (2nd fir): 57'-3" 41'-3" 23-7" To attached garage: 24'-11"' No change 35'-0" Side (left): 5'-0" z 11'-0" 7'-0" (right): 10'-0" No change 7'-0" Rear (1st flr) 41'-0" 15'-0" Rear 2nd Ar :: ..-----(---.....�.. 37'-0" - .._.T -...._._.. 41'-0" .._...—..--._...._._.. 20'-0" -- Lot Coverage: 2,860 SF 2,466 SF i 4,000 SF 29% 25% j 40% FAR: 3,356 SF 4,113 SF j 4,300 SF' 0.34 FAR 0.41 FAR 0.43 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 5 --- Parking: __....-- --..---- 1 covered -------------- 2 covered --------- -._..—_...------ 2 covered (9' x 18') (18' x 20') (18' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 9'x 20') (9'x 20') (9'x 20') Height 24' 0 30'-0" 1 30'-0" ' Existing, non -conforming setback to the attached, single door garage. 3 Existing, non -conforming right side setback (5'-0" existing, where T-0" is required). 3 (0.32 x 10,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,300 SF (0.43 FAR). Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Division, Engineering Division, Parks Division, and Stormwater Division. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting the Commission had several comments regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division and story poles installed and surveyed. Please refer to the copy of the July 13, 2015 Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the Planning Commission comments on the design of the structure and the role of story poles of evaluating the project. The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped July 31, 2015. The story poles were installed and certified on July 22, 2015. The installation of the story poles showed that the proposed second story would require trimming of the protected size Sequoia tree on the property. The applicant has submitted an updated Arborist Report, dated stamped July 31, 2015, to address this impact. The conditions of approval require that tree protection measures be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to any demolition on the site and that a Certified Arborist be present for any tree trimming of protected size trees. Staff would note the following items that in addition to the previously submitted letters, the Attachment section of this report contains four additional letters submitted by neighboring property owners and one additional letter -2- Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2753 Burlingview Drive submitted by the property owner. 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. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: That the proposed single family dwelling is designed to decrease the impact of the proposed second story on the uphill property to the right, with a greater than existing side setback and flat roofs, and that this project does not obstruct distant views from habitable areas within nearby dwelling units and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with hillside area construction permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 31, 2015, sheets A0.01 through A5.1, AR1.04, L1.1 and L1.2.GP1.0, ER1.1, and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's December 23, 2014 and March 18, 2015 memos, the Building Division's December 23, 2014 and March 13, 2015 memos, the Parks Division's January 8, 2015 memo, the Fire Division's December 23, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Division's December 23, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; -3- Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2753 Budingview Drive 6. 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 tree protection measures are installed on site for any protected -size tree, and these measures are inspected and approved by the Parks Supervisor; any protected -size tree that is proposed to be removed, or that is damaged and must be removed as a result of demolition or construction, will require a Protected Tree Permit and may require further Planning Division or Planning Commission review; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet and a landscape plan that list the Kielty Arborist reports dated March 11 and July 31, 2015, and recommendations, as well as the condition that certified arborist must be on site for trimming of any protected size tree; 8. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. 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 Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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. Erika Lewit -4- Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Senior Planner 2753 Burlingview Drive c. Richard Terrones, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant Attachments: Applicant's response letter, dated July 30, 2015 July 13, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Applicant's response letter, dated May 28, 2015 April 13, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Arborist's Report, date stamped March 11, 2015 Arborist's Report, date stamped July 31, 2015 Communications submitted by neighbors for Design Review Study Hearings (4 items) Communications submitted by neighbors for Regular Action Hearing (4 items) Letters from the homeowner, date stamped April 13 and August 5, 2015 Photographs of Neighborhood, date stamped December 22, 2014 Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed July 31, 2015 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Aerial Photo -5- `- Drei[in g Terrones nc. .. r: lihrllu, in irr.in,chire I enakonm en L• 30 July 2015 To: Burlingame Planning Commission RE: 2753 Burlingview Drive — response to Design Review Study comments Dear Commissioners and Staff, Thank you for your comments at the Design Review Study hearing on 7/13/15. The following is our response to comments, and a description of a few minor revisions to the exterior elevation drawings. Building Mass / Story Poles: As you have seen, the story poles were erected and certified. The outline of the story pole flagging reflects the articulated massing in our revised design reviewed on 7/13. In regards to the house's mass and the concern for the context of the neighborhood, we would note the following: o The massing is very similar to many of the 1950's, 60's and 70's homes in the hillside area that have a garage at either the left or right front facade, and a two story mass extending across the property (See attached photo examples.) Many of these are "two story ranch houses" with gabled roofs and are generally accepted as vernacular to the hillside area. Though their plate heights might be lower, they have the same impact due to the high gable roof. Therefore the only real difference between those homes and this application, is the style or appearance. o The City Council and Commission have indicated that pending further resolution on the appropriate neighborhoods for "modern style" homes, the hillside area is generally an acceptable area for the modern style. o We have articulated the massing and details so that there is a variation in roof lines with parapets, awnings/overhangs and materials. o Previous projects at the "crest" of a street, in which the Commission has asked for revisions to height, have generally had uniform continual roof lines or parapets that are not articulated. o We have stepped back both the right and left corners of the front fagade — particularly in regards to the only impacted neighbor on the right side. o There are no view Issues that are affected by the massing of the house. o We are not asking for any special considerations for height or setbacks. Our height calculation is near the maximum only because of the up-sloping lot. o The house is setback on the sides more than the required minimum of T-0". The setback on the left Is 11'-D", and on the right, the setback is 10'-2" on the first floor and 11'-9" on the second floor. o We have minimized any view windows on the west elevation, facing McAloon at 2759 Burlingview Drive. We can further minimize the impact if we obscure the bathroom window on the second floor west elevation. o The only potential neighborhood impact is along the front elevation, which is massively screened by two huge mature protected size trees. The Commission has often asked applicants to consider landscaping as a means to help screen a fagade... this elevation could hardly be more screened with landscaping. o The two dimensional elevation drawings are deceiving. The front fagade in fact has several major steps in plane from the front of the property, including: o Garage plane o Office / Laundry plane o Second Floor Bedrooms 2/3 o Second Floor corners —Bath #3 and Master Bedroom Sitting area Square Footage: The total square footage proposed is somewhat skewed by the existing attached garage which counts as square footage, and the two story volume which counts twice towards our overall FAR — but this two story volume is at the back of the house and has no real neighborhood impact. 2753 Burlingview Drive Response to Planning Commission Comments Page 2 Elevation Revisions: The minor revisions include: o Rear Elevation o Revised the window module for the windows into the two story Living Room volume o Bedroom #4, extended the roof overhang to the right on the roof above the deck o West Elevation— Bedroom #5, added small windows at the night stand area of the bed wall. These will not be view windows because the primary view is through the large window on the south wall, to the rear yard Thank you for your further consideration. Sincerely, d Wayne Lin, ProleManager Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. cc Alvin Chan / Jacqueline Yuen — Owners attached: sample hillside homes v3 Lu: ! II .,.-.it i 1.1n:<.:M I -'M I,eid)l. C.SN n6I VSgx^ F�" v.. 4 11 1='' IT AI OV, 'i'f, -, X,'. 811/2015 3010 Alcazar Dr - Google Maps GOOSIC 3010 AIcazar Dr Burlingame, California Street View -Apr 2015 �l Atwater 6r ,, Pbdr�,tlngr at Image capture: Apr 2015 © 2015 Google https:tAuww.google.com/m aps/@37.580466,-122.395785,3a,37.8y,141.4h,90.35tldata= lam 611 el l3m4!1 s m F W unQLzLZYI87QD90EYQ!2e01Ti 13312!816656!6m 1... 111 8/1/2015 3066 Atwater Dr - Google Maps A ( OOSle 3066 Atwater Dr Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 aro , W •gray Ov- £hdsP,�n ` kAte[ Dr 4� v Image capture: Apr 2015 © 2015 Google https:IAv .google.com/maps1@37.580844,-122.398359,3a,40.2y,178.08h,87.06t/data=13m611e1!3m4!1s4goQmU 1 mOa- HvgTs3dXiSA12e017ll331218i665616m11... Ill 8/1/2015 1527 Los Montes Dr - Google Maps (`;OOole 1527 Los Montes Dr Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 Image capture: Apr 2015 © 2015 Google Mips:/Avww.google.com/m apsf@37.574599,-122.395292,3a,40.9y,226.67h,90.21 t1data=!3m 611 el13m411s3VnnH m rdMewbcuVN7beg12e0!Ti 133121&6656!6m 111 e1 1 /1 8/1/2015 3107 Margarita Ave - Google M aps GC)Ogle 3107 Margarita Ave Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 e •� ff m w! O Image capture: Apr 2015 ® 2015 Google hfpsIAw .google.com/maps/@37.576458,-122.396677,3a,49.3y,325.45h,82.31ttldata=!3m6llel!3m4!is_UAP07GCzEm3rf0y[SCm5M2eO!713312!Bi6656!6mt... 1/1 8/1/2015 e l(-WIal. 3074 Atwater Dr 3074 Atwater Dr - Google Maps Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 q.RJ� tit ebd ater Dr e"O"Ot o Image capture: Apr 2015 *2015 Google https:[Aw .google.com/maps/@37.580798,-122.398689,3a,5N,172.62h,84.71/data=]3m6llell3m4llsaQm7DgVcctzrg6yTLaHGDBA!2e017il331218i665616millel 1/1 8/1/2015 2928 Trousdale Dr - Google Maps �;(70gle 2928 Trousdale Dr Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 bV us 1FSo aY 0W,v t i Leh Image capture: Apr 2015 © 2015 Google htps:/M.google.comlmaps/@37.582012,-122.39677,3a,24.2y,148.33h,89.22Vdata!3m611e1!3m411sY3B19Rk6jhNXRv-i!aMNnQ12e01713312!8i665616m111e1 1/1 3014 Atwater Dr - Google Maps -' ( OOSle 3014 Atwater Dr Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 OW. &p e�dsiil' t -. Apxater Dr Image capture: Apr 2015 © 2015 Google hN)S:Iw .google.comfmaps/@37.580886,-122.396138,3a,582y,205.83h,83.72Vdata=!3m611e113m411sOG5gDKPgivXA7NU6sDkl3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6mi!tet 1/1 8/1/2015 GOOSIC 3054 Atwater Dr 3054 Atwater Dr- Google Maps Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 it hip 5 jY ends/04 ptw� tSP Image capture: Apr 2015 © 2015 Google https:tMww.goog!e.com/maps/(x237.580902,-122.39T787,3a,75y,163.9h,83.71t/data=!3m6!lel!3m4lls8QSZL9sVbYvRwa4VeHFi !2eD!713312!8i6656[6m111el 1/1 8/1/2015 3140 Hillside Dr - Google Maps (_1(-o je 3140 Hillside Dr Burlingame, California Street View - Apr 2015 Image capture: Apr 2015 © 2015 Google h"JA~.google.com/mapsl@37.573332,-122.395531,3a,85.3y,199.13h,81.97Vdata=13m6!1e1!3m411s_5K-EBMUIBHotOZ5XgELA!2e0!713312!8i6656!6mi!... 1/1 8/1/2015 1513 Los Montes Dr - Google Maps r 16 G0 -0-.1e 1513 Los Montes Dr Burlingame, California Street View -Apr 2015 f-1 ' 4 Image capture: Apr 2015 @ 2015 Google haps:/Am .google.com/maps/@37.573584,-122.394207,3a,75y,225.32h,85.3t/data=l3m6!1ell3m41ls4wj4O3BwhhgEOgcOscgzOwl2e0l7il331218i6656!6m IHal 1/1 Monday, July 13, 2015 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers C. 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Alvin and Jacqueline Chan, property owner) (31 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 2753 Burlinqview Drive staff report i' 2753 Burlinqview Drive attachments Commissioner Temones was recused from this item, as he has a business relationship with the applicant. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners DeMartini and Bandrapalli each met with the neighbor at 2769 Burlingview. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Wayne Lin, DTA, represented the applicant: > Has revisited the issues with the adjacent neighbor at 2759 Burlinqview and will visit again once the story poles have been installed. > Garage stair relocated, allowing a conforming garage. Variance no longer requested. > Revision to west elevation proposed to add two side windows to add light into the lower bedroom. Commission questions/comments: > Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Lin: Yes, have reviewed with neighbors at 2759 Surlingview.) > Pleased the parking variance has been eliminated. Public comments: None. Commission comments: > Moving the setbacks back on both sides will help with the impacts on the neighbors. However while massing has been improved will still be a huge building in relation to the neighboring houses. 10 foot plate height on first floor, 9 feet on second floor, whereas most of the neighboring houses are older ranch style with 8 -foot ceilings. Will make it hard to fit into the neighborhood. > Neighbors to right would not have views that would need to be protected. Not sure about other homes, but will determine once story poles go up. Story poles will also give a sense of the scale of the house. > Good job of sculpting the building, not just a rectangular box. Challenge is it sits on top of hill, over the house below it. Naturally sits on a promontory overlooking the house below. > Good job of mitigating the massing and allowing the neighbor to the right to have a sense of openness. City of audingame Page 1 Printed on 8/412015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 13, 2015 Commissioner DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar once the story poles have been installed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Gaul, and Bandrapalli Recused: 1 - Terrones City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 5/0/2015 05-28-2015 To: Burlingame Planning Commission RE: 2753 Burlingview drive— Response to Comments, 4/13/2015 Study Meeting Dear Commissioners and Staff Thank you for your consideration of our project and your comments at the Study Meeting on 4/13/15. We have re- visited the project design with the Applicant (Alvin Chan) and we have made several changes in response to the Commission's comments. In working with Planning Staff, we have collectively determined that it is best to re -visit the Project with the Commission at a second Study Meeting rather than proceed to Action. This should allow us to get some feedback on the Architecture of the Project, prior to revising the story poles and proceeding to Action. We have re -visited the view issues with the adjacent neighbor, Mr. McAloon at 2759 Burlingview Drive, prior to revising the project. If the Architectural revisions are generally acceptable, we will again visit with Mr. MCAloon once the story poles have been revised. Below are photographs from the view windows in Mr. McAloon's house. Drelling Terrones _. - Inc. 05-28-2015 To: Burlingame Planning Commission RE: 2753 Burlingview drive— Response to Comments, 4/13/2015 Study Meeting Dear Commissioners and Staff Thank you for your consideration of our project and your comments at the Study Meeting on 4/13/15. We have re- visited the project design with the Applicant (Alvin Chan) and we have made several changes in response to the Commission's comments. In working with Planning Staff, we have collectively determined that it is best to re -visit the Project with the Commission at a second Study Meeting rather than proceed to Action. This should allow us to get some feedback on the Architecture of the Project, prior to revising the story poles and proceeding to Action. We have re -visited the view issues with the adjacent neighbor, Mr. McAloon at 2759 Burlingview Drive, prior to revising the project. If the Architectural revisions are generally acceptable, we will again visit with Mr. MCAloon once the story poles have been revised. Below are photographs from the view windows in Mr. McAloon's house. 2747 Burlingview Drive Response to Planning Commission Comments Page 2 The following is a list of the revisions we have made to the Architecture of the Project. Lower Floor Plan: • Main entry wall pushed out to receive new central vertical element also allowing more space in the foyer area • With the enlarged foyer, the garage stair has been relocated to allow for a conforming garage interior length of 21'-2" thus removing the need for any variance request Upper Floor Plan: • Bedroom 4 wall pushed in to provide more setback distance to the adjacent neighbor. Reflected in the South and West elevations • The bedrooms and bath along the North side of the upper floor have been adjusted to allow for the new window configurations and the central vertical element. This revision is also reflected in the North elevation • Master bedroom and Master bathroom have been flipped, thus allowing a master balcony in the front over the existing garage. This also reduces the potential of cutting excessive amounts of the adjacent sequoia tree limbs. This also allowed for a better opportunity to further sculpt the North and East elevations North Elevation: • A unifying central vertical element (with wood siding) has been incorporated into the design. This organizes the main front elevation into three (3) distinct elements: the vertical center piece, with horizontal elements at either side. • Upper right corner of the front fagade has been stepped back in response to potential view issues from the adjacent neighbor. The window layout remains the same. • The upper decorative band has been removed and the roof line has been lowered l'-9" to a total height of 21'-11" above finished floor. • An awning has been added above the lower floor windows • The laundry room window has been revised to a vertical casement window to match the adjacent window layout • A separate awning has been added over the main front entry door. • Upper left corner has been stepped back in various locations with a balcony off the Master Bedroom to create a more sculpted elevation, particularly where the existing large sequoia tree is located. 2747 Burlingview Drive Response to Planning Commission Comments Page 2 • Anew awning has been added above the upper level master bedroom balcony doors to give shelter from the weather. • NOTE. This second floor balcony faces the street, does not overlook any rear yards, and is sheltered from the front yard of 2747 Burlingview Drive (same owners) by the sequoia tree. East Elevation: • Upper Door elevation revised to reflect the new Floor plan configuration • The upper right side is stepped back to create the master balcony which is reflected on the North elevation • New awning over the master bathroom that has been relocated to the left side of the elevation as reflected on the upper level floor plan • New window configurations to reflect the new floor plan layout South Elevation: • Upper left band element removed and roof lowered to reflect the West and North elevations. • The left wall has been pushed in to give more setback distance to the adjacent neighbor • Upper right balcony and awning removed to reflect revised Floor plan. A new comer window in the master bathroom with a small awning above, and turning over to the East elevation West Elevation: • Reduced the size of the upper bedroom window facing the adjacent neighbor. Changed to two (2) vertical casement windows that are on both sides of the new bed wall • Decorative band element has been removed and roof lowered to reflect the North and South elevations • The upper level wall is stepped back to allow more setback distance to the adjacent neighbor • The upper left wall is also stepped back even further to reduce the amount of wall mass as viewed from the neighbors office window Thank you for your further consideration of our project. Sincerely, V Wayne lin, Project M r Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2015 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 833 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1 Application for Design Review for a se nd story addition to an existing single family dwelling with detached gar (Waldemar Stachnuik, KWS United Technology, Inc., applicant and designer; an and Lindsay Morris, property owners) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber All Commissioners had visited the project site. T1plicant ons to report. Senior Planner provided an overview of the staff There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Waldemar Stachnuik and Brian Morris represent Commission questions/comments: > The roof slopes are significantly ifferent than what exists currently. Needs to be much more delicate in its approach to integratin the second -floor roofline into the house. The design detracts from the character of the house. > The front view of the house is sing altered in a negative way. > The mass of the side vations is increased by the second floor sheer -wall addition. The dormers should be made subordinat o the main roof. > Noticed the tall fen on one side of the driveway; was it done with permits? (Morris - wasn't aware of the code require nt at the time. Was installed because there is no back -yard,' the side -yard serves as the yard area.) to correct this issue. > Agrees with omments about the shed roof. > Has any bought been given to making the windows consistent? (Stachnuik - is difficult to make them cons' tent. Intends to use the windows with grids to match the windows on the front of the house. Will inst aluminum -clad wood windows.) > e dormers are very prominent from Alpine. Important to do a correct design. comments: None. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the project to a design reviewer, Vice -Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: b. 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Parking Variance, and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor (Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc., applicant and architect; Alvin and Jacqueline Chan, property owner) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding this item as his firm has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers, Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. City oreurfingame Page 7 Printed on 7/7/2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2015 Vice -Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Wayne Hu represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: > Doesn't find the justification for the parking variance compelling. There is already major reconstruction going on with the project. > Is troubled by the massing of the house; take a look at this. (Hu - have looked at the massing in general.) > Appears to be possible to relocate the stairs into the interior of the house to improve parking. > The home approved on the adjacent property was massed better. > Need to engage with the neighbors regarding view impacts. > Question regarding landscape plan at the front; will here be turf? Clarify on the landscape plan. > Believes the plan could be "sculpted" a bit more to make it look less boxy. > Agrees with the comments regarding the garage. > A color rendering would be helpful in understanding the design. > The design is not truly Mid -Century Modern. Public comments: Terry MCAloon, 2969 Budingview Drive: expressed concern about size, mass and bulk of house. Twice the size of most homes in the area. The lot is similar in size to all other lots in the area. Concerned about losing the open view and partial Bay view from his house. Requested story poles. Vice -Chair DeMartini closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: > Suggested story poles following refinements to the design. > Encouraged the applicant to meet with the neighbors when refining. > Require story poles before coming back for action. > Could warrant design reviewer, but feels that the firm has the ability to address the design concerns. > Doesn't feel that conditions warrant the parking variance in this instance, based upon the arguments presented in the application. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the regular action calendar when ready for action, with further direction to erect story poles for the project once revisions to the design are completed, prior to consideration by the Commission. Vice -Chair DeMartini asked for a voice vote on the motion, and the motion carried by the following vote: C. 1700 Devereux Drive, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Parking Wdece for a major renovation including a first and second story addition to a sting single family dwelling with an attached garage (Wehmeyer Design, (cant and architect; Stephen and Kimarie Matthews, property owner 43 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Barber Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visit a project site. Vice -Chair DeMartini met with the neighbor at 105 Ray Drive. Commissions crones met with the applicant. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor on the left side of -me -9169. Planner Barber provided an overview of the staff report. City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 71712015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 601 PRIMROSE ROAD' • SURLINSAME, CA -9401.11 p; 650556.7250 . f: 650.696:3790 , www.burlingame.Org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ® Design Review ❑ -Variance ID Parcel '#: 027-251-030 El Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS'. 2753 sudingview Drive APPLICANT project: contact person® OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: ISarre as Amh1fec0 .Address: _ City/State/zip: Phone: Fax: PROPERTY OWNER pmlectcontact person ❑ OK to send electronic Copies Of documents ❑ Name: Address: 27533urlivayiew ]2dyQ City/State/Zip: RVH1nQ@MeJ 68/94010 Phone: 650-504-2679 Fax: E-mail: Lic i,41 iC d' V34 YeY, ter* E-mail: alvin@woddcocompany.com ARCHITECTIDESIGNER proieetcontect person© OK to and -tear-nlc: copies or dSEumenrs O Name: Richard Terrones Address: 1103 Juanita Ave City/State/Zip.:. Burlingame) CA/ 94010 _ Phone:. 66o-343-9eAs ` Fax: 650.558-1726 li- I E-mail: rt@otaanl.cnm _ * Burlingame Business License #: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Addlion-and alteration of existing residence - AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURES I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein Is true and correct to,the best of myknowledge and b lief: Applicant's signature: �� / � ^� -� Date:. t71 & �14 I am aware of the proposed applicatl - -antl hereby rize the ebove.appllcant to submit this application to. the Planning commission. �— Property owner's signature: Date: 12, Date submitted: 12—( -zzli T * Verification that the project AmIrItect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. .4VHAN0otlr5lPCAPPI1cut1en.dpc Reviewed 3-13-2015 _ Project Comments ts Date: March 13, 2015 To: 0 Engineering Division 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600 X Building Division 0 Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 0 Parks Division 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor adition and a new second floor at 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-261-030 Staff Review: Revised plans dated March 11, 2015 No further comments. All conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 12-23-2014 will apply to this project. Reviewed 3-13-2015 Project Comments Date: December 22, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor at 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-261-030 Staff Review: December 22, 2014 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on D cember 31, 2013 then this project must comply with the 2013 California uilding Codes. (' ,As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non-compliant plumbing fixtures " to be replaced by water -conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. Details can be found at hLtp://www,leginfo.ca.gov/pub109-10/`billIsen/sb 0401- 0450/sb 407 bill 20091011 chaptered.html. Revise the plans to show compliance with this requirement. 3) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http•//www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 4) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure an be found. lace the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Cons#ruction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to eekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 6) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 8) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on-site parking. 9) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 10)This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2013 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation of any work not specifically shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans. 11)Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 12)Provide a complete demolition plan that includes a leoend and indicates existing walls and features to remain, existing walls and features to be demolished, and new walls and features. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of any building components), until a Building Permit has been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 13)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 14)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. ooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the location and the net clear opening height and width of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. 2013 California Residential Code (CRC) §R310. Note: The area labeled "Office" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes —a d, as such, must comply with this requirement. �1"6kip'dicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 17)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 18)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2013 CBC §1009. 19)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. NOTE: Awritten response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 2, 5, 15, and 16 must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. The written response must Reviewed 2013 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE RESIDENTIAL CHECKLIST New residential buildings must be designed to include the Green Building mandatory measures specified in this checklist. These Green Building mandatory measures also apply to additions or alterations of existing residential buildings where the addition or alteration increases the buildings conditioned area, volume, or size. These requirements apply only to the specific area of addition or alteration, j Building Permit Number: Site Address:�j-iT�'tctt�n Lt In the column labeled "Plan Reference" specify where each Measure can be found on the plans. Green Building Measure Plan Reference SITE DEVELOPMENT (2013 CGC §4.106) A plan has been developed,and will be implemented, to manage storm water drainage during construction. CGC §4.106.2 & §4.106.3 ✓�I ENERGY EFFICIENCY': 12013 CGC §4.2 and the 2013 California Building Energy EffI. irency Standards) 2013 Energy Code performance compliance documentation must be provided in 8-1/2" X 11" format and must be replicated on the plans. Walls with 2 X 6 and larger framing require R-19 insulation §150.0 (c) 2 Hot water piping insulation §150.0 0) 2 A II Lighting— new mandatory requirements for indoor rooms. §150.0 (k) Duct insulation (R-6) required §150.0 (m) 1 Duct leakage testing —6%with air handler and 4% without air handler §150.0 (m) 11 Return duct design/fan power, airflow testing, and grill sizing requirements §150.0(m)13 Water heating -120 volt receptacle < 3 ft., Cat III or IV vent, and gas supply line capacity of at least 200,000 Btu / hour §150.0 (n) New third -party HERS verification for ventilation and indoor air quality §150.0 (o) New mandatory LI -factor (0.58) for fenestration and skylights §150.0 (q) Luminaire efficiency levels 2013 California Energy Code Table 150.0 B Refrigerant charge verification for ducted package units, mini -splits, and other units §150.1 (c) 7 Radiant barrier now required in Climate Zone 3 §150.1 (c) 2 Reduce U -factor (0.32) and SHGC (0.25) for high performance windows §150.1 (c) 3 A EC EIVED "Irf OF BURLINGAME Green Building Measure Plan Reference WATER:EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION (2013 CGC §4.3) Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) will comply with the following: 1. The effective flush volume of all water closets will not exceed 1.28 gal/ flush. !�2 2013 CGC §4.303.1.1 2, The effective flush volume of urinals will not exceed 0.5 gal/ flush. 2013 CGC §4,303.1.2 The fittings for faucets and showerheads will have all required standards listed on the plans; 1.5 GPM for faucets and 2.D GPM for showers. 2013 CGC §4.303.1.3 and 2013 CGC §4.303.1.4 An automatic irrigation system controller for landscaping will be provided by the builder and installed at the time of final inspection. 2013 CGC §4.304.1 ENHANCED'DURAR,UTY AND REDUCED MAINTENANO (2Q13 CGC;§4 400 Annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or other openings in sole/bottom plates at exterior walls will be_ro-dent-proofed by closing such openings with -cement mortar concrete masonry, or similar method acceptable to the enforcing agency. 2013 CGC §4.406.1 CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDOCiION, DISPOSAL, AND 'RECYCLING (2013 CGC §4.408) A minimum of 60% of the non -hazardous construction and demolition waste generated at the site will be diverted to an offsite recycle, diversion, or salvage facility per City of Burlingame Ordinance # 1704 and 2013 CGC §4.408 BUILDINGIMAINTENANCE ANQ::OPERATION (2013 CGC §4,410), An operation and maintenance manual will be provided to the building occupant or owner. 2013 C7 CGC §4.410.1 FIREPLACES (2013 CGC §4:503) Any gas fireplaces will be direct -vent, sealed -combustible type. 2013 CGC §4.503.1 Any wood stove or pellet stove will comply with US EPA Phase II emission limits. 2013 CGC §4.503.1 ' POLLUTANT CONTROI, (CGG §4.504) At the time of rough installation, during storage on the construction site, and until final startup of the heating, cooling and ventilatingequipment, all duct and other related air distribution components openings will be covered with tape, plastic, sheet metals, or other methods acceptable to the enforcing agency to reduce the amount of water, dust, or debris that may enter the system. 2013 CGC §4.504.1 Adhesives, sealants, and caulks used on the project shall follow local and regional air pollution p O or air quality management district standards. 2013CGC §4.504.2.1 Paints and coatings will comply with VOC limits per CGC §4.504.2.2 p, p Aerosol paints and coatingswill meetthe Product -weighted MIR IimitsforROC and other requirements.2013CGC §4.504.2.3 Documentation provided verifies compliance with VOC finish materials. 2013 CGC §4.504.2.4 Carpet system installed in the building interior will meet the testing and product requirements found in the 2013 California Green Building Code. 2013 CGC §4.504.3 Where resilient flooring is installed, at least 80% of the floor area receiving resilient flooring will comply with the California Green Building Code requirements. 2013 CGC §4.504.4 Hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboa rd composite wood products used on the interior and exterlor of the building will comply with the low formaldehyde emission ps® standards. 2013 CGC §4.504.5 2 Green Building Measure Plan Reference INTERIOR MOISTURE CONTROL (2013 CGC §4:505) Acapillary break will be installed if slab on grade foundation system is used.The use ofa 4" thick base of Y2" or larger clean aggregate under a 6 mil vapor retarder with joint lapped not less than 6" will be provided unless an engineered design has been submitted and approved by the Building Division. 2013 CGC §4.505.2 and California Residential Code (CRC) §R506.2.3 Building materials with visible signs of water damage will not be installed. Wall and floor framing will not be enclosed when the framing members exceed 19% moisture content. prp- Moisture content will be verified prior to finish material being applied. 2013 CGC §4.505.3 INDOORAIRCUALITYAN,p;EXHAUST{2013CGC;§4.506) Exhaust fans that are ENERGY STAR -compliant, ducted and that terminate outside the building _will.beprovided in.everybath room._2013. CGC §.4.506.1______—_—.—__—____._.____.___ Unless functioning as a component of a whole -house ventilation system, fans must be controlled by a humidistat. 2013 CGC §4.506.1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT (CGC §4.507) The heating and air-conditioning system will be sized, designed and have their equipment selected using the following methods: 1. Heat Loss/Heat Gain values in accordance with ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J-2004 or equal; 2. Duct systems are sized according to ANSI/ACCA 1, Manual D-2009 or equivalent; 3. Select heating and cooling equipment in accordance with ANSI/ACCA 3, ManualS-2004or equivalent. 2013 CGC §4.507 INSTALLt R:SPECIAL INSPECTOR C(UALIFICATIDN (2013 CGC §102) HVAC system installers will be trained and certified in the proper installation of HVAC systems and equipmentby a recognized training/certification program. 2013 CGC §702.1 ;VERIFICATICiN (2013 CGC:§70�) ;:, ' Upon request, verification,ofcompliance with this code may include construction documents, plans, specifications, builder or installer certification, inspection reports, or other methods acceptable to the Building Division that will show substantial conformance with the 2013 Code requirements. )� 2013 CGC §703.1 Responsible Designer's Declat•..atibn Statement Contra4tor's geclaration Statement I hereby certify that this project has been designed to I hereby certify, as the builder or installer, under permit meet the requirements of the 2013 Green Building listed herein, that this project will be constructed to Code. meet the requirements of the 2013 Green Building Code. Name: IIIACAKV ( Name: Address: 1103 i WZp' P,, Address: City/State/Zip code p , k, U� q�ro City/State/Zip Code Signature: Signature: Date: O3, Date: Project Comments Date: March 13, 2015 To: X Engineering Division 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600 0 Building Division 0 Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 0 Parks Division 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor adition and a new second floor at 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-261-030 Staff Review: Revised plans dated March 11, 2015 Responses to previous comments are acceptable. Reviewed by: V V Date: 3/18/2015 Date To: From Project Comments December 22, 2014 X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor at 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-261-030 Staff Review: December 22, 2014 1. Tfie project site is 10,000 square feet which requires permanent stormwater - treatment measures. You can find more information and guidelines at: hftp://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment In addition, no additional storm runoff is allowed from the post -construction site. Please provide plans showing how this will be satisfied. 2. Please show all proposed utilities on the site plan. 3. On the construction schedule, please update and include the following statement: Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 12/23/14 SAN M..TEO COUNTYWIDE Water Pollution Prevention Program CITY/COUNTY OF Dept. C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) Stormwater Controls for Development Projects Project Information Phone LA Enter Project Data (For "C.3 Regulated Projects,"data will be reported in the municipality's stormwater Annual Report.) Project Name: Chan/ Yuen Residence Case Number: Project Address & Cross St.: 2753 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame 94010 and Summit Drive ProjectAPN: 027-261-030 Project Watershed: Applicant Name: Wayne Lin Applicant Phone: 650-696-1200 Applicant Email Address: wl@dtaanf.com Development type: ® Single Family Residential: A stand-alone home that is not part of a larger project. (check all that apply) ❑ Single Family Residential: Two or more lot residential development' ❑ Multi -Family Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial, Manufacturing ❑ Mixed -Use ❑ Streets, Roads, etc. ❑ 'Redevelopment' as defined by MRP: creating, adding and/or replacing exterior existing impervious surface on a site where past development has occurred 2 E] 'Special land use categories' as defined by MRP: (1) auto service facilities 3, (2) retail gasoline outlets, (3) restaurants, (4) uncovered parking area (stand-alone or part of a larger project) ❑ Institutions: schools, libraries, jails, etc. I RECEIVED E]Parks and trails, camp grounds, other recreational ❑ Agricultural, wineries v}GF! 1 ZQjS ❑ Kennels, Ranches ❑ Other, Please specify (;ITY OF BURLINGAME Project Description a,, Addition of second floor and interior alterations to existing house C,DD-PLANNING DR/ (Also note any past future the or phases of project.) I.A.1 Total Area of Site: _.22 acres I.A.2 Total Area of land disturbed during construction (include clearing, grading, excavating and stockpile area):—.17— acres. Certification: I certify that the information provided on this form is correct and acknowledge that, should the project exceed the amount of new and/or replaced impervious surface provided in this form, the as -built project may be subject to additional improvements. ® Attach Preliminary Calculations ❑ Attach Final Calculations ❑ Attach copy of site plan showing areas Name of person completing the form: Wayne Date: 03-09-2015 Phone number 650-696-1200 Email address: wl(cMaanf.com ' Subdivisions or contiguous, commonly owned lots, for the construction of two or more homes developed within 1 year of each other are considered common plans of development and are subject to C.3 requirements. z Roadway projects that replace existing impervious surface are subject to C.3 requirements only if one or more lanes of travel are added. 3 See Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes here 4 Project description examples: 5 -story office building, industrial warehouse, residential with five 4 -story buildings for 200 condominiums, etc. 1 Final Draft October 31, 2014 C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist I.B is the project a "C.3 Regulated Project' per MRP Provision C.3.b? 1.6.1 Enter the amount of impervious surfaces Retained, Replaced and/or Created by the project: Table LB.1 Impervious and Pervious Surfaces Type of Impervious Surface I.B.1.a 1.B.1.b I.B.1.c 1.B.1.d I.B.1.e Pre -Project Impervious Surface (sq.ft.) Existing Impervious Surface to be Retained" (sq.ft.) Existing Impervious Surface to be Replaced" (sq.ft.) New Impervious Surface to be Created" (sq.ft.) Post -Project Impervious Surface (sq.ft.) =b+c+d Roofarea(s) 2505 0 2373 0 2373 Impervious" sidewalks, patios, paths, driveways, streets 1146 723 0 0 723 Impervious uncovered parking 0 0 0 0 0 Totals of Impervious Surfaces: 3651 723 2373 0 3101 I.B.1.f - Total Impervious Surface Replaced and Created (sum of totals for columns I.B.f.c and I.B.1.d): 2373 is I.B.1.f greater than orequal to 5,000 sq.ft? If YES, profect is a C.3 Regulated Project. Type of Pervious Surface Pre -Project Pervious Surface (sq.ft.) 1.B.2.e Is I.B.1.f greater than or equal to 10,000 sq.ft? If YES, project is a C.3 Regulated Project. ❑ Post -project Pervious Surface (sq.ft.) Landscaping 6349 6042 Pervious Paving 0 857 Green Roof 0 0 Totals of Pervious Surfaces: 6349 6899 Total Site Area (Total Impervious+Total Pervious=I.A.1)1 100001 10000 1.6.2 Please review and attach additional worksheets as required below using the Total Impervious Surface Replaced and Created in cell I.B.1.f from Table 1.B.1 above and other factors: 5 Per the MRP, pavement that meets the following definition of pervious pavement is NOT an impervious surface. Pervious pavement is defined as pavement that stores and infiltrates rainfall at a rate equal to immediately surrounding unpaved, landscaped areas, or that stores and Infiltrates the rainfall runoff volume described in Provision C.3. 6 "Retained" means to leave existing Impervious surfaces in place, unchanged; "Replaced" means to install new impervious surface where existing impervious surface is removed anywhere on the same property; and "Created" means the amount of new impervious surface being proposed which exceeds the total existing amount of impervious surface at the property. > Uncovered parking includes the top level of a parking structure. 2 Final Draft October 31, 2014 Check all that apply: pp y' Check Attach If Yes Worksheet 1.6.2," Does this project involve any earthwork? ® q LB.2.b Is I.B.1.f greater than or equal to 2,500 sq.ft? If YES, the Pmject is subject to Provision C3.1. ® g C I.B2.c Is the total Existing Impervious Surface to be Replaced (column I.B.1.c) 50 percent or more of the total Pre -Project Impervious Surface (column LBA.a)? El YES, site design, source control and treatment requirements apply to the whole site; if NO, these requirements apply only to the impervious surface created and/or replaced. I.B.2.d Is this project one of the Special Land Use Categories (box checked in section I.A. above) and ❑ D, D-1, D-2 is I.B.1.f greater than orequal to 5,000 sq.ft? If YES, profect is a C.3 Regulated Project. 1.B.2.e Is I.B.1.f greater than or equal to 10,000 sq.ft? If YES, project is a C.3 Regulated Project. ❑ D, D-1, D-2 1.B.2.f Is I.B.1.f greater than or equal to 43,560 sq.ft. (1 acre)? If YES, project maybe subject to ❑ E H dromodiffication Management requirements. I B 2 g Is I.A.2 (pg. 1) greater than or equal to 1 acre? If YES, obtain coverage under the state's Construction General Permit and submit to the municipality a copy of your Notice of Intent. ❑ See: www.swrcb.ra. ov/water issuesr rorams/stormtvatedconstruction.shtmi. I.B.2.h Is this a Special Project or does it have the potential to be a Special Project? ❑ F 1.B.2.i Is this project a High Priority Site? (Determined by the Permitting Jurisdiction. High Priority Sites can include those located in or within 100 feet of a sensitive habitat, ASKS, or body of ❑ G water, or on sites with slopes, and are subject to monthly inspections from Oct 1 to April 30. B.2.10 For Municipal Staff Use Only (Alternative Certification, 0&M Submittals, Project Close Out) ❑ G 5 Per the MRP, pavement that meets the following definition of pervious pavement is NOT an impervious surface. Pervious pavement is defined as pavement that stores and infiltrates rainfall at a rate equal to immediately surrounding unpaved, landscaped areas, or that stores and Infiltrates the rainfall runoff volume described in Provision C.3. 6 "Retained" means to leave existing Impervious surfaces in place, unchanged; "Replaced" means to install new impervious surface where existing impervious surface is removed anywhere on the same property; and "Created" means the amount of new impervious surface being proposed which exceeds the total existing amount of impervious surface at the property. > Uncovered parking includes the top level of a parking structure. 2 Final Draft October 31, 2014 C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist Worksheet A I C6 — Construction Stormwater BMPs I Identify Plan sheets howing the appropriate construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) used on this project: (Applies to all projects with earthwork) Yes Plan Sheet Best Management Practice (BMP) ® ERI.1 Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, rinse water from architectural copper, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and ® ERI.1 Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes properly to prevent contact with ® ER1.I Do not clean, fuel, or maintain vehicles on-site, except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated. ® ERI.I Train and provide instruction to all employees/subcontractors re: construction BMPs. ® ERI.1 Protect all storm drain inlets in vicinity of site using sediment controls such as berms, fiber ® ERI.I Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points. ® ER1.1 Attach the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's construction BMP plan sheet to project plans and require contractor to implement the applicable BMPs on the elan sheet. ® ERI.I Use temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion ® ERI.t Delineate with field markers clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees and drainage courses. ® ERI.1 Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: • Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls, include inspection frequency; • Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; • Specifications for vegetative cover & mulch, include methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; • Provisions for temporary and/or permanent irrigation. ® ERLI Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather, M ER1.I Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering and obtain all ® ERIA Trap sediment on-site, using BMPs such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences check dams soil blankets or mats covers for soil stock piles, etc. ® ERI.t Divert on-site runoff around exposed areas; divert off-site runoff around the site (e.g.. swales ® ERI.I Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips sediment barriers or filters dikes, mulching or other measures as appropriate. Final Draft October 31, 2014 Worksheet B C3 - Source Controls C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist Select appropriate source controls and identify the detail/plan sheet where these elements are shown. " Any connection to the sanitary sewer system is subject to sanitary district approval. " Businesses that may have outdoor process activities/equipment include machine shops, auto repair, industries with pretreatment facilities, 4 Final Draft October 31, 2014 Detail/Plan Features that require Source Control Measures Yes Sheet No. source control measures Refer to Local Source Control List for detailed requirements) ❑ Storm Drain Mark on-site inlets with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay' or equivalent. ❑ Floor Drains Plumb interior floor drains to sanitary sewer [or prohibit]. ❑ Parking garage Plumb interior parking garage floor drains to sanitary sewer." ® 11.1 Landscaping • Retain existing vegetation as practicable. • Select diverse species appropriate to the site. Include plants that are pest - and/or disease -resistant, drought -tolerant, and/or attract beneficial insects. • Minimize use of pesticides and quick -release fertilizers. • Use efficient irrigation system; design to minimize runoff. ❑ Pool/Spa/Fountain Provide connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining." ❑ Food Service Equipment Provide sink or other area for equipment cleaning, which is: (non-residential) • Connected to a grease interceptor prior to sanitary sewer discharge.8 • Large enough for the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. • Indoors or in an outdoor roofed area designed to prevent stormwater run-on and run-off, and signed to require equipment washin in this area. ❑ Refuse Areas • Provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, etc., designed to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff. • Connect any drains in or beneath dumpsters, compactors and tallow bin areas serving food service facilities to the sanitary sewer. ❑ Outdoor Process Activities a Perform process activities either indoors or in roofed outdoor area, designed to anita sewer." prevent stormwater run-on and runoff, and to drain to the sanitary ❑ Outdoor Equipment/ • Cover the area or design to avoid pollutant contact with stormwater runoff. Materials Storage • Locate area only on paved and contained areas. • Roof storage areas that will contain non -hazardous liquids, drain to sanitary sewer", and contain by berms or similar. ❑ Vehicle/ Equipment • Roofed, pave and berm wash area to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff, Cleaning plumb to the sanitary sewer", and sign as a designated wash area. • Commercial car wash facilities shall discharge to the sanitary sewer." ❑ Vehicle/ Equipment Repair • Designate repair/maintenance area indoors, or an outdoors area designed to and Maintenance prevent stormwater run-on and runoff and provide secondary containment. Do not install drains in the secondary containment areas. • No floor drains unless pretreated prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer." • Connect containers or sinks used for arts cleanin to the sanita sewer." ❑ Fuel Dispensing Areas • Fueling areas shall have impermeable surface that is a) minimally graded to prevent ponding and b) separated from the rest of the site by a grade break. • Canopy shall extend at least 10 ft. in each direction from each pump and drain away from fueling area. ❑ Loading Docks • Cover and/or grade to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loading area. • Position downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. • Drain water from loading dock areas to the sanitary sewer." • Install door skirts between the trailers and the building. ® 1-1.1 Fire Sprinklers Design for discharge of fire sprinkler test water to landscape or sanitary sewer." ® L1.1 Miscellaneous Drain or • Drain condensate of air conditioning units to landscaping. Large air Wash Water conditioning units may connect to the sanitary sewer." • Roof drains from equipment drain to landscaped area where practicable. • Drain boiler drain lines, roof top equipment, all wash water to sanitary sewer." ❑ Architectural Copper Rinse • Drain rinse water to landscaping, discharge to sanitary sewer", or collect and Water dispose properly offsite. See flyer "Requirements for Architectural Copper," " Any connection to the sanitary sewer system is subject to sanitary district approval. " Businesses that may have outdoor process activities/equipment include machine shops, auto repair, industries with pretreatment facilities, 4 Final Draft October 31, 2014 C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist Worksheet C Low Impact Development— Site Design Measures Select Appropriate Site Design Measures (Required for C.3 Regulated Projects; all other projects are encouraged to implement site design measures, which maybe required at municipality discretion.) Projects that create and/or replace 2,500- 10,000 ,500-10,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface, and stand-alone single family homes that create/replace 2,500 sq.ft. or more of impervious surface, must include one of Site Design Measures a through f (Provision C.3.i requirements)." Larger projects must also include applicable Site Design Measures g through i. Consult with municipal staff about requirements for yourproject. Select appropriate site design measures and Identify the Plan Sheet where these elements are shown. Yes Plan Sheet Number ❑ a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels and use rainwater for irrigation or ❑ other non -potable use. " ® - Al.I It. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas, `.❑ - c. 'Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. 11 d Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated. areas Ll.l e Construct sidewalks, walkways and/or patios with pervious or permeable - surfaces. f. Construct bike lanes driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with pervious - surfaces. g. Limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems; minimize Ll of highly permeable soils; protect slopes and channels; and minimize impacts impacts from stormwater and urban runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies; ® Al.] h. Conserve natural areas, including existing trees, other vegetation and soils. ® LIA i. Minimize impervious surfaces. Regulated Projects can also consider the following site design measures to reduce treatment system sizing: Yes Plan Sheet Number ❑ j. Self -treating area (see Section 4.2 of the C.3 Technical Guidance) ❑ k. Self-retaining area (see Section 4.3 of the C.3 Technical Guidance) ❑ I. Plant or preserve interceptor trees (Section 4.1, C.3 Technical Guidance) 10 See MRP Provision C.3.a.i.(6) for non -C.3 Regulated Projects, C.3.c.i.(2)(a) for Regulated Projects, C.3.1 for projects that create/replace 2,500 to 10,000 sqA of impervious surface and stand-alone single family homes that create/replace 2,500 sq.ft. or more of impervious surface. 5 Final Draft October 31, 2014 Project Comments Date: December 22, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor at 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-261-030 Staff Review: December 22, 2014 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger), plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction Please contact Kiley Kinnon for assistance at: (650) 342-3727 Reviewed by: KJK Date: 12/23/14 Comments�Project Date: December 22, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff X Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor at 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-261-030 Staff Review: December 22, 2014 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. All sprinkler drainage shall be placed into landscaping areas. 4. 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: Z Date: December 22, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 X Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff U Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor at 2753 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-261-030 Staff Review: December 22, 2014 1. No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Permit from the Parks Division. (558-7330) 2. Submit full size copy of arborist report for review. 3. Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations" (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due for Final. Reviewed by: B Disco Date: 118115 OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST MAR. 11 2015 CIif OF BURLINGAME I ce " that the subject project meets the specified requirements of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance. o?j • Owl • 2�s Signature Date rW` Single Family Cl Multi -Family Cl Commercial ❑ Institutional ❑ Irrigation only ❑ Industrlal ❑ Other: Applicant Name (print): Contact Phone #: (� - bqb vZ� Project Site Address: SAu`, G Vke1A3 'pjta� Agency Review-` Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): t,a 0,00 # of Units: # of Meters: (Pass) ,. (Fad) L Irl r G r 7 ^�fh j it „Y Total Landscape Area (sq.ft.): Irl ❑ ❑ ' IJ^V Ifl - 11a.1 I'- UP- Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): ❑ ❑ - i �° I� 1/ Y fxA�l msnxfjrl WIZ Non Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.: ;2) t{ ❑ ❑ Special Landscape Area (SLA) (sq.ft.): ❑ ❑ Water Feature Surface Area (sq.ft.): 25 x..,.�u.,(di•°�%l)..+;r�llE,I 1 Turf Less than 25% of the landscape area is K Yes ❑ Q turf ❑ No, See Water Budget 1 All turf areas are >8 feetwide Ll Yes ❑ 13 - All turf Is planted on slopes < 25% ❑ Yes ❑ `, ❑ Non -Turf At least 80% of non -turf area Is native q Yes ❑ r ❑ or low water use plants ❑ No, See Water Budget Hydrozones Plants are grouped by Hydrozones '§y Yes ❑ `,i ❑ , - W At least 2 -inches of mulch on exposed :SQ Yes ❑ ❑ Mulch soil surfaces Irrigation System Efficiency 70% ETo (100% ETo for SLAB) El Yes ❑ ❑ No overspray or runoff Yes ❑ C ❑ ` Irrigation System Design System efficiency>70°% Yes ❑`- ❑ - Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation ❑ No, not required for Tier 1 ❑ -. ❑ controllers D2 Yes . Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutoffs 151 Yes❑ ❑ No sprayheads in<8-ft wide area. XYes ❑ C)Irrigation Time System only operates between 8 PM U Yes ❑ � p and 10 AM Metering Separate irrigation meter ElNo, not required because <5,000 sq.ft. ❑ L03N Yes Swimming Pools / Spas Cover highly recommended LlYes LI-: ❑ X No, not required - Water Features Recirculating ❑ Yes ❑..:. ❑ Lessthan 10% of landscape area ❑ Yes ❑. ❑ Documentation Checklist ❑ Yes '❑`? -❑ -' Landscape and Irrigation Design Plan ❑ Prepared by applicant ❑ ' ❑ 2kPrepared by professional r Water Budget (optional) ❑ Prepared byapplicant -'❑' -.'�.' ❑ Prepared by professional Audit Post -installation audit completed 10 completed byapplicant ❑-. ❑ ,9].Completed by professiona. - MAR. 11 2015 CIif OF BURLINGAME OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST Received and Reviewed: ❑ Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist ❑ Water Budget ❑ Landscape Plan ❑ Post -Installation Audit Date Reviewed: O Follow up required (explain): Date Resubmitted: Date Approved: Dedicated Irrigation Meter Required: Meter sizing: Water Conservation In Landscaping Ordinance Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist Water Budget Calculation Worksheets Plant List Other: ❑ Drip irrigation ❑ Self-adjusting Irrigation Controller Plant palate Three (3) inches of mulch CI Sol] amendment (e.g., compost) ❑ Grading ❑ Pooland/orspa cover 0 Dedicated irrigation meter ❑ Other: Selected Definitions: Tier J. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with irrigated landscape areas between 1,000 and 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review, or new or expanded water service. Tier 2 New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with Irrigated landscape areas greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review. ETo Reference eva potranspiration means the quantity of water evaporated from a large field of four -to seven-inch tall, cool -season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration is used as the basis of estimating water budgets so that regional differences in climate can be accommodated. SLA Special Landscaped Area. Includes edible plants, areas irrigated with recycled water, surface water features using recycled water and areas dedicated to active play such as parks, sports fields, golf courses, and where turf provides a playing surface. Professional Professional is a "certified professional° or "authorized professional" that Is a certified irrigation designer, a certified landscape Irrigation auditor, a licensed landscape architect, a licensed landscape contractor, a licensed professional engineer, or any other person authorized by the state to design a landscape, an irrigation system, or authorized to complete a water budget, irrigation survey or Irrigation audit. Water Feature A design elementwhere open water performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water features Include ponds, lakes, waterfalls, fountains, artificial streams, spas, and swimming pools (where water is artificially supplied). Kielty Arborist Services Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 December 15, 2014 Drelling Tertones Architecture Inc. Attn: Mr. Carlos Rojas 1103 Juanita Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 2753 Burlingview, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Rojas, As requested on Monday, November 17, 2014, I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the trees. A new home is planned for this site and your concern as to the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit. An air spade was used to dig an exploratory trench along the existing house to help detect root damage and possible future root loss. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the tree was not climbed for this inspection. The tree in question was located on a site plan provided by you. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBE or diameter at breast height). Each tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the trees were measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. An Exploratory trench was dug to help locate roots and help predict root loss. A Supersonic Air Knife was used for the trenching. The air knife uses compressed air to dig the trench. The use of the air knife reduces root damage when digging the trench. A sliding handled soil probe was also to attempt to locate roots below the depth of the trench. RECEIVED AA.R 1 1 2015 "1 T Y GF BURLINGANIE ^DD PLANNING DIV. 2753 Burlingview/12/15/14 (2) Observations: The tree in question is a giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron gigantean) with an estimated diameter at breast height of 40 inches. The tree is located in the front of the property north of the existing garage and southwest of a new home being built. The estimated height of the sequoia is 50 feet with a total crown spread of 35 feet. The vigor of the tree is fair -good with normal shoot growth for the species. The form of the tree is fair with a straight trunk and a fair live crown ration. The tree has suffered moderate to heavy root loss from the excavation required to facilitate the building of the home. Several roots up to 3 inches in diameter. The roots were cut clean with a saw and impacts to the tree appear to be moderate. Exploratory trench being dug near the garage of the existing home. The exploratory trench exposed an abundance of small roots and no large roots along the edge of the garage. It appears roots were cut some time ago and the small roots are the results of that past root cutting. Large roots were unearthed neat the patio and at the entrance to the crawl space. The unearthed root appears to be the cause of the damage to the rat proofing in the crawl space. Small roots unearthed near garage of existing house at 2753 Burlingview. Roots appear to have been severed in years past. 2753 Burlingview/12/15/14 (3) Summary: The construction at 2747 and the proposed construction at 2753 Burlingview will have moderate to heavy impacts of the giant sequoia tree located between the construction sites. The impacts to the tree will be mitigated by heavier than normal irrigation during the warm season months. The stability of the tree does not to appear to be compromised at this point. More will be known and mitigating measures will be adjusted as construction starts at 2753 Burlingview. The following tree protection plan will help to reduce impacts to the large tree. Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones should be 6 foot tall metal chain link type supported my 2 inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than 2 feet. The support poles should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still allowing room for construction to safely continue. Signs should be placed on fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out". No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips. The wooden fencing will suffice for the neighbor's trees. Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers of burlap or straw wattle and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below. Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type irrigation 2 times a month. During the fall and winter 1 time a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A Kielty Arborist Services LLC Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 July 30, 2015 Drelling Tertones Architecture Inc. Attn: Mr. Wayne Lin 1103 Juanita Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 2753 Burlingview, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Lin, As requested on Thursday, July 30, 2015, I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the large giant sequoia. A new home is planned for this site and the story pole have been installed, your concern as to the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit. Observations: The tree in question is a giant sequoia (Seguoiadendron gigantean) with an estimated diameter at breast height of 40 inches. The tree is located in the front of the property north of the existing garage and southwest of a new home being built. The estimated height of the sequoia is 50 feet with a total crown spread of 35 feet. The vigor of the tree is fair -good with normal shoot growth for the species. The form of the tree is fair with a straight trunk and a fair live crown ratio. The tree has suffered moderate to heavy root loss from the excavation required to facilitate the building of the home. Several roots up to 3 inches in diameter. The roots were cut clean with a saw and impacts to the tree appear to be moderate. Giant sequoia tree near proposed construction site. The tree has improv I gpSilial December 2014 visit. (s )IN 3 1 ?015 "", ; F BURLINGAME: ..,,_.. "ANNING CAS(. 2753 Burlingview/7/30/15 (2) Despite lower than normal rainfall the vigor of the tree has improved since the digging of the exploratory trench in December 2014. The recently installed story poles has identified the limbs that will be removed to facilitate the proposed construction. Five to ten lower limbs will be remove raising the fringe of the tree. Summary: The de -compaction of the root zone (exploratory trench) and accelerated irrigation has dramatically improved the vigor of the sequoia. The removal of several limbs to facilitate the building of the house should have only minor effects on the tree. Continued irrigation and proper tree protection will continue to improve the overall health of the tree. Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones should be 6 foot tall metal chain link type supported my 2 inch metal poles pounded into the ground by no less than 2 feet. The support poles should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still allowing room for construction to safely continue. Signs should be placed on fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out". No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips. The wooden fencing will suffice for the neighbor's trees. Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers of burlap or straw wattle and kept moist. Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type irrigation 2 times a month. During the fall and winter 1 time a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty David Beckham Certified Arborist WE#0476A Certified Arborist #10724A 07.13.15 PC Meeting Item #9c 2753 Burlingview Drive Page 1 of 1 From: jojtimca@aol.com [mailto:ioit1mca(d)aol.com1 Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:34 PM To: CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika Cc: CD/PLG-Barber, Catherine Subject: 2753 Burlingview Dr, Application for Design Review Dear Erica, COMMUNIC_4TION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUL 10 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. My name is Terry McAloon and I live adjacent to the property at 2753 Burlingview Dr. My address is 2759 Burlingview Dr. You were good enough to go over the revised plans for the house under review when I was at City Hall on July 7. 1 also met with the property owner and a representative of the architect this morning regarding their new plans. I note that there have been changes made to the original drawings. So that I may better understand the impact of the changes, I would request that story poles be erected at the proposed building site. ( I believe that the commission will ask for story poles as a matter of course, but I wanted to go on record with such a request.) I'd also mention that I will be out of town from August 22, 2015 to September 3, 2015. 1 would appreciate it if you would allow me to make comments on the review process once I return in the event something should come up during my absence. Thank you Sincerely, Terry McAloon 2759 Burlingview Dr 04.13.15 PC Meeting Item #9b 2753 Burlingview Drive Page 1 of 3 Ms, Erika Lewit Senior Planner Planning Division Community Development Department City of Burlingame, California Dear Ms. Lewit, COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT Subject: Public Hearing Notice for Design Review for a Single Family Residence at 2753 Burlingview Dr. April 12, 2015 RECEIVED APR 13 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. My name is Terry McAloon. I live at 2759 Burlingview Dr. which is the house next store to the west of the residence at 2753 Burlingview Dr. I am writing you regarding concerns that I have over the design of the proposed residence at 2753 Burlingview Dr. They are as follows: A. Lack of Compliance with the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Guidebook - My house is a one story single family dwelling with approximately 1800 sq ft. There are three single story residences across the street from the proposed dwelling. Based on data from the Zillow website, two of these homes consist of some 1700 sq ft in area. I'm not able to determine the area of the third house. In looking at the other houses on Burlingview Dr. using Zillow, in my opinion, the average house is a single story residence with approximately 2000 sq ft of living space. The proposed new house will have two stories and an area of 4118 sq ft. or just about twice the size of the typical Burlingview Dr. home. I believe such a house is not compatible with our neighborhood and I reference the following statements from the Guidebook: "Component 5: Mass, Bulk and Scale a) Design Review Criteria: A compatible design will respect the scale of the existing neighborhood. It will use methods and include elements which support the scale of example houses in the neighborhood. The scale of the residence should be consistent with the example residences in the neighborhood. b) Mass and Building Plan When designing additions it is often tempting to fill in recesses in a building footprint, resulting in simpler rectangular forms. This will typically result in a more massive building that will not support neighborhood compatibility. 04.13.15 PC Meeting Item #9b 2753 Burlingview Drive Page 2 of 3 ii) Component 4- Location of Additions When placing a second story space, attempt toward the center of the property. Where sensible from an interior planning perspective, pull portions of the space away from the property line." Based on my reading of the above sections of the Design Guidebook, I have the following questions regarding the design of the residence under review: 1. Does a house designed to have twice the number of stories and twice the square footage of neighboring homes, meet the criteria of being consistent with the example residences in the neighborhood? 2. The footprint of the house seems to be a large rectangle that is recommended against in the Mass and Building Plan section of the Guidelines. 3. Was any attempt made to follow the Guidelines regarding locating the second story space towards the center of the property? This has a particular application on my comments below. 4. Will your review recommend the installation of story poles to depict the bulk and mass of the proposed structure? B. Direct Impact of Proposed House on My Residence - I currently have a view from a window on the eastside of my house that gives me a site -line of several hundred feet. (There is even a small sliver of a view of the bay from the window). What I understand from looking at the plans for the new house is that the outer wall on the west -side of the current house is 8.5 ft. The plan for the new building will raise this up to 24 ft. If this is correct, then it seems that my basic view would be reduced to looking at the wall of the new house. If my view is so restricted, I think it defeats the purpose of the statement in the Design Guidebook under Component 1: Building Location that says the following: "One of the defining characteristics of most Burlingame neighborhoods is the sense of space that occurs between houses. Historically this sense of space and distance was one of the original design criteria for most neighborhoods. Residents were seeking the space and feel of a less urban environment while having access to numerous urban and community amenities." So I'd ask that in your review if you would consider if any change in the height of the 24 ft wall can be made. I can't help but comment on the irony that seems to arise in the design/construction of the new house. As I understand the plan, it will include the demolition of the 'east wing' of the existing house. This structure has been the bane of our existence since it was built since it took a good 04.13.15 PC Meeting Item #9b 2753 Burlingview Drive Page 3 of 3 part of our view. (I have to wonder if it would even be allowed to be built now). But in tearing down this structure, I believe that a fairly decent view of the bay and even Mt Diablo would be visible from our window. The irony is that the new building would then come along and take the view away again. (It would be quite an achievement if somehow an arrangement could be worked out where the owner of the new house gets a place that's compatible with everyone and we get our view back!) I appreciate you and your colleagues giving consideration to my comments on the design of the new house at 2753 Burlingview Dr. Sincerely, Terry McAloon H ph 650 344-4201 C ph 650-773-4350 Email JOJTIMCA@AOL.COM 07.13.15 PC Meeting COMMUNICATION RECEIVED Agenda Item 9c AFTER PREPARATION 2753 Burlingview Dr. OF STAFF REPORT page 1 of 1 RECEIVED JUL 13 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Sandra Feder [mailto:svfederCalcomcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:10 PM To: CD/PLG-Barber, Catherine Subject: Property at 2753 Burlingview Drive Dear Planning Commission, We are writing to let you know our thoughts about the remodel planned across the street from our home at 2760 Burlingview Drive. We live directly across the street from the planned remodel at 2753 Burlingview Drive. We appreciate the new plans that have been drawn up, which make the front of the new house look less boxlike. Our major ongoing concern is simply that there are very few two-story homes on the top part of our street and none that look quite so different in scale as the proposed new home. The current house on the lot has a second story that is set back from the street, and we're wondering if such a design might be possible for the new home that will be there. It would make the home fit in better with the others that are on the street. Right now, our block has a certain look -- low -profile homes that blend into our hilly surroundings. This new home, while shaded from the street by large trees, just seems to be such a different style than what's already here and is much larger. The other new home being built on our street, has a profile that although modern, fits into the hillside well and does not block views at all. Thanks for listening to our thoughts on this matter. We do appreciate the new owners being open to hearing comments from neighbors and look forward to welcoming them to our community. Sincerely, Sandra and Dan Feder 04.13.15 PC Meeting Item #9b 2753 Burlingview Drive Page 1 of 1 Ms. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Planning Division Community Development Department Burlingame, California April 12, 20154 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED APR 13 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. Regarding: Public Hearing Notice for Design Review for a Single Family at 2753 Burlingview Drive. Dear Ms. Lewit and members of the planning commission: My wife and I are owners and residents of the home across the street from the proposed project. In general, we are pleased to see upgrades and improvements in the area as they may improve the values of homes in the area and potentially keep the neighborhood well maintained. We do however have concerns about the size and scope of this project. It seems there is a trend evidenced by this and other projects in the Burlingame Hills area to maximize the size of homes that are built to the absolute legal limit. It seems we are evolving to an area of bigger and bigger homes on the same small lots. Our fear is we will lose the family neighborhood nature of the area and the open space between properties that we now enjoy. Is this in keeping with the long term plans for the area? In looking at the plans, we notice the increased height of the proposal. It appears the neighbor on the west side will be impacted by a 24 foot wall they will have to look at through their east viewing windows. We don't think it is fair to subject anyone to that circumstance. To us, it seems rude and disrespectful to these long-time Burlingame residents. We doubt any board member would like to have a 24' wall in their face, day in and day out. We hope the commission will consider these comments and acceptable accommodation can be made. Respectfully submitted, Gary E. Payne and Catherine A. Payne 2754 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame, CA 650-347-1994 City of Burlingame Planning Commissioners C/0 Ms Erika Lewit Senior Planner .Planning Division Community Development Department City of Burlingame, California August 1, 2015 Comments for August 10, 2015 Public Hearing Regarding 2753 Burlingview Dr Design Review Dear Commissioners, This is a follow-up to the concerns I expressed to the design of the proposed residence at 2753 Burlingview Dr in my April 12, 2015 letter. Since my first letter, I have met with the owner and architect of the proposed house as well as observed the story poles that were erected to outline the profile of the house. I believe that it might be appropriate to look at the application for the site at 2753 Burlingview Dr in conjunction with the approval that was given for the new residence at 2747 Burlingview Dr. As the Commission knows, both sites have the same owner and are using the services of the same architect. Regarding 2747 Burlingview, approval was given to build a residence with an area of 4242 sq ft. While this new house is at least twice the size of the typical house in the neighborhood, there seemed to be a recognition in the permit application that consideration needed to be given to the mass of the new building. At least as I read it, there were two statements in the paperwork that reflected this: In the Special Permit application regarding the basement ceiling height, under question 1, the applicant said: "The garage for the proposed building is being below grade in order to keep the building as low as possible (and lower than adjacent buildings)." In a similar application regarding the attached garage, under question 1, the applicant said: "The proposed building is being kept as low, or lower, than adjacent buildings by sinking the garage below the rest of the building." In looking at the application for 2753 Burlingview Dr, even though it's for the lot adjacent to the owner's other house, I don't see any comments that express the same concerns about the building being as low or lower than existing structures Le, be consistent with the neighborhood's architecture. Instead, the house at 2753 Burlingview will be designed to be as tall as possible. In addition, it is on a lot adjacent to the crest of a 498 ft. hill. As such, its height will be further magnified with the result that its roof will be some six to eight feet higher than my place on top of the hill. There are at least two criteria on the Application for Design Review/Construction Permit that I believe are not met by the current design for the proposed house at 2753 Burlingview: —Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood- [ believe that our neighborhood is correctly described as almost entirely consisting of single story, 2000 sq ft houses. The proposed house is two stories at maximum height and twice the area (4113 sq ft.) of typical existing houses. That is not a definition of compatibility. —Interface of the proposed structure with adjacent structures - In my earlier memo I mentioned that, if the proposed house is built, I would lose a view that I have out of the window in my den on the eastside of my house. I was told that this view could not be protected. So putting my earlier concerns aside, looking at the story poles that were erected for the proposed house, I have a new concern. In my opinion, the house will have walls so high I am not sure that I will be able to see the sky when I look out the window in my den. In addition I have a patio on the eastside of my house that is, at the moment, completely private. If the proposed design is approved, I will lose this privacy. The proposed house would loom over my patio. Based on the proposed height of the house under review, I don't believe the interfacing between the two houses shows "Respect for the neighbors existing conditions and utilization" as is suggested in the City's Neighborhood Design Guidebook. I invite all of the commission members to drop by my house and observe the interface between the two structures that I am describing. If the applica nt receives approval for the proposed design, there will be two houses adjacent to each other that have a combined area of about 8300 sq ft. That is the equivalent of building four contemporary houses on two of our neighborhood lots. The addition of two houses of such large area into the neighborhood is in itself a cause for concern over how they will impact the consistency of the neighborhood's character. But even more important, the proposed height of the house under review, in my opinion, indicates a complete disregard forthe feel of the neighborhood. This house, if it were built, would be like raising a thirty foot wall on the eastside of my residence with the consequences mentioned above. In light of the issues regarding the design that I've outlined, I request that the Commissioners ask the applicant to reconsider the current design for 2753 Burlingview Dr. Sincerely, Terry McAloon 2759 Burlingview Dr cell ph- 650-773-4350; home ph- 650-3444201; email-jojtlmca@aol.com CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika From: Sandra Feder <svfeder@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, August 03, 2015 12:31 PM To: CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika Subject: Comments re:2753 Burlingview Drive Dear Burlingame Planning Commission Members: I live directly across the street from the proposed remodel at 2753 Burlingview Drive and am concerned about the scale of the structure that is being proposed. I would be happy to have you visit our home at 2760 Burlingview Drive to see for yourself how out -of -proportion the proposed property changes are in terms of the rest of the neighborhood. I believe that the Planning Commission is mandated to take into account the existing structures in the neighborhood before approving proposed changes. Our street is populated by one-story homes set back from the street. The existing homes very nicely follow the line of the hillside. They are unobtrusive looking - letting the natural beauty of the area and the view of the Bay be the focal points. What I love about living on Burlingview Drive is that when you turn from the upper part of Skyline onto Burlingview, you go up a little rise and then you're at the top of the street. You literally feel like you're on top of the world. We really feel that we are at the "summit" of Burlingame when we get home. While the proposed home does not block our view of the water, it does block a lot of sky. It's where we often see the moon rise and the stars shine. Another advantage of living where we do is the lack of light pollution, so that the night sky really comes alive up here. I would encourage members of the planning commission to come up to Burlingview to see for themselves just how large a structure is being proposed. I was quite surprised when the flags went up to mark the proposed height of the new house. I had been under the impression that the scale would be somewhat in keeping with the current second story that is on the property. This is as if they're building a three-story home. The other new house on our block, the one next door, is being built for the same extended family. It is modern and large but still fits in with the scale of the rest of the block. I understand that it was designed by the same architectural firm. Like the existing homes on Burlingview, there seems to have been some effort made to have it follow the natural line of the hillside, so it is less obstrusive than what's being proposed at 2753. We really have no large, boxlike houses on our street - the one large, two-story home on our street is set into the bend in the hill and therefore blends in better. It's also at the bottom of the hill, not on our upper, more open, part of the street. Please come take a look yourself. I would welcome planning commission members into my home to see the proposed project and to further discuss this matter. I am sure the owners and architects can come up with a different design. I've had a chance to chat with the new owner on two occasions and with one of the architects when they were visiting the site recently. At that time, they seemed open to trying to come up with a more fitting solution while still being able to maximize the site to accommodate the owner's growing family. We are looking forward to welcoming the new family to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Sandra Feder 650-773-1281 2760 Burlingview Drive, Burlingame CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika From: frog1325@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 3:55 PM To: CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika Cc: Terry & Joann McAloon; Sandra & Dan Feder Subject: Project at 2753 Burlingview Drive Dear Erika: Thank you for sending the plans for the project at 2753 Burlingview Drive. We have looked them over and they seem essentially the same as we saw at city hall prior to the first hearing. We continue to have concerns as expressed in our letter sent prior to the first hearing which do not seem to have been remedied. This week, the story poles were installed and we were shocked by the overall height and shear magnitude of the new dwelling. Aside from continuing concerns for the neighbor next to the project who's view and light space will be impinged, we feel the project is exceptionally massive for a "low density" residential area such as Burlingview terrace. The proposed dwelling will be much higher than the homes on either side and directly across the street from the project. It seems the primary objective is to maximize the allowable square footage that can be built on the lot. While this may be economically lucrative, we will remind the commission that this is a residential area where other objectives should be considered; it is not a high rises commercial area where pure economics prevail. We would ask the commission and the builders to reconsider the project with a view to modifications that reduce the impact on the remaining neighbors. Please invite the planning commissioners to come view the construction from inside our home at 2754 Burlingview and the Feder's home at 2760 Burlingview Drive (per their request). We were not able to connect to the email link for the commissioners on the city's web site. We can be reached at 650-347-1994 or 650-464-3559. Thanks for your help in contacting the planning commissioners. Sincerely Cathy and Gary Payne 2754 Burlingview Dr. CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika From: David Klein <David.Klein@dtz.com> Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2015 6:58 PM To: CD/PLG-Lewit, Erika Cc: Melissa Germaine Subject: 2753 Burlingview Drive Erika: I am a homeowner at 2723 Burlingview Drive. 1 recently received a copy of the plans for the proposed improvements at 2753 Burlingview Drive and I have seen the story poles on the property. If the story poles represent the proposed mass of the remodeled structure, the remodeled structure lacks connection to the existing neighborhood homes because it is completely disproportionate to the scale of the neighborhood. This is an older neighborhood with a graciousness that comes from the existing homes having a scale that is proportionate to each other with breathing space between the homes. Burlingview is not a newer, McMansion-type street where homes bear no relationship to each other and are squeezed onto their lots with minimal setbacks or consideration of their neighbors. Please accept this email as a vote against the proposed added density and add it to the public record. Please also notify me of future meetings which I plan to attend. Regards, Dave Klein David Klein, Esq. SIOR LEED AP Managing Director u One Front Street, Suite 3025 1 San Francisco, CA, 941111 USA Direct: +1 415 352 2403 1 Cell: +1 415 828 2188 Fax: +1 415 352 2401 david.klein(abdtz.com I www.dtz.com California Broker# 00790730 California Attorney at Law # 92787 (Inactive Status) Twitter I Facebook i Linkedln I YouTube I do not practice law. Please seek independent legal advice. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us. "Marshall McLuhan 1964 This email (including any attachments) is confidential and intended for the named recipient(s) only. It may be subject to legal or other professional privilege and contain copyright material. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this email has been sent to you by mistake. Access to this email or its attachments by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, April 13, 2015 Ms. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear Ms. Lewit and members of the planning commission, �{.13PC, n 2T53 I�ur(�v�� Vie�,a 17r. COMMUNICATION RECEIVED ,AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT Ft 1 � ; A.a F E iz1 APP 1320`.i "'i-^,' UfBURLINGAME C;�)i)-Fi..'<NINING DIV After reading some of the concerns from my neighbors, I thought it would be helpful to write this letter and tell you a bit about my family and our plans to live at 2753 Burlingview. My family and I are really looking forward to moving back to Burlingame and the neighborhood where I grew up. My parents moved to the house adjacent to 2753 Burlingview (200 Bella Vista) in 1981, when I was a 1 -year old. My three siblings and I went to St. Catherine from Kindergarten through 8th Grade. We all have fond memories of playing at Arthur's Toy Town and trading baseball cards at Video Magic and Bob's. My wife and I welcomed our 2"4 child earlier this year, and we decided to move out of the city to Burlingame, where we knew we would be in a family friendly community. We needed more space than our 1,000 SF condo and wanted a yard where our children could play outside. We also wanted to be around other growing families and know that good schools were nearby. Additionally, my parents still live at 200 Bella Vista. As two working parents, being close to trusted and willing babysitters is essential. 2753 Burlingview is the house our children will grow up in. As such, it is important to us that we are good neighbors. I am happy to discuss any concerns my neighbors may have and make changes to our plans provided that they are reasonable and do not affect my family's enjoyment of our home. Having grown up in the neighborhood and now moving back to raise my children in the same neighborhood, I truly feel we are preserving the "family neighborhood nature" of the area. Sincerely, Alvin Chan 2753 Burlingview August 5, 2015 Ms. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear Ms. Lewit, members of the planning commission and my neighbors on Burlingview, My wife and I are looking forward to moving into the area and getting to know you all as neighbors. For those of you we've already met, thank you for being so welcoming, The last thing we want is to start off on the wrong foot with our neighbors because we plan on living here for a very long time. Given the concerns that a few of you have voiced, I would like to clarify some things. First off, we are not driven by what's "economically lucrative' or simply trying to "maximize the allowable square footage". This house is designed to be the future home of our family and incorporates how we envision raising our children. As I mentioned in my previous letter, my wife and I welcomed our second child earlierthis year, and we hope to continue growing our family. The second story was designed so we could sleep on the same floor as all our children. Also, my wife's parents live in Hong Kong and are of the age where the long flight is becoming more and more difficult. When they visit, they normally stay for two to three months so they can spend time with their grandchildren. We wanted to make sure that our home had a guestroom that they would be comfortable living in for these long trips. I understand that the house looks big compared to the one-story homes next door and across the street. This is largely a result of the slope of our lot that requires the first floor to be almost seven feet higher than the curb. Please also consider that there are two very large trees in the front of our lot on both the west and east sides. These trees block the house from almost every view from the street except the area in front of the driveway that is portrayed by the rendering. Finally, I grew up next door to this house and know this neighborhood very well. Burlingview Drive is surrounded by Hillsborough, and you pass countless huge homes as you drive here from almost any direction. Our home is designed fully within the regulations of the R-1 district, the lowest density residential zone. We have met with our neighbor, Mr. McAloon a number of times and have already made modifications to provide additional setbacks that are even further within regulations. I definitely want to be respectful to the concerns of my neighbors, but please consider that this is our home and any additional modifications will have a much larger impact on my family than anyone else. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss further. I would love the opportunity to meet you and show you that we are a nice family and will make great neighborsl Sincerely, Alvin Chan (650)504.2679 Y IT W1 � r 3 R d o N >a�o„aia�,wo aouapisaa uan,, uoy] V.LV rola pw v{IfVv Y IT W1 � 3 d N RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and a Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and second story additions to an existinq single family dwelling with an attached garage at 2753 Burlingview Drive, Zoned R-1, Alvin and Jacqueline Chan, property owners, APN: 027-261-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 10. 2015, 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 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 Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2753 Burlingview Drive Effective August 20, 2015 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 31, 2015, sheets A0.01 through A5.1, AR1.04, L1.1 and L1.2.GP1.0, ER1.1, and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's December 23, 2014 and March 18, 2015 memos, the Building Division's December 23, 2014 and March 13, 2015 memos, the Parks Division's January 8, 2015 memo, the Fire Division's December 23, 2014 memo, and the Stormwater Division's December 23, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. 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 tree protection measures are installed on site for any protected -size tree, and these measures are inspected and approved by the Parks Supervisor; any protected -size tree that is proposed to be removed, or that is damaged and must be removed as a result of demolition or construction, will require a Protected Tree Permit and may require further Planning Division or Planning Commission review; that prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition or construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet and a landscape plan that list the Kielty Arborist reports dated March 11 and July 31, 2015, and recommendations, as well as the condition that certified arborist must be on site for trimming of any protected size tree; 8. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2753 Burlingview Drive Effective August 20, 2015 Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. 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 Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division 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. Site: 2753 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Holl Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA; Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor at 2753 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE zoned R -l. APN 027-261-030 Mailed: July 31, 2015 (Please refer to other side) Citta of Burlingame PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) OF BURLINGAME gDwwwCITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010 " PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-37 --- - --- --- ---- - - _. - - -burlingame.crg Site: 2753 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Holl Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA; Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a major renovation of an existing single family dwelling which includes a first floor addition and a new second floor at 2753 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE zoned R -l. APN 027-261-030 Mailed: July 31, 2015 (Please refer to other side) Citta of Burlingame PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side)