Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2007.03.05 CITY G 5 BURLINGAME W. Qs.- q�... BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 REVISED CITY COUNCIL AND BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING AGENDA Monday, March 5, 2007 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. City Hall, Conference Room A CANCELLED a. Police Enforcement Priorities 1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of February 21, 2007 5. PRESENTATION a. Recognition of Burlingame dog, Hunter, winner of Best of Breed in the Borzoi Breed Category at the 2007 Westminster Kennel Club Show b. Best of Burlingame c. The Big Read Proclamation—April is "To Kill a Mockingbird"Month d. Review of Charrette 6. PUBLIC HEARING a. Conditional User Permit to establish a use baseline for existing Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy facilities (Continued from February 21, 2007—Public Hearing is closed and no further testimony will be taken at this meeting) 1 b. Adopt Ordinance to amend Sprinkler Retrofit Requirements for commercial buildings c. Adopt Ordinance setting contribution limits for individuals and organizations and loan reimbursement limits for campaigns for elective City offices d. Public Hearing and action on Ordinance amending the Municipal Code, Chapter 18.07 to specify requirements for extensions building permits, and amending Chapter 8.17 to require construction site maintenance e. Resolution approving the issuance by the Burlingame Financing Authority of not to exceed $27,000,000 aggregate principal amount of water and wastewater revenue bonds to finance certain improvements to the water and wastewater systems of the City; authorizing execution and delivery of Installment Sale Agreements and a Bond Purchase Agreement; approving form of official statement; and authorizing execution of documents and the taking of all necessary actions relating to the financing with the Burlingame Financing Authority 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Consider adoption of a Resolution supporting expansion of and safety enhancements to transit service on the San Francisco Bay Peninsula—Discuss/APPROVE b. Planning Commission vacancies—Discuss/DIRECT 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 11. OLD BUSINESS a. Civic Engagement Subcommittee Report 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, January 16, 2007; Planning, February 26, 2007 b. Department Reports: Police, January, 2007 14. ADJOURNMENT TO FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING 2 15. CALL TO ORDER 16. ROLL CALL 17. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 18. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds to finance certain improvements to the water and wastewater systems of the City; authorizing the procurement of bond insurance for the bonds; approving the forms of a Trust Agreement and Installment Sales Agreements; approving forms of and authorizing publication and distribution of an Official Notice of Sale, a Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds, and an Official Statement describing said bonds; and authorizing execution of documents and the taking of all necessary actions relating to the issuance of the bonds. 19. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION a. Pending Litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(a): Aerobay Office Park vs. City of Burlingame, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. CIV 457326 20. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING,MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007 3 CITY C BURUNGAME m HAT[OJ NE 6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of February 21, 2007 STUDY SESSION a. CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS FOR FUNDING STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS De La Rosa Investment Bankers provided samples of Community Facilities District scenarios versus General Obligation Bond scenarios. 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Terry Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Liz Dossa. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran,Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 5, 2007 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PRESENTATIONS a. MASTER COMPOSTING PROGRAM BY RECYCLEWORKS Certified Advisor Alane Weber presented an overview of San Mateo County RecycleWorks' Master Composting Program which teaches citizens how to reduce the amount of household and yard waste that goes to the landfill. She demonstrated the use of the 3-chamber recycle composting worm bin. The bin is given to those who participate in the program. The next classes begin March 3, 2007. b. BEST OF BURLINGAME AWARD Mayor Nagel presented Prudential Fine Homes with the Best of Burlingame Award. Prudential Co-Manager Lorraine Kaufeldt and Realtor Eddie Curley were present to accept the award. When agents at Prudential 1 Burlingame City Council February 21,2007 Unapproved Minutes Fine Homes were made aware last fall that local, underprivileged children needed warm clothing for the coming winter, they sprang into action. Project Leader Lorraine Kaufeldt led the entire team at the Burlingame office. They reached out to local residents and gathered approximately 500 pieces of warm clothing that were given to needy children in the Bay Area. The Prudential team also donated numerous checks, gifts,toys and household items for families through an "Adopt-a-Family"program during the holidays. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Nagel changed the order of the public hearings due to requests received. b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 3 RIO COURT CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and take action on this item. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: John Stewart, Project Architect; Lawrence Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive; Mario Muzzi, 1814 Loyola Drive; Amir Tabrizi, 5 Rio Court; Mary Ann Beccio, 2 Rio Court; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston Avenue; and Mark Watson, 1633 Bayshore Highway, represented the applicant. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. After Council discussion and concurrence that a second story addition would block the neighbor's distant view, Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny without prejudice; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. C. FINAL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE CALLING FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION FOR APPROVAL OF BONDS TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING RECREATION CENTER CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing, to consider adoption of an ordinance calling for a special municipal bond and to direct staff accordingly. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way; Richard Voon, 2104 Easton Drive; Jonathan Wolin, 1616 Monte Corvino Way; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Lorne Abramson, 1129 Oxford. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Council discussion followed: Community Facilities District (CFD) is more equitable for residents; CFD is less equitable for apartment units which could cause rents to rise and tenants to leave the city; volunteers and supporters of the General Obligation (G.O.) bond may not be as energetic for an election in June since so much energy was expended in the November 2006 election; more time is needed to re-energize volunteers; difficulty in attaining the 66-2/3%voter approval needed to pass the bond measure; Senator Yee's office offered to help cities by carrying appropriate legislation forward to the State Legislature. 2 Burlingame City Council February 21,2007 Unapproved Minutes Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to support going forward with the Special Municipal Bon Election in June. Motion died for lack of a second. After further discussion, Council directed staff to explore and study other options. Before proceeding to Item 6.a., Mayor Nagel and Councilman Cohen were recused and left the Chambers. a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested CougQjl hold a public hearing and take action on this item. , , e 4Vj Vice Mayor O'Mahony opened the p lic hearing. e following citizens spoke�r. Carolyn Krohn, 2300 Adeline Drive; Jean Hastie, Mercy xecutive Director; Laura Held, Mercy High School Principal; Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive; C rine Wilkinson, 1409 Castillo; Linda Abbey read for Michael Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive; Helen , 1541 Columbus Avenue; Tom Gilman, 1540 Columbus Avenue; Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue; Matthew Zinn, represented the appellant; Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston Avenue; Doug Johnson, 2705 Adeline Drive; Sr. Ellen FitzGerald, 2300 Adeline Drive, read a letter from Joanne Garrison of 2905 Adeline Drive; Randy VandenBrink, 1412 Alvarado Avenue; Joe Galligan, 2404 Easton Drive; Charlotte Kiesel, 2105 Hale Drive; Virginia Wright, 2811 Adeline Drive; Anneke Gaenslen, 2352 Poppy Drive; Michael Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive, submitted signed petition supporting Mercy; Aileen Whelan, 3029 Rivera Drive; June Wisecarver, 2932 Hillside Drive; Sr. Helen Gilsdorf, 2300 Adeline Drive, read a letter from Betty Nugent of 2525 Adeline Drive; Sr. Mary Edith Hurley, 2300 Adeline Drive, read a letter from Gus Petropoulos of 2872 Adeline Drive; Sr. Marian Rose Power, 2300 Adeline Drive, read a letter from Victoria Butler of 1316 Alvarado Avenue; George Chrisman, 2848 Adeline Drive; Jill Harmon, 1476 Alvarado Avenue; David Tillman, 2533 Hayward Drive; and Sandy Sloan, Attorney for Mercy. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Council discussed the following issues and related conditions from the list of conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: the two language clarifications suggested by the City Planner to condition 11 relating to `agency' meaning Mercy Center or Sisters of Mercy High School staff and include in the last condition a public notice with a 500-foot radius for the one year review meeting; modify the condition requiring students to be dropped off in front of the school, to students being dropped off at designated points; require that the calendar of events be provided online, e-mailed regularly to the Burlingame Police Department, and not required to be mailed via the post office to all neighbors; limit the number of events at Kohl Mansion to 125 a year excluding school events and Music at Kohl Mansion events; limit parking on the service drive to faculty and staff and deliveries; add a condition to require staff to oversee and direct traffic associated with students arriving and departing each school day; limit amplified music to inside Kohl Mansion, current practice except for student rallies which would like to continue, non-amplified music continue out-of-doors, speaking voice, such as weqAing vows, continue to be allowed with amplification; end week day events Monday-Thursday mral 10:00 p.m., end weekend events (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) at 11:00 p.m. 1k Vice Mayor O'Mahony directed staff to incorporate the changes into the conditions as discussed. Council will vote on the Conditional Use Permit for Sisters of Mercy Facilities and Mercy High School at the next regular Council meeting. There would be no further public testimony at that meeting. 3 Burlingame City Council February 21,2007 Unapproved Minutes Vice Mayor O'Mahony declared a brief intermission at 10:50 p.m. Mayor Nagel and Councilman Cohen returned to the dais, and Mayor Nagel reconvened the meeting at 11 p.m. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Olenka Krupa, 744 Neuchatel Avenue, spoke about her car being towed and suggested improvements to the noticing procedure. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY SPRINKLER RETROFIT REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS Fire Marshal Yballa reviewed the sprinkler retrofit requirements for commercial buildings and requested Council introduce an ordinance to clarify the original intent of the requirements. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Section 17.04.030 (adding Subsections 1003.2.1.2 to the Uniform Fire Code) to clarify Sprinkler Retrofitting Requirements. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO AMEND THE CONTRACT FOR MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEES WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and requested Council approve the Resolution of Intention to approve amending the contract with CaIPERS for miscellaneous employees and introduce an ordinance authorizing the amendment to the contract. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 17-2007, Resolution of Intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPers) Board of Administration and the City Council of the City of Burlingame. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance authorizing amendment to the contract between the City of Burlingame and the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS)to provide pre-retirement optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit to miscellaneous members. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilman Cohen made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 4 Burlingame City Council February 21,2007 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. C. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING PERMITS, RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SITE MAINTENANCE CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance to establish new requirements for extending Building Permits, renewing Building Permits and construction site maintenance. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 18.07 to specify requirements for extensions to permits and amending Chapter 8.17 to require construction site maintenance. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 14-2007 ACCEPTING SKYLINE WATER SERVICE LATERALS PROJECT BY STOLOSKI & GONZALEZ DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 14-2007 accepting improvements to Skyline Laterals, City Project No. 81230. b. RESOLUTION NO. 15-2007 DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE AND COLLECT LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO THE SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (SBWMA) FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 15-2007 delegating authority to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA)to impose and collect liquidated damages for failure to perform and non-compliance with the performance standards contained in the Franchise Agreement between the City of Burlingame and Allied Waste Inc. C. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE REVISED 2007 CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR CC Mortensen requested Council approve the revised 2007 City Council Calendar adding the Joint Council and Chamber of Commerce Meeting on April 2, 2007, the Budget Study Session on May 30, 2007, and the Joint Council and Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting on June 4, 2007. d. RESOLUTION NO. 16-2007 ADOPTING 2007 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES CA Anderson requested Council approve Resolution No.16-2007 adopting amendments to the city's Purchasing and Contracting Procedures. 5 Burlingame City Council February 21,2007 Unapproved Minutes e. WARRANTS & PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #23264-23935 duly audited, in the amount of $3,880,245.80 (excluding Library checks #23403-23431); Payroll checks #167623-167886 in the amount of $2,362,892.46 for the month of January 2007. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS Vice Mayor Nagel stated that the letters to Council from Stephen Clarkson requesting regulation of wood burning in a fireplace or a wood-burning stove and from Karen Key requesting regulation of separate ventilation systems in new multi-unit buildings have been referred to the Joint Council and Planning Commission meeting agenda for March 24, 2007. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen to notify these citizens of the referral. Councilwoman Baylock stated that last week cement was poured in the parking strip in front of Burlingame High School. The cement work covers the base of the trees which may be harmful to the trees. Also, the perimeter of the school building has been fenced off because of lead found in that area. Mayor Nagel stated that the widening of Peninsula Avenue is no longer an issue since there will be no new interchange to Highway 101 at this location. 13. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Nagel stated that residents have complained that the sprinkler requirements are too strict. FC Dornell advised that his staff plans to develop an informational sheet that will be handed out through the planning process so that people understand what the thresholds are and what the requirements will be. Councilwoman Baylock stated she will present this issue to the Central County Fire Board. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks & Recreation, January 11, 2007; Traffic, Safety & Parking, January 11, 2007; Beautification, February 1, 2007; Planning February 12, 2007 b. Department Reports: Building, January 2007; Finance, January 2007 c. Letter from Comcast concerning programming changes 6 Burlingame City Council February 21,2007 Unapproved Minutes 15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. in memory of Lois Callahan, former Chancellor of the San Mateo County Community College District. CLOSED SESSION CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Threatened Litigation (Government code §54956.9(b)(1),(3)(c): Claim of Carla Ada 16. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 12:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 7 Burlingame City Council February 21,2007 Unapproved Minutes R AME PROCLAMATION HONORING WILLIAM AND MARILYN MCGRAW WHOSE CHAMPION BORZOI, HUNTERS WON BEST OF BREED IN THE 2007 WESTMINSTER KENNEL CLUB DOG SHOW Whereas, The Westminster Kennel Club, estabfishea in 1877, is America's o[aest organization Deaicatea to the sport of purebreb dogs;and Whereas, The Westminster Kennel Club Annual Dog Show is unaisputebfN the greatest bog show in the worlcb;and whereas, Borzois, common[N known as Russian wolf hounds, are hunters that bring down their preN themselves;anb whereas, Borzois are sighthounas that hunt game bN trading their preN with their elves; and Whereas, A Borzoi named Hunter won Best of Breed at the 2007 Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show;and Whereas, William anb Mari(Nn McGraw of Burlingame are the proud owners of Hunter; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that I, TerrN Nagel, Mallor of the CitN of Burf ingame, bo herebN congratulate William anb Mari[Nn McGraw,owners of Hunter, who won Best of Breed at the 2007 Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set mN hand and caused the seal of the CitN of Burlingame to be a f f ixea this 5t6 aaN of March 2007. TerrN Nagel,Mallor PROCLAMATION THE BIG READ "To YOU a Moc�nOyb Month" April 2007 Whereas, Community reading programs have success f ullN united communities tbrougbout the United States;and Whereas, Reading and discussing great literature can buifd common ground between neighbors;and Whereas, Literaq readers are more fikef�than non-fiteraq readers to perform volunteer and charity work visit art museums,attend performing arts events and attend sporting events;and Whereas, Harper Lee wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning novel,To Kill a Mockingbird,in i96o,in which the author incorporates the themes of diversitvq,toferance,racial tensions,class,generations,justice and growing up;and Whereas, The Peninsula Libraq sNstem's San Mateo CountN Libraries have partnered with the National Endowment for the Arts,the Institute of Libraq and Museum Studies,and the Silicon VaffeN CommunitN Foundation to produce"THE BIG READ" — a communitNwide program throughout the CountN of San Mateo;and Whereas, The communitN is encouraged to read To Kiff a Mockingbird during the month of April 2oo7,and attend various scheduled events being hefd at manN of the public fibraries in San Mateo CountN,which will provide opportunities in manN public venues to share personal stories,discuss the book's themes and address its relevance to Burlingame residents; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED, that I,TerrN Nagel, Mallor of the CitN of Burlingame, do herebN proclaim April 2007 as "THE BIG READ" month: Burlingame Reads "To Kifl a Mockingbird." In witness whereof, I have hereunto set mN hand and caused the seat of the CitN of Burlingame to be affixed this 0 daN of March 2007. TerrN Nagel,Mallor CITY C PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME MEMORANDUM 4c0 900 ORATED JUNE DATE: February 26, 2007 TO: City Council Mayor Nagel Vice-Mayor O'Mahony Council members Baylock, Cohen, Keighran FROM: Meg Monroe City Planner RE: Presentation of South of Burlingame Avenue(SoBA)Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview. Please find attached a copy of the Destination SOBA Design Charrette Idea Book &Event Overview. Noemi Avram,AIA,and Ellis Schoichet,AIA, representing the San Mateo County Chapter of the AIA and co-chairs of the Charrette event will be present at the Council meeting March 5, 2007, to make a final presentation of the Charrette findings. They will be supported in their presentation by the four sets of team leaders who organized the production of the Charrette materials on the day of the event. The Idea Book&Event Overview was compiled by Planning Staff in an effort to capture the creative juices which marked that September day and created specific identity for the Howard Avenue area. In addition, because the Charrette was one of the activities leading into the preparation of a specific plan for the downtown area, the book assembles the creative, innovative and even unexpected ideas by themes as a way to `jump start' broader thinking about design elements throughout the commercial area. Noemi Avram and Ellis Schoichet expect that their presentation will take about 15 minutes. - Destination: SOBA - South of Burlingayne Avenue - Design Charrette September 30, 2006 Idea Book & Event Overview Destination: SOBA .South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview — TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREFACE.... ................................................................. ...................................... ............ .... . ...... ..... 3 A. INTRODUCTION BY AIASMC EVENT CHAIRS ............... ........... ........................ 4 B. MAP OF STUDY AREA ............................................ ........ ........ .. ....... ................ ......... .... 6 II. DESIGN IDEAS .......... ................................................................. ..................... ............. .... .... ......7 A. INTRODUCTION............ ......................... .. ..................... .......................................... ....... 7 B. STRUCTURAL DESIGN IDEAS .... .................... .... .. ............... .. . .... .............................. 8 C. MIXED-USE STRUCTURES ................................................. .... ................................... 12 D. PARKING SOLUTIONS ............................................................................................... 14 - E. STREETSCAPE AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS ....... .... . ............. .... .... .... 15 F. COMMUNITY OPEN SPACES ................. ........... ...... ........... ....... ........... ...... .... ..........20 G. SIGNAGE AND GATEWAYS ...... ............... ..... .... .............. ........... ............. ............. ...23 III. TEAM PRESENTATIONS.................................... ......... ...... .......... ........... ............. ........ .......25 A. BLUE TEAM.... ..... .... ................................................ .... ......... ........................... ............. ...25 B. GREEN TEAM ............................. ...................... .......... .... ....... .............. ............. ............. 30 C. RED TEAM ............... . ............................................ .......... ......................... ..................... ...34 D. YELLOW TEAM ............................ ...... ............... .............. . ........ ............ ............. ........ ....40 IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CREDITS ............................ .... ...... ........... ...... ...............47 -2- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview I. PREFACE In May 2006, the Burlingame City Council embraced the idea of working with the of American Institute of Architects San Mateo County Chapter (AIASMC) to hold a public design Charrette in the Downtown area of the City. During the months of organization and preparation, the study area for the Charrette was narrowed to Howard Avenue and the connections between Howard Avenue and Burlingame's core commercial street, Burlingame Avenue. During the planning period for the Charrette, the City Council also decided to undertake a Specific Plan program for the entire downtown area. To prepare for the larger planning program, the Council contracted for an economic base study for the downtown planning area, which also included Howard Avenue. The study was completed and presented to the City Council in June 2006. A committee was appointed to assist in the preparation of a scope of work for the Downtown Specific Plan. The planning program for the entire downtown commercial area and the flanking multiple family residential areas is anticipated to commence in the Spring of 2007. The South of Burlingame Avenue (SOBA) Design Charrette on September 30, 2006, began the process of looking at Burlingame's downtown area with new eyes. Creative, innovative and even "unexpected" ideas were explored and considered for the South of Burlingame Area. The critical need to establish an independent identity for Howard Avenue was recognized and built upon. From this vibrant incubator came a number of ideas which can provide a springboard for discussions about design, interconnectivity and land uses for the broader downtown planning area. This report is designed to address the quest for a new identity for Howard Avenue as well as identify building block components which might be used to integrate the other unique commercial and residential areas within the Downtown planning area. j The following report is divided into two parts. The first section on "Design Ideas" collects the creative, innovative and even unexpected ideas by theme. The second part focuses on the individual SOBA team presentations and drills down to the new identity each team envisioned for the Howard Avenue area. AS �I. All photos courte y of Bobbi Goodman -3- — L Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview A. INTRODUCTION BY AIASMC EVENT CHAIRS The cochairs of the Destination: SOBA Design Charrette would like to thank all of those who made this event such a grand success.We thank the City of Burlingame for its forward-thinking investment of resources in bringing the charrette to fruition. We thank the members of the AIASMC and other participating professionals and students for the precious time they spent envisioning these wonderful possibilities for the ` future. We thank the companies who donated materials and services that were essential to the success of the event. And last but not least, our gratitude goes out to the citizens and community groups such as the Citizens for a Better Burlingame who took it upon themselves to make sure the designers were versed in the many complex issues that needed to be addressed, and who participated fully in the development of the visions you will see in this overview. The term "charrette" is derived from the French word for cart. At the Ecole des Beaux Arts, the premiere school of architecture in 19th century France, architecture students were challenged with design assignments requiring intense work and were subjected to very tight and inflexible deadlines. These exercises would culminate in feverish bursts of creative effort as the designs were drawn on large format boards for final Lpresentation. The arrival of the deadline was always marked by the n appearance of the Proctor's cart, the "charrette",which made the rounds of the student's quarters to pick up their work. Over the years, the term "charrette" has become synonymous with an intense and time-constrained design project, workshop or exercise. Design r charrettes can be associated with a variety of community-based problem- solving and participatory design or planning activities. They can range fromrw a few hours of intensive brainstorming to a sequence of sessions spanning Lseveral days or weeks. I Design charrettes organized by the American Institute of Architects San Mateo County Chapter (AIASMC), L such as the Destination: SOBA Design Charrette are 12-hour-long, one-day workshops. They involve a significant commitment of time and energy from volunteers, including Chapter members and a broad range of allied professionals and students. Everyone is invited to come together and focus attention on an issue, Lproblem or area of concern that has been defined by the community in which the event is held. The Chapter's efforts are rooted in the members' belief in the importance of community service and L leadership by the architectural profession. Events such as the Destination: SOBA Design Charrette present valuable opportunities for architects and other design professionals to serve the community. AIA members understand that the combination of unencumbered creative problem solving and direct community Lparticipation is often the best way to begin addressing complex design and development issues. The AIASMC's charrette approach generates multiple visions rather than a single solution. The ability to quickly produce and share a number of possible visions of the future can be a crucial element in helping communities define and achieve their goals. The ideas can break through the deadlock of a debate that is limited to words and emotions prior to the charrette, overcome the inertia of preconceived notions and help i illuminate a path to the future. A variety of graphically expressed concepts becomes the basis for further study, discussion, debate and eventually for civic action. The fact that the AIASMC has conducted many successful events such as this one over the past 25 years, up and down the Peninsula, reflects the Chapter's Llongstanding dedication to the needs of the communities in the area. -4- Destination: SOBA Soutb of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Destination SOBA The Destination: SOBA Design Charrette focused on revitalizing the Howard Avenue district of downtown Burlingame south of Burlingame Avenue (hence-"SOBA' . The study area extended from California Drive on the east to El Camino Real on the west, and from the parking lots on Fox and City Hall Lanes on the north to the band of City-owned parking 7 lots south of Howard Avenue (see map of study area on page 6). This study area encompassed large portions of 11 city blocks and presented the designers with many challenges and opportunities. s Photo courtesy of Bobbi Goodman After months of painstaking preparation by the City of Burlingame and the AIASMC, the volunteer designers and community members gathered at 8 a.m. on September 30, 2006, at the Burlingame Recreation Center to -1 begin work. The turnout was impressive, reflecting the depth and complexity of the issues that would be tackled. There were 38 licensed Architects, 18 associate Architects (Architects in training) and eight allied professionals and students who volunteered their time to develop the visions. More than 700 hours of professional time were expended on behalf of the City of Burlingame during the course of the day, and 19 representatives and staff members from the City of Burlingame and more than 70 members of the public also participated in the event. The design participants divided into four teams. Each team was asked to study the entire area. The teams were also asked to focus on subareas of their choosing so they could develop the team's focus in greater detail than would be possible across the entire study area. The teams were assigned colors: Blue, Green, Red and Yellow. Summary reports from each of the teams are included in the Appendix. The teams approached the issues in many different ways, but always with sensitivity to the unique characteristics and ambiance that make Burlingame such a wonderful place to live. The hallmark of the day was the skill and tact displayed by the teams as they worked shoulder to shoulder with community members. They stepped back, and together they took a fresh and unencumbered look at the problems and opportunities presented by the Howard Avenue area. They proposed bold ideas based on their understanding of the needs of the study area and the larger community. They were careful not to get bogged .� down by the limitations of current zoning regulations or by fretting about how their solutions would be received by individual stakeholders. By the time the presentations were completed at 8 p.m. that evening it was clear that there were many common ideas and concepts running through the teams' visions for the study area. In addition to this consensus, there were also several unique and surprising ideas. We recommend that interested readers take the time to study these presentation reports and look at the visions of the future that came out of this event. There is great breadth and depth to the thinking that was done on the day of the charrette, a richness of ideas and details of which the participants and the City of Burlingame can be proud. There are enough ideas and themes here to stimulate thinking for many months about the larger downtown into which the SOBA area will be integrated. It is our sincere hope that the City of Burlingame is able to capitalize on the opportunities revealed by this process and help Howard Avenue fully realize its potential. The AIASMC truly appreciates having been given the opportunity to participate in this landmark event. i Noemi K.Avram AIA and Ellis A. Schoichet AIA Cochairs of the Destination: SOBA Design Charrette November 2006 -5- - � d ? .Burlingame o Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Avenue �`�. r y m p `tp � I f ' Washington ParkrD ` � L� S Cr r CD CD 4 jy Destination: SOBA �� t, ? ., r •`' ' . South of Burlui une Avenue \.x' '" j Design Cliwette Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview II. DESIGN IDEAS A. Introduction _ On September 30, 2006, the American Institute of Architects San Mateo County Chapter (AIASMC) worked with the City of Burlingame to sponsor a design charrette for the South of Burlingame Avenue (SOBA) portion of Burlingame's downtown. One of the great successes of the charrette was the many creative designs generated. In 2007 the City of Burlingame will undertake a planning program for Burlingame's downtown area. This planning area includes Howard Avenue and the entire current commercial area as well 7 as the higher density residential areas which surround the urban core between Oak Grove and Peninsula Avenues, California Drive and El Camino Real as well as east to Anita Road between Burlingame and Peninsula Avenues. There was a consensus among the charrette design teams that the Howard Avenue area needs to establish its own identity separate from Burlingame Avenue. A striking outcome of the South of Burlingame Avenue (SOBA) Design Charrette was the number of creative ideas generated which could be used as a springboard for discussing design problems which exist in other areas of the Downtown. For example, one of the design charges for the SOBA Design Charrette was to develop connections between Howard and Burlingame Avenues. The need for connections on the north side of Burlingame Avenue also exists between the Avenue and Chapin and Donnelly Avenues. A sample of the graphics from each team reveals an interesting variety of approaches to connections. A number of design idea themes emerged from the team Charrette presentations. These universal themes include: building design, arrangements for mixed use structures, parking solutions, ways to create urban open spaces, streetscape design, commercial signage and establishing gateways. The images created by all the charrette teams have been collected by theme in this report so that they can be used as a point of departure for discussion during the broader downtown planning program. t w y i� 5 t y t a 4 � Ai.!!N'S► F17K G„4NE -7- L Destination:SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview LBlue Team B. Structural Design Ideas 6- A number of structures were identified in the SOBA area which had significance to the L„ community. This significance was based on the fact that the buildings either had community ,` identity, like the Masonic Hall and the Bus Depot, ``V �. or they represented the early architecture and land �F uses of the area, such as the small storefronts andp Victorian houses converted to retail use. Similar ' buildings of community identity and others whose architecture represents an earlier era of commercial and residential activityexist throughout the larger `1 r. g g ` downtown area and in the adjacent residential j areas east of El Camino Real. Some of the ideas for conservation and incorporation of these 60 structures as well as ideas which build on this identity follow. Yellow Team Yellow Team tis rgy F r w� 1 Yellow Team Primrose J8- Destination: SOBA.South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Boob and Event Overview 1 Yellow Team , ct _ r Yellow Team Yellow Team VIA — � .. _ RLATM Pra Yellow Team Yellow Team Structural Desi ,gn Ideas, continued— -9- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Structural Design Ideas, continued— Tlig Y 1 Yellow Team i ? r - • �1 !' 1 = 4 Bed Teaiw NCW Bed Team Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview t e a fl #r t ' lot ! 4 4 r t Green Team Structural Design Ideas, continued— — -11- — Destination:SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview L C. Mixed-Use Structures One way to stimulate new commercial development is to add people to the area. Since the 1930s, the single family residential uses around Burlingame's central commercial area have been replaced with multiple-family development. This transition to higher-density residential uses continues today. But a theme that arose for the Howard Avenue area was mixed uses with commercial uses on the first floor and residential uses above. Mixed use is a land use concept which could be considered in future planning for the entire downtown commercial area. Below are creative ideas of the kinds of structures, some with and some without integrated parking and open space,which can be used to create a mixed-use environment. a � 911 ink i ' lei (fit irtGdr I NArp NSW MIX UsE f%'V1P6SV ON h- WAXY Yellov Team 1i t Green Team -12- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Mixed-Use Structures, continued— N.41M� _ f d fT�Ri/►� l.�y�1 � Green Team _ pn�i<� Ywu IIS r _ Z r Foown �rvr� �rrCR LEM- Green Team Green Team �.413 Q M Q R(u�Sh+c wTlei,isFnub eA� �.vtl orera�-aw.m ower uu gpasCsn.� 9W Mn.� wNe v.y u lbw ca.0 fMRM4 Green Team -13- _ i two Destination:SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Chanette Idea Book and Event Overview D. Parking Solutions low Much of the public parking which supports the Burlingame Avenue commercial area is on or flanks Howard Avenue. A critical question in the �., SOBA Charrette was how to incorporate more yew�Rv we development and preserve sufficient, accessible _ parking. This same scenario of parking and - —"— development exists on the north side of Burlingame Avenue,with the same resulting issues. Some ideas follow regarding how to meld parking into the commercial areas so that it remains accessible and inconspicuous. ,r Yellow Team 7•. 4.�." 'd.. Yellow Team ,T 1. - --_s Yellow Team -14- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Amnue Design Chatrette Idea Book and Event Overview E. Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections Among the participants in the charrette, there was general consensus that Howard Avenue needs its own identity. A consistent Streetscape is one way to give an area identity. This premise is as true on Burlingame and Chapin Avenues as it is on Howard Avenue. Incorporated into the Streetscape designs were a number of ideas for establishing pedestrian connections between Howard Avenue and Burlingame Avenue. Special attention was paid to Hatch Lane. Similar connections could provide access to commercial and parking areas in the rest of the downtown, such as City Hall Lane and Fox Plaza Lane. The ideas in this section illustrate different kinds of Streetscape solutions, both broad based and specific, as well as ways to enliven and make i pedestrian connections enticing and viable. a�= Fes- . Bed Team t. Bed Team - - - LLAMP,Eu��iTM - TR[uls AMP, �f LKM7/M. I CON►�t[RrR - IM1ytT1VC MAP 5'rREFT f�R N rrurS,HATe k N F- -15- — Destination: SOBA,South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview ��t`r- ttc 7-0 LAN Ked Team Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections, continued— a 4 '•. -, 'SSS .—..._ _.. ., t , 7 Red Team - 'ts6 Porc.E �`� 1 r `a:: �„� tE1.ifRJ+r^K-�E TG Nst7C.w L,gJJEC' Red Team rrt R Aa•1 -ro H f+,T=j-+ L.A t,48 FP—M 5AJ X-i-I N 6A1 -16- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Fb 77, 77 v. r ✓ p e �. m, �t kaiva�•i c�eJ ��dam. . ,` `�. Yellow Team Yellow Team I. f Yellow Team Yellow Team — A f.i ,h F I ' P M 1 :40 HDVM MMEMCAFE Yellow Team Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections, continued— -17- Destination:SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections continued— a i - SL�'ri-t,m YUZAt Blue Team Blue Team z x� V . r Blue Team �4 u Blue Team -18- 4 Destination:SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections, continued— allT J; Green Team iw Green Team W"0 o 1 t 777 ^r Green Team -19- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview F. Community Open Spaces As density increases, open spaces become more _ a.. important. The SOBA Charrette teams spent a lot `"" of time looking at features which would provide 113 shoppers, employees and residents in the Howard ' Avenue area with a satisfying experience. Many talked about the contribution to the downtown " experience created by the existing Tot Lot in ..--- `. Parking Lot J. Ideas centered around the way to better use existing underused open spaces to create ,. identity for the Howard area, and to visually and i physically connect Howard Avenue to Burlingame Avenue. Key among the existing areas were the Ked Team lawns in front (and behind) the Post Office and the area and public street segment at the Bus n Depot on California Avenue. There are other open spaces tucked throughout the downtown area which could become similar pockets of visual relief or quiet activity, or they could provide a safe, ", I passive space for pedestrians. These images may L, stimulate ideas for discussion for the broader downtown area. — }ate t, - F Ked Team f'L�A•'�' G T�U (�C� — RrCI T alit Red Team -20- Destination:SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Chatrette Idea Book and Event Overview Community Open Space,continued— Avast-WG 41.. .Nyygq�yr��tiY 4LidpbyyyLy�ay�.p-� .0 � ... . LINK - C^M,40 FEAR.. THP-4) -ro CALll=--i-VA Ked Team � L l ow-6 Om6 ni — �t, � B�Ir.vlrs O U - Green Team -21- — • • i i i • • Ap ' ..g��', > 1 .-t / r/\� a•.fFgg6 Yit .('J�'}1j�Y P / , 0 vi s � soar f r t+ • -j � . it x� Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview G. Signage and Gateways Commercial signage and demarcation of gateway entrances are linked. Charrette designers clearly felt that a significant component of creating a _ distinct identity for Howard Avenue included gateway announcement both upon entering and leaving the area. The gateway theme can also be seen in the Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections and Community Open Space Sections. Gateways also might be considered for the broader downtown commercial area at Burlingame Avenue, Chapin Avenue and Lorton Avenue at California Avenue. Below are a ��/ � 0 01 collection of images representing ways to establish gateway features proposed by the Charrette teams. Red Team A61 Ict H,=C 9 F��- . F } Red Team Red Team + �� i4=WA�4D Destination: SOBA South of Burlinganee Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Signage and Gatemays, continued— LL x x m, r r .. b ' T. a. Gn.iEr{q Pv12A Blue Team xrr _ NACA Ked Tea,-,v Ked Team -24- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview L III. TEAM PRESENTATIONS L Each of the four design teams was charged to arrive at a collective vision for the SOBA design area. The teams worked independently, with local residents and business people circulating among the teams, providing "user" insights and opinions. City staff was available to provide technical input when asked. An overview of each team's vision and recommendations is provided below. The overviews were prepared by the AIASMC team captains. Each overview is followed by sketches prepared by team members to document their vision and solutions. A. Blue Team LThe Blue Team got a real boost from members of the community. Some participated for the entire day and were immensely helpful in providing insight into important ideas and concerns for Howard Avenue, as well as L instantaneous over-the-shoulder critiques. The team concluded by the end of the day that Howard Avenue has all the ingredients to become an exciting and inviting downtown neighborhood. The team's ideas follow. The Blue Team began its work with a walking tour of the area and listening to the community members on �Mw our team and others who were passing through about the area. Design issues identified from these sources were: • Current use patterns �- • Demographics • Traffic and parking 6. • Opportunities — what is missing? • Constraints • Problems — what isn't working? �ftm • Resources — what is important to preserve? Above all, the team focused on creating a "neighborhood" within the downtown rather than another `, shopping street. How can Howard Avenue extend and complement Burlingame Avenue without being simply a wider version of it? From this dialogue, goals and strategies emerged that guided the design work. LImprove Howard Avenue — Several strategies came into play here: • The quality of the street from a pedestrian point of view. Howard Avenue is relatively wide, and the team proposed widening the sidewalk two to three feet in some areas and adding additional street �- trees. • The team's proposals include an approach similar to Castro Avenue in Mountain View, where special L paving runs between the edge of the sidewalk and the traffic lane. During the day, diagonal parking is available in the paved area and in the evening, parking is not allowed on the streets so that restaurants can use the expanded area for dining seating. • Tree planting is located in the special paving area to "frame" the parking and expanded sidewalk uses L and to provide shade. • The team recommended looking at the possibility of a trolley that would connect California Drive and 1 El Camino Real. L ❖ Create Gategays at Cali ornia Drive and El Camino Real L • Correct the fact that today you can drive by Howard Avenue and not know you are in the Downtown. -25- L 7 Destination: SOBA South of BurlingameAvemre Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview • Create a `Bowtie Plaza" by closing Highland Avenue between California and Howard to establish a gateway plaza around the former Greyhound depot; and lead visually into the CalTrain station plaza (forming a bowtie in plan). • At the corner of Howard and El Camino Real, create a green open space across from the Methodist church (northeast corner) to visually announce the entry to Howard Avenue and Downtown. ❖ Increase Opportunities for the Arts • Develop a new arts center at or near the intersection of Park Road and Howard Avenue. The center would be a flexible space that would include a gallery, classrooms and a small black-box type 7 performance area for theater. • Because uses could be shared, building an arts center in the downtown neighborhood would allow a smaller new community center to be built in Washington Park. 7 • Encourage businesses with some connection to the arts along Park Road north of Howard Avenue. • Close off Park Road north of Howard to auto traffic for monthly art walks. •'• Create W ortunities for Discovery—Part of what makes a place interesting is that it reveals itself as one moves • through it. • Create a network of pedestrian walkways throughout the downtown designed to connect Burlingame 7 Avenue, parking and open spaces together. The network would build off of spaces such as Hatch Lane and have a much smaller scale than Howard or Burlingame Avenue. • Smaller shops and cafes could open onto the pedestrian walkways. ❖ A Creekside Linear Park in the Downtown — The Blue Team proposed daylighting a portion of Burlingame ; Creek,which traverses the first block east of El Camino Real in the SOBA area. • The linear park would connect the downtown area with its past and create a unique amenity that few downtowns offer. • The linear park would offer a view of nature and a place to sit quietly away form the bustle of Burlingame and Howard Avenues. • City Hall Lane and Fox Lane should become active pedestrian ways that are part of the linear park pedestrian loop through the downtown neighborhood. •'• A Network of Public Plaza and Oben .Spaces in the Downtown — Create a series of open spaces for the downtown neighborhood that include: • Arts Plaza on Howard Avenue at the new arts center. • Post Office Green—The lawn area located at the east side of the Post Office would have seating and art added to great a pocket park. • Bowtie Plaza - the gateway plaza at Howard and the train station plaza • Hatch Patch—connecting Hatch Lane to California Drive and Bowtie Plaza ❖ Smarter Parking — Although much of the downtown is devoted to surface parking lots, the number of parking spaces will need to be increased and made convenient. • Consolidate the surface lots into multilevel decked parking structures in order to open up areas on the first floor for additional retail businesses. In particular, the lots south of Howard Avenue can be 7 decked to increase the number of spaces available. • Since the downtown neighborhood will be moving south with the revitalization of Howard Avenue, this parking will seem closer to the center of action than it does today. Consolidating parking also provides a dependable way to find parking. ' -26- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview v L • Tie the parking into the proposed pedestrian pathway network so that immediately upon leaving the parking area, one is plugged into the downtown circulation system. ❖ Encourage Mixed-Use and Transit-Oriented Housing Ohi� ortunnities— • Encourage mixed-use development that combines office, retail and housing projects. • Smaller loft housing should be incorporated to provide alternatives to detached single family houses, traditional multiple family rental units and large condominiums for home ownership. • Given the street width along Howard Avenue, allow well-designed four-story buildings, perhaps using set-back upper floors. ` • At the eastern edge of the SOBA area close to Bowde Plaza and the CalTrain station, parking requirements could be relaxed since public transportation is convenient and reduces the need for as many automobiles. Blue Team Captains: Wayne Gehrke,AIA Paul Jamtgaard,AIA Blue Team Design Concepts A � <. e"�etu 9t-42A ( ° 1 Py 4 , . } fN�.iM3 G:+ C. A Lonid. C.+FNG` -27- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Chatrette Idea Book and Event Overview e L! z ., • iti ��. � � W #�,�r. � '�.,�•� j a c i X74 JK, Blue Tearer Design Concepts, continued— g _ I ji gb 5 •/ - -.-,rep, ... 7r,,h �cTa- Of � � -� ,�..---�-"TdEl�15 P�'i•HANai OVT 3 a yam- C r � a rF W t Niw4AGNb Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview 6— „. _ FlY�wl6Pµt Mi4f.%.� Z C' �l i f" Blue Team Design Concepts, continued— r z `mss t �A---i"I t i I a°m x` ny , %vst a -29- r Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview B. Green Team The Green Team's approach was to begin with a team discussion focused on identifying the elements of the SOBA area the team members felt were most important. The consensus was: intensity, character and form. Discussion then moved on to the many possibilities for the Howard Avenue corridor which could help it to become an area of excitement. The design themes arrived at by five focused working groups included the following: ❖ Connections/Pathway Three types of connections were identified: R • Pedestrian only pathways ""'` r-XION51, 6�GA am—nuee 0"r- • Service-only roads "vo �re0r hie" • Pedestrian and service alleys, such as Hatch Lane vvf'r u 11_40--�� �ujwiY--i WFW lP/C owµ -Gwrr GeM at,Pi •klf�ta G te�I r- ¢riW1:v� �4Xf�dl 'GreotT��KriA�Et�R'a /����",� Both east-west and north-south connections were W*OvlDe identified. These pathways would add a new dimension A *4 1,6v8L. ALO G " and character to downtown and link Howard Avenue to "gyp CA CK.Y _ Burlingame Avenue. These connections could be in many _Pp_*/,3sr.v forms such as a "paseo" with shops facing the walkways s OV and seating for dining outside. These pathways would provide additional landscaping in the downtown and create exciting ways to walk from off-street parking to the V: i I i Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview �,, •3 Heritage S:auare "Heritage Square" is a concept designed to protect the older structures in the Downtown area and to preserve some of Burlingame's eclectic historic architecture. �. • One block was selected on the south side of Howard Avenue directly across from Hatch Lane where two historic structures exist. • The existing Victorian house (at 1250 Howard) would be relocated to join this grouping. • Other buildings could be moved or new buildings built of similar design to create a block of tight courtyards and outdoor areas between the old houses. • The courtyards would be renovated to provide for active retail and cafe use. ` • The building at the corner of Highland and Howard could be renovated for retail use and could include a garden center, complete with a large new greenhouse as a focal point. The effect would be a "Carmel type" feel of tight green outdoor spaces with outdoor eating and lounging areas in amongst older structures. The Heritage Square block sits just north of a city parking lot,which could be redesigned to triple the number ` of existing parking spaces by providing an underground parking level and a redesigned on-grade parking level. The second floor over the parking lot could be developed to include approximately 18 residential townhouse units with a central garden space. Both the parking area and the housing units would have direct access to Heritage Square by an elevator,direct walkway connections and stairs. ❖ A Downtown Park Area ` • The team proposed that the City work with the Post Office to maximize the use of the Post Office lot. Since the City does not have a "central park" area in the Downtown area, there is no place for people Downtown to eat lunch outdoors, stroll among trees or just sit on a bench. • The lawn on the east side of the Post Office along Lorton Avenue would be ideal for this purpose. This area could have many uses such as an outdoor concert area, a place to sit and watch people, a green link to Park and Howard Avenues, fountains and sculptures. The park and a few new structures would also act to create a street edge that would tie both ends of this block together. ❖ The Proto44e Block • The block south of Howard between Lorton and Park was identified as the prototype block.This area was used to present a design concept that could be used as a model for what could happen all along Howard. • The core concept was to build an underground parking structure with on-grade parking above, i located in the middle of the block. This arrangement would create enough parking to support the r... development of this block. • Mixed uses would predominate along Howard Avenue,with retail space on the first floor, office space on the second floor and residential space stepped back on the third and fourth floors. • Along Lorton and Park Avenues, there would be retail or small office space at the street level with townhouses above. Covering the on-grade parking would be more residential units around a courtyard. • This prototype block would allow for a more urban, mixed-use development that would still relate to i Burlingame's small-city feeling. I 6' Green Team Captains: Dale Meyer,AIA Jerry Winges,AIA I L.. -31- I Destination: SOBA,South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview MOW �OWL -3T *44 F 21 it Green Team Design Concept, continued— _ PfYDeutiw anDw�u� *.J.wy KfrC! Yk� IkTML�✓� [LtMI,NPlutb ppXIN�.e{wND St�it�UYSI gpn5(SNua� uam wT cgci t.,«t .e oIt4N iPW tM/RiG -32- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview '! uowo rn or�rcc srnac - (L)�� rs i (� a F.-. MOW �owe�""6ea 1Tri NMcu.56 - V 4 � i i f A� PODIUM LEVEL (�1 rER L�►'£� Green Team Design Concepts, continued— ~� 1 ��� MOW►FU Ali E"i I I L y n �— Z ST■cc/T t..€vEi Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview C. Red Team Because of its large size, the Red Team divided into four working groups focused on looking at the overall j plan for the area, looking at a consistent design theme that could be applied for Howard Avenue, designing a new east entry for Howard Avenue and developing a unique focus for the area. The Red Team's objective was to create an image of a unified and vibrant"Boulevard" on Howard that in itself would be as interesting a place as Burlingame Avenue. This team's vision was built on the following core concepts: •'• Overall Plan It was noted that the parking lots behind the shops on Burlingame Avenue were unattractive and did not provide a connection to Howard Avenue. The solution was to develop a pedestrian-friendly "green belt" path from El Camino Real to California Drive. The goal of the pathway was to: —' • Separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic • Provide points of interest along the way • Condense parking into controlled pockets • Develop connecting loops between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue The plan includes: • The Safeway and Walgreens buildings close to the street,with stores and cafes facing the streets and a new central plaza behind it —, • A central plaza that would accommodate a farmer's market, craft fairs and music events and would be ! visible from the Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue intersections at El Camino Real • Expansion of the vest pocket park children's playground on Primrose, with the old City Hall cupola i as a focal point • The lawn area behind the Post Office flanked with pavilions and doubling as an outdoor concert and theater area • The Hatch Lane alley becoming a pedestrian path,with special hours for deliveries in the morning • On Hatch Lane, shops and cafes spilling outdoors • A redesigned entry to Howard Avenue off California Drive ❖ Consistent Theme Howard Avenue needs a consistent theme, rather than the existing hodgepodge of styles that currently includes small houses converted to retail, large office park type buildings, typical bank buildings, a beautiful traditional church and a Masonic Hall. To achieve consistency: • The City needs to pay as much attention to the commercial area through the Planning Commission's design review process as it has with new residential development. • All new buildings should adhere to a style,be it Mediterranean,Tudor, Classical,Art Deco or Modern. ..� Clues to the types of styles that are appropriate are to be found on the surrounding streets of Y Burlingame Avenue, Lorton and Primrose. A few sketches were developed to show how existing buildings would look with more traditional and interesting facades. -14 • Images were developed for the Hatch Lane entrance from Howard Avenue, as well as the Masonic Lodge. • Howard Avenue should become an upscale village with distinctive shops and restaurants not found "'4 elsewhere. • The street should be renamed Howard Boulevard and have a planted median strip. • Retail signage should be redesigned. -34- ., •— Destination: SOBA Soutb of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview ❖ East Entrance to Howard Avenue The area around the old Greyhound Bus Depot does not project an image that is pleasing. A Depot Park could be created at the location of the existing gas station. .. • Across the street a continuation of the park would be possible if Highland Avenue were reduced to one lane • This `Bowtie Park"would create a visual drawing card to passengers coming from the train station to •• the north as well as to drivers in vehicles passing by • The buildings that would remain on the corners adjacent to the park could be improved • A community space could be created around a central feature ❖ Focus The Howard Avenue area needs a unique focus to draw people off Burlingame Avenue to Howard Boulevard. • Build a multipurpose building that would be a Performing Arts Center that would delight the most seasoned theater lovers. ` • The ground level would be similar to the shops and restaurants of the surrounding area. • The steps of the building could also be used for outdoor performances, at which time the street would be closed for vehicular traffic. 0 The second floor of the building would be accessed by glass atriums. The main performance space at the second level would have a large stage with main terraced seating,plus balconies. `.. • The building should also include necessary rehearsal spaces, offices, meeting rooms and dressing rooms. • The roof terrace would provide a place for parties, receptions and concerts. Red Team Captains: John Stewart,AIA Farhad Ashrafi,AIA GAM(N 0 Red Team Design Concepts Nua� -35- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview MR i M i � � spa,. I __'• � S i N �P,tv�ihy0 P•�AC_ "!'1-i�-V "T"© GAE_t�oP-t,l1A DPtVE i I L-2 M AS-C'�( C- �7vr!5tA'-L--j-- HCMI Ked Team Design Concepts, continued— i -36- �— Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview p Q yr ENrtc To N,4-t`r7�4 LAL L= i �rp,4NC�E TO Ked Team Design Concepts, continued— w/5V,6TM T.ac� s _ IT14�Tvt t _• 1 MAP 6- i .r S'fRf.ET FyR N iTvRE,H{C(C M ' ` Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrctte Idea Book and Event Overview t� W .1 r1 ( " }} 014m, rl el f4cWAR4:) r � Je 1F J i ING A4 , pc Red Team Design Concepts, continued— L1 PO ST OFFiGE � ` C kY.,I L. r }--k^WA P,,V Sou La�,�a-c� -38- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Red Teccyn Desi ,gn Concepts, continued— M1 I 1� f r y S• 6N � w a ' 1 y 19- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview D. Yellow Team The SOBA Design Charrette presents the City with an opportunity to create a new alternative downtown (ED for Howard Avenue: a downtown that does not try , in X1 to mimic Burlingame Avenue or Broadway, but has a - rp P s-T, CT S distinctly different focus, character, emphasis and A RTs environment. It is an opportunity to create an _ entirely new place, an area with a beginning and an end, a true district: the "Howard Arts District." The District's composition would be one of smaller scale retail, small professional offices and small-scale mixed-use development— that is, two or three levels of residential units over small scale retail. It would be a place where the "Mom and Pop" stores can survive and thrive. The Howard Arts District would be a destination. It would have connectivity to Burlingame Avenue through new walking paths and new pedestrian opportunities,but it would be its own destination and would stand on its own. The district would need a new population, achieved through new higher-density housing and more aggregated central parking opportunities with easy access to both Howard and Burlingame Avenues. New transit- oriented high density housing could be located south of Howard and still be within 2,000 feet of the train station and bus depot on California. ❖ Howard Avenue Design District This new district would be defined through the use of new gateway plazas and structures at each end of the four-block district. • At California, there would be a new depot plaza and a gateway structure. ^ • At El Camino,there could also be new entry gate structures. • Park Avenue could receive special paving to enhance the already popular Farmers'Market. Howard is eight to ten feet wider than Burlingame Avenue; those eight feet could be recaptured as center landscape medians on the outer two blocks and as wider pedestrian sidewalk areas along the north side of the street on the center two blocks.The design could provide the opportunity for: • Distinctive median trees to mark the beginning and end of the district • Additional pedestrian-oriented businesses to spill out onto the wider sidewalk with the south-facing exposures at the center two blocks • Corner cafes,interactive art, fountain plazas and other outdoor retail options i ❖ Pedestrian Passa�eways The district could provide new pedestrian access by: • Cleaning up the service-oriented alleyways, like Hatch Lane, to provide new pedestrian passageways and to provide easy and direct linkage between the Howard Arts District and Burlingame Avenue, as ^ well as the two parking bands • Creating greater definition, parking densification and more prominent pedestrian access to the two east-west parking bands (one behind Burlingame Ave and one behind Howard Avenue) • Reconfiguring the parking south of Burlingame Avenue to provide additional pedestrian and bicycle opportunities and to encourage businesses to open outward to this south exposure _ • Adding elevated parking decks south of Howard Avenue to provide increased parking opportunities and new pedestrian access pathways to encourage use -40- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Future development opportunities for the Howard Arts District could incorporate other community-oriented uses, such as a new theater and other small-scale performance venues, a small children's museum, a pocket park and other family-oriented and arts-oriented functions that will provide diversity to the Howard Arts District. The Howard Arts District is a new kind of experience for Burlingame and could contain a mix of uses not previously seen. Art studios and galleries could be encouraged to locate here. Living, entertainment, service,working and cultural components might all be captured by this bold, bright, new idea. Yellow Team Captains: Susan Eschweiler,AIA Tom Gilman,AIA N {CE►t R ME6WN� VI1t:E FYKh#•.fi�E1 NW-4-99-1ntz) _ a R I - 4 MINE;7MM O .^ 1 :40 M0 A V VMTW,FE, , Yellow Team Design Concepts _. us mss= 4 s�wu ac er^ Tr gPLPJ WF /�' 1 6�= 17 cc 1!D cw P. � t - f) p�RCA Clt�B'C3 SPS , 4�,,,fYRKittb PAY#nom _ �� Y� � - EJ Ae d q)RWjW-W 2 HtriV � €� r r.::] Eld ntN 0§ -41- Destination: SOBA,South of'Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Yellom Team Design Concepts, continued— pp tjI { i a. ``i,mk� - It k '� e. Saw D D►5TMT e A�t �ST'RiGT prim i�. Tim& ,r77,7rL -42- Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview y a e #• WWW.. 1 r M•�HI� oP' M,gserS Ic -EPJ�PLG - Yellow Team Design Concepts, continued— t� 4 -- S T _- .mow��P�g'�^ ... � � � • I. -43- �a i77 .�a , a 1 ' cau= � r f FFr{ `-a'�%�,'G*- J � �'g t�t',� �s•f ��a11f1�A�`: as::=.. P r ►��e S'^•` �t x — ,ee 1 — Y �y I lr��`_ ,.ams.c �' ,"d•�+SJ i �����9- - . .t s� S �tA E,Art Destination: SOBA.South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview NOWARy AVE - Y ( � K A. - .h I Yellow Team Design Concepts, continued— -- -- - -Now MIX Use lwltolpb5 ON NkWAXD -46- — Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND CREDITS The SOBA Charrette would not have been the success it was without the active and enduring participation of �. 100 or more residents, business people, property owners and community organizations in the City. While the designers may claim the credit for the ability to transform into images the ideas presented, without the community the outcome would not have captured Burlingame's unique sense of place. Special appreciation goes to the members of the Burlingame City Council who had the insight to see the value of a Charrette for Burlingame's Downtown and who were willing to underwrite the effort: Mayor Cathy Baylock,Vice Mayor Terry Nagel,Russ Cohen,Ann Keighran, and Rosalie O'Mahony. At Council's direction Vice Mayor Terry Nagel served as the Council liaison to the project and invested many hours facilitating the organization of the event. The charrette was, of course, dependent upon the initiative, promotion among the professionals in the San Mateo County design community, and the organizational leadership of the AIASMC; particularly the cochairs of the event, Noemi K. Avram, AIA, and Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA. They were ably assisted in the organization of the day by the team captains: Wayne Gehrke, AIA; Paul Jamtgaard, AIA; Dale Meyer, AIA; Jerry Winges, AIA; Farhad Ashrafi, AIA;John Stewart, AIA; Susan Eschweiler, AIA and Tom Gilman, AIA. These chairs organized and led about 80 design professionals and students who worked from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on the day of the event. i Many local businesses were exceptionally generous in making the Charrette possible. Particularly BPS Reprographics for donating the use of a large format printer;Barker Blue Digital Imaging for printing banners for the event; and DES Architects + Engineers for processing and printing the site photographs and maps. Bobbi Goldman donated her time to document the excitement of the day in photographs. The Burlingame Planning Department spent many hours facilitating the event. Maureen Brooks, Senior ` Planner,worked closely on the pre-event organization and support services on the day of the event, as well as collecting and coordinating the data collection. She was supported on the day of the event by Meg Monroe, Ruben Hurin and Connie Rihm. Planning staff members Meg Monroe, City Planner, and Maureen Brooks organized the materials submitted by the team captains and event chairs, created the "idea" portion of the charrette booklet and served as editors for the Idea Book and Overview of the SOBA Design Charrette. r-- All photos courlesy of Bobbi Goodman Destination: SOBA South of Burlingame Avenue Design Charrette Idea Book and Event Overview Team Members The City of Burlingame thanks the following members of AIASMC and related professionals who volunteered their time to the SOBA Charrette: ' Blue Team Green Team Red Team Yellow Team Wayne Gehrke,AIA Dale Meyer,AIA John Stewart, AIA Tom Gilman,AIA Paul Jamtgaard,AIA Jerry Winges,AIA Farhad Ashrafi,AIA Susan Eschweiler,AIA Jim Dierkes,AIA Hamed Akhavein,AIA Robert George,AIA Bob Blunk,AIA David Fung,AIA Randy Grange,AIA Rise Krag,professional Kevin Norman,AIA Bob Scheren,AIA Richard Kirchner,AIA affiliate,AIA Amy Strazzarino,AIAS David Schnee,AIA Jack Matthews,AIA Rick Leitzinger,Assoc. Christopher Ades George Canon Elizabeth Roepke,AIA AIA Susan Castner-Paine Marilyn Canon Dianne Whitaker,AIA Monica Liang,Assoc. Lu Dai Jane Gomery Ambrose Wong,Assoc. AIA Tony Floresca Tanya Lossing AIA Terrance Murphey, David Foster _ Charles Voltz Michael Callan Assoc.AIA Dalen Gilbrech Rich Grogan Bill Van Housen,AIA Gabriella Hallum Charles Jany Janice Anderson Angela Johnson Kent Lauder Julie Carlson Howard Kwok Eugene Lim John Evans Waibun Lee Jennifer Pfaff Dale Johnston Jose Rodriguez — James Riffel Debra Kaufman John Root Aaron Rosenbaum Steve Lubin Chi-Wing Wong Cynthia Winkotich Thalia Lubin Ginny Yi Mary Stewart Patrick Sullivan Other AIASMC Members who participated in the event: ,/John Lucchesi,AIA, Chapter President t/Noemi Avram,AIA, event cochair V Ellis Schoichet,AIA, event cochair Mark Bartos,AIA Robert Goyer,AIA Richard Terrones,AIA , 1 All photos courtesy of Bobbi Goodman -48- �� CITY G BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 6a " a D0 MTG. O QDNATED JUNE�+9 DATE 3.05.07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Y MITTED DA'L'E: FEBRUARY 28, 2007 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY Contact No.: (650) 558-7250 SUBJECT: CONTINUED ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, 2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should review the resolution and conditions of approval attached to the resolution and take action. At the February 21 , 2007, Council meeting, a public hearing was held on this item. The action was continued to the meeting of March 5, 2007, for staff to prepare a resolution. Because the original hearing was noticed and the action continued at that meeting to a date certain, no further public hearing is required. The reasons for Council's action should be clearly stated for the record. Action alternatives and the generic findings from the code for a conditional use permit are included at the end of the staff report. The Council's choices of action are: o Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve the conditional use permit; or o Reverse the Planning Commission's action and deny the conditional use permit; or o Deny without prejudice the conditional use permit and send the item back to the Planning Commission with direction for further work. Notice of the appeal hearing was mailed to neighbors within 500 feet of the Sisters of Mercy site on Friday, February 9, 2007. Further published notice is not required since at a regular meeting the Council held a public hearing on this matter and continued their action to a date certain, March 5, 2007. General Plan: Low density residential, private school. Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 , existing facilities, Class 1 , operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on January 22, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg recused) to approve a conditional use permit with specific conditions to establish a base line for the use of the Sisters of Mercy land and Mercy High School. See Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2007 attached. CONTINUED ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRO VAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. March 5,2007 BACKGROUND: The current application for a conditional use permit is in response to the Planning Commission's request that a baseline be established for existing operations for both the Sisters of Mercy facility(32.77 acres) and Mercy High School site (3.74 acres). The Mercy High School is located on a separate parcel which is surrounded by land owned by the Sisters of Mercy. The activities on these sites include Mercy High School on one site and the activities on the larger Mercy site, Mercy Center and uses for the Sisters of Mercy order. Following the public hearing at the February 21, 2007, Council meeting, Council discussed a number issues relating to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Two of these were clarifications suggested by the City Planner to condition 11 relating to `agency' meaning Mercy Center or Mercy High School staff (numbered 12 in the redlined conditions attached); and including in the last condition a public notice with a 500 foot radius for the one year review meeting(numbered 27 in the redlined conditions attached). Other issues and modifications discussed by the Council included modification to the condition requiring students to be dropped off in front of the school to students being dropped of at designated points; require that the calendar of events be provided on line and e-mailed regularly to the Burlingame Police Department, not required to be mailed via the post office to all neighbors; limit the number of events at Kohl Mansion to 125 a year excluding school events and Music at Kohl Mansion events; limit parking on the service drive to faculty, staff and deliveries; add a condition to require staff to over see and direct traffic associated with students arriving and departing each school day; limit amplified music to inside Kohl Mansion which is the current practice and except for daytime student rallies which they would like to continue; unamplified music would continue out-of-doors, spoken voice such as wedding vows would continue to be allowed with amplification out-of-doors; end week day events Monday-Thursday between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., end week-end events (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) at 11:00 p.m. The revisions to the Planning Commission recommended conditions in the attached Council resolution reflect these changes. The conditions, if approved, will be reviewed with public notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission in one year, March 2008. This review will focus on compliance with the conditions. Staff Comments During the Planning Commission review it was noted that the Sisters of Mercy had a conditional use permit from the County of San Mateo prior to annexation to the City of Burlingame. The properties were annexed into Burlingame along with this conditional use permit. The current conditional use permit is based on the earlier permit, included in the Planning Commission Staff Report, but is less vague and provides more details about the uses on the site. The purpose of the current conditional use permit is to establish a baseline for the operations on the site. Such a baseline will ground the expectations of the neighbors and facilitate any future actions on the site which involve the city, such as seismic retrofit or other improvements. The applicant recognizes the value of having better understanding and has come forward voluntarily to make this application. EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Action Alternatives, Required Findings for Conditional Use Permit Attachment B: Resolution with Conditions Revised as Directed by City Council Attachment C: Redline Conditions Documenting Changes 2 CONTINUED ACTION ON THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OFA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. March 5,2007 Attachment D: Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2007 Attachment E: Planning Commission Resolution Notice of Public Hearing, mailed February 9, 2007, notice within 500 feet. 3 ATTACHMENT A 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1.City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2.City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CS 25.52.020) The zoning code requires that the following criteria must be met on the property in order to grant a conditional use permit or amendment to a conditional use permit: (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties. ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE EXISTING USES AND FACILITIES AT MERCY HIGH SCHOOL AND SISTERS OF MERCY PROPERTIES AT 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE AND DENYING THE APPEAL ZONE R-1 PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS: SISTERS OF MERCY AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL APN 027-370-010 APN 027-370-020 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council for public hearing on February 21 , 2007, on appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission approving the conditional use permit, and was regularly noticed in accordance with State and City law; and WHEREAS, the Council received and considered all written documentation and oral testimony submitted from all interested persons; and WHEREAS, the Council visited the neighborhood and spoke with neighbors and the applicants; and WHEREAS, the properties have been used for social, cultural, religious, and educational purposes for many years; and WHEREAS, in 1961 , the owners had applied for and received a conditional use permit for "high school, college, convent and all related facilities" from the County of San Mateo; and WHEREAS, in 1979, the properties were annexed into the City of Burlingame and prezoned as R- 1 ; and WHEREAS, in the City of Burlingame, the uses encompassed within the conditional use permit approved by the County are conditional uses in the R- I District; and WHEREAS, the property owners have come forward voluntarily to establish a baseline for the uses and facilities on the property and the scope of the preexisting County use permit; and 1 WHEREAS, California law is not certain whether the preexisting conditional use permit runs with the land upon annexation or whether the uses under the permit become nonconforming simply because the permit was granted by the County rather than the City; and WHEREAS,it does not appear necessary for the Council to determine this issue because the uses and facilities that exist on the property are uses that are conditional uses in the City's R-1 District; and WHEREAS,there is some dispute about whether the number of events on the properties or the way the events are being conducted has changed over the years; and WHEREAS, it does not appear that any of the uses have been changed into a different use from that which existed in 1979 when the properties were annexed into the City or even in 1961,and the uses identified in the permit application are the types and levels of uses consistent with the uses described in the County permit and the annexation documents; and WHEREAS, these uses can be conducted and the facilities can be operated in such a way as to not cause a nuisance or detriment to other properties, and that establishing conditions in a baseline permit will assist the property owners,the neighborhood, and the City in working together to continue the many benefits provided by the property, its programs and services, while ensuring a minimal effect on others; and WHEREAS,the uses and facilities on the properties are an integral part of the cultural fabric of the Burlingame community and are consistent with the goals and policies of the Burlingame General Plan; and WHEREAS,the property owners have demonstrated that many of the proposed conditions already work, such as the use of a hotline for events and their efforts to limit parking off-site; and WHEREAS, it is important to sustain usable parking on the properties, while at the same time ensuring that students use the parking and entrances appropriately; and WHEREAS,a one-way circulation pattern fort e High School does not seem to be feasible from either an environmental or economical, ia`4Y� WHEREAS, it is important that the noise levels from the Kohl Mansion,particularly in the evenings, be controlled, so amplified music shall only be allowed inside the Mansion; and 2 WHEREAS, this conditional use permit is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15301 (existing facilities) in that there is no proposed expansion of use beyond those existing at the properties; and WHEREAS, a review in one year will provide a valuable opportunity to determine if the conditions are clear, workable, and effective in meeting the concerns of the community, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. The decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed and a conditional use permit approved, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. The appeal is denied. 2. This resolution shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo. This decision is a final administrative decision of the City of Burlingame. Anyone wishing to challenge this decision in a court of competent jurisdiction must do so within 90 days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 unless a shorter time is provided by State or Federal law. �-- Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: City Clerk 3 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SISTERS OF MERCY AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 2300 & 2750 ADELINE DRIVE,BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1. that Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid-June, with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; 2. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on-site in designated parking areas; no student parking shall be allowed to occur in the surrounding residential streets; Mercy High School staff or representatives shall supervise and monitor campus traffic and parking at the beginning and the end of each school day during the school year; 4. that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 5. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Monday through Friday; 6. that Montessori Preschool shall be open only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 7. that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites or picking students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to the site and drop students off or pick them up on-site at locations designated by each school; 8. that in addition to service deliveries, any parking along the service road (shown as `BASEMENT"on Plot Plan attached as Attachment 1 to 2-21-07 City staff report) and the service road parking area shall be limited to parking for faculty and staff of Mercy High School and the Montessori school only; no student parking shall be allowed along the service road or in the service road parking area; 9. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school,number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment EXHIBIT A (CONDITIONS) - 1 number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; KOHL MANSION 10. that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise limits and other requirements for operation established in these conditions of approval along with the requirement that the contractor shall comply with each of these requirements or cease its event on the Kohl Mansion site; 11. that the base line for defining noise problems used on the Mercy High School site shall be the established City standard which includes: any noise which is five (5) decibels over the ambient noise level at the time of the event at property line; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. 12. that in order to monitor and document noise at the Kohl Mansion: a. Mercy High School shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s), as appropriate, designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors; that the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters; b. The School shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along the property line of the Mercy High School site; �. c. During each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year, the noise levels at these established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log. The log shall document which events used sound amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside, including those events with music. This data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; and d. Noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; 13. that Kohl Mansion events shall be limited as follows: a. No more than 125 events shall be conducted at Kohl Mansion during any calendar year that are in addition to Mercy High School events and"Music at Kohl Mansion" events. b. During any calendar year, no more than six (6)non-school events shall be held during the day while school is in session, and most guests at such an event shall arrive by bus. c. The only sound amplification that shall occur outdoors shall be limited to the amplification of normal speaking voices during speeches, ceremonies, services, and Mercy High School rallies and presentations. 14. that events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end: a. No later than 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday,with holidays and evenings before holidays excepted; and EXHIBIT A (CONDITIONS) - 2 b. No later than 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, holidays and evenings before holidays; 15. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take-down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; however, in no event shall tents be taken down between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; MERCY CENTER 16. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average of three (3) days and a maximum of ten(10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants; 17. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to-the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including,but not limited to, the Friday evening Taize service; Sunday mass;non-profit organizational meetings; Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; SISTERS OF MERCY 18. The Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset. 19. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; 20. that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 21. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 22. that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School. It shall be open for conduct of classes and business only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees; ENTIRE SITE EXHIBIT A(CONDITIONS) - 3 23. that the maximum, cumulative number of guests for all events occurring at any one time at the Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School, Mercy Center, and the remainder of the facilities and property subject to this conditional use permit shall be 300. The maximum, cumulative number of event support staff for all events occurring at any one time at the Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School,Mercy Center, and the remainder of the facilities and property subject to this conditional use permit shall be fifty(50). Any changes in the nature of the events, maximum number of guests and support staff, or any other provision specified in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit. 24. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event; participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site; there shall be no overflow parking allowed on the surrounding public streets. 25. that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7 phone number for emergencies and complaints. that This telephone 'hot line' shall be answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received, and the-in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion, a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; 26. that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing online to the public a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, and a copy of the calendar shall also be provided to the Burlingame Police Department. The calendar of events shall include, at a minimum,the nature of the event, the duration of the event, the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events;that this calendar shall be compiled, updated,maintained and posted regularly throughout the year; 27. that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year(March 2008) at a noticed, public hearing of the Planning Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of the conditions in establishing a base line for operations of the collective uses on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School which compose this site. This review shall include a review of any complaints logged, including the responses and resolutions of the complaints, and any changes to operations initiated as a result of any complaints received or from the administration of the conditions of approval. Notice of the review will be given to owners of real property within 500 feet of the Mercy properties, including the properties on the 1400 block of Alvarado Avenue even if the properties are beyond the 500 foot radius. EXHIBIT A(CONDITIONS) - 4 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SISTERS OF MERCY AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 2300 & 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1 . that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid-June, with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; 2. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3 . that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on-site in designated parking areas; no student parking shall be"allowed4o occur in the surrounding residential streets; Mercy Higl 'School staff or representatives slz �l s ipervise and ''rnoriitor campus traffic and p rkhig at the beg�nnin aild th end of tach school day di:�ri �g the;schoa7 year; 4. that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 5. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of �- 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8: 15 a.m. to 3: 15 p.m. Monday through Friday; 6. that Montessori Preschool shall onlq be open only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 7. that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites or picking students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to the site and drop students off or pick them up on-site at lipegi ns designated by each school in fiont of their school; 8. that in addition to service deliveries, any parking along the seivice mail (shown'as "EASEMENT"on Plot Plan attached as Attaehinent 1 to 2=21- 07 City staff report) and the service road parking ares shall be limited to~parking for faculty and staff of Mercy High School, and the Montessa ' schouf.only; no student parking shall be allowed' along the service road or in the service roadparking area; 9 $. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school, number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; CONDITIONS (REDLINE) - 1 KOHL MANSION 10A--. that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise limits and other requirements for operation inchrded established in these conditions of approval along with the requirement that the contractor shall be required comply with each of these requirements or cease their its event on the Kohl Mansion site; 11 +Ot that the base line for defining noise problems used on th rMercy High School site shall be the established City standard which includes: any noise which is five (5) decibels over the ambient noise level at the time of the event at property line; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. 12 -i--that'in order to monitor and document noise at the Kohl Mansion:' aschool events I . non- Mercy - MercyHigh Sehdol'shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s), as appropriate, designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors; ti-at the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters; b. that The eenterardf'r School staff shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along the property line of the Mercy High'School Sisters of Mercy camp-as site; and c that During each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year, the noise levels at these established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log. The log shall document which events used meeharricai sound amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside, including those events with music.—and-fiTat-This data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; and d. that Noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; 13; +2-. that oatside of oTdinaty school events, Koh!Nlansion-shafl-be-oniy'Used. for events, including,but not limited to, receptions mid niusicai concerts, only on Fridays, Sat-ard Sundays; weekday evcriings after schoof; and, in addition, ttp to aniaximam of six (6) events may be held on weekdays during tfe schoo! yeat, provided most guests attive by,bus. Suchns of the Koh!Mansion shall be considemd along with the offier events on the Sisters of Mercy plus a total of fifty(50) event SUPPol, sl_F.F fur a maximun of 350 persons; that any changes in the area!eased, opem 1011, M rber of guests which exceeds these TIMAIRIUMS ZtS Sated in this and thr: othe. conditions shalf requirearr, arnenurrient to this tMe permit;that Kohl Mansion events shall be limited as`follows: a. No more than 125 events shall be conducted at Kohl Mansion during any calendar year that are in addition to Mercy High School events and"Music'at Kbh-I cion" events.: CONDITIONS (REDLINE) - 2 _ b. During any calendar year,no more than six(6)non-school events shall be held during the day while school is in session, and most guests at such an event shall arrive by bus.' c. The only sound amplification that shall occur outdoors shall be limited to the amplification of normal speaking voices during speeches, ceremonies, services, and Mercy High School rallies and presentations. 14 +3-:that--evening-events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end: a. No later than 10:00 p.m.,Monday through Thursday, with holidays and evenings before holidays excepted; and b. No later than 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, holidays and evenings:before holidays; 15 +4-. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take-down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; however, in no event shall tents be taken doyen between 10:00 pan. and 8:00 a.m.; a-24/7 phone number f6t einergencies and complaints, that this teleph-11- 11 1 wiswered by an individual trained to tespond to neighborhood Complaints a lie time thC CoMplaint is teceived, aiid that, in the case of after-ho-ars events at TE 1111 McLllll�lulil a Ploress S1 ali -, _--.0 cony ey infotmation about a camplaint iminediately to the staff men supet-vising the event who has the atithot ity to address the issue innnediaf ely with the customers and site , [MOVED TO CONDITION 25] 16. that the SI*St_-T-S UP �fetcy,High School shall be responsible fol PIMLL Ing and > event,f the the event and the contact numbe, I'vt someri lie wishilig to inqtffie about L111r, calendar and events; that this calendar shall be compiled, -d-and distrib-tulteudi ileurgtuthat ify through o tit ffie year; [MOVED TO CONDITION 26] MERCY CENTER 16. +-7-. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average of three (3) days and a maximum of ten (10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants; CONDITIONS (REDLINE) - 3 17 -ice-that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to-tete activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including,but not limited to, the Friday evening Taize service; Sunday mass; non-profit organizational meetings; Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; SISTERS OF MERCY 18.+9-The Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset. 10, 270:that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; 20 2-1-. that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 21.2 that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 22=2-3-. that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School. It shall be open for conduct of classes acid=business only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees; ENTIRE SITE 23 24- NfcrcrC-enter st-lall not exceed 350 patticipwits, including event staff-, that the maximum, cumulative number of Quests for all events occurrion site at any une hine; and ngat any one time at the Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School, Mercy Center, and the remainder of the facilities and property Subject to this conditional use permit shall be 300. The maximum, cumulative number of event support staff for all eventsoccurring at any one time at the Kohl Mansion, Mercy Nigh School, Mercy Center. and the remainder of the facilities and `property sul7_ject to this conditional use penizit shall be fifty(50). Any changes in the nature of the events, maximum number of guests and support staff, or any other provision specified in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit. 24. 25-that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event;participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site; there shall be no overflow parking allowed on the surrounding public streets. 25. +5-. that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7 phone number for emergencies and complaints. that This telephone 'hot line' shall be CONDITIONS (REDLINE) - 4 �- answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received, and that,-in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion, a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; 26 +Cr. that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing online to the public and directly by maif to thul neighboras a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, and a copy of the"calendar shall also be provided to the Burlingame Police Deparnnent The calendar of events shall include, at a minimum, the nature of the event, the duration of the event,the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; that this calendar shall be compiled, updated,,.-"maintained and distributed posted regularly throughout the year; 27 2,6 that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year(March rq 2008)at a noticed, public hearing of the, Planning"Commis on to evaluate the effectiveness of the 1 .conditions in establishing a base line for operations of the collective uses on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy and"Mercy ,Zgh School which compose this site. This review shall include a review of any complaints logged, including the responses and resolutions of the complaints, and any changes to operations initiated as a result of any complaints received or, from the administration of the conditions of approval. Notice of the' review-will be given to owners;of real property within.500feet of th"IM-rcyp''Pperties, including`the.properties on the 1400 block of Alvarado Avenue"even if the pr©pemes`are beyond the'500 fiiot radius: CONDITIONS (REDLINE) - 5 ATTACHMENT D City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 �1 3. 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR AN EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL AND RELIGIOUS FACILITY USE (JEAN HASTIE, SISTERS OF MERCY AND LAURA HELD, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) 191 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS C. Brownrigg noted that he lives within 500 feet of the property so must recuse himself from this deliberation. He passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Deal and stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report January 22, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria, letters received from the public and applicant since the staff report was delivered, and staff comments. Twenty conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff: letters indicate that there is no one on site after business hours to answer noise complaints? Staff suggested that the applicant address this. CA did not agree with contention that City could not allow Kohl Mansion to continue to be used for community and private events as part of a school or religious facility use. Conditional permit granted by San Mateo County in the 1960's was very broad and purpose of current proceeding is to define the operational limits to that broad permit. Does the Commission have the authority to require the applicant to have an event manager on the site during the events at the Kohl Mansion? CA noted yes, regarding how the use occurs. Can on site use be controlled by a contract and state what criteria must be met during the event and after? CA yes. Concern with conditions 9, 10, and 11 . Can these conditions be modified to address any amplified sound, not just music and could condition 11 be changed to say no take-down indoors and outdoors after 11 :00 p.m.? Would like the word `only' be added to conditions 8 and 18 to clarify that only Kohl Mansion shall be used in these cases. Can Mercy publish a schedule of events available on line? CA noted that the Commissioners should ask the applicant about these matters. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Sister Ellene Egan, 2300 Adeline Drive, representing Sisters of �— Mercy; Jean Hasty, 2300 Adeline Drive, Executive Director of the Campus, representing Sisters of Mercy, Laura Held, 2750 Adeline Drive, Principal, representing Mercy High School and Sandy Slone, attorney, 1100 Alma Street, Menlo Park, representing the applicants; spoke: Sisters of Mercy purchased this property in 1924, when it was surrounded by pasture and before any of the City development extended around the campus; they have maintained the Kohl Mansion and preserved it as a landmark making it available to the community for cultural and educational purposes; the Sisters of Mercy support the establishment of a baseline conditional use permit with the conditions in the staff report as amended by their attorney's letter submitted tonight. Used to live in the residential area near the Sisters of Mercy site in the mid-1980's, do not think the use has changed much since then, this application is not about change but to establish a baseline to formalize what is going on on-site today; reviewed the activities which are on-site and related to the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy Center; support the application with the following findings: the use is not detrimental and if approved would not provide an unequal benefit, the site benefits the community, provides open space which they allow the community to use, Mercy High School provides an important educational benefit to the community; and the site provides a place for the community to grow spiritually; the use is consistent with the City's General Plan which acknowledges its role as open space, the present R-1 zoning allows the present uses with a conditional use permit and the uses fit within those allowances; the residential neighborhood grew around the campus not the reverse; proposal is not to add uses to the site but for a determination that the use is compatible, have made reasonable changes when asked to do so, as recently as January 1 , 2007, have established a program to have a campus receptionist answer the main line 24/7 and that person is empowered to take action regarding complaint calls received. Mercy High School is a co- applicant for this conditional use permit, the idea of a baseline grew out of an earlier request to remodel the school's fitness center, the school opened in 1931 with 530 students, today have 500 high school students and 30 Montessori pre-school students on the campus. Regarding the High School - Kohl Mansion is a part of the school, built in 1913, always used as a cultural center and for weddings, the money raised from rental 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 of the Kohl Mansion goes to the support of the school for maintenance, capital improvements, and scholarships; studies show that there is enough parking on site, visiting students and teams are provided parking on site, campus facility booking policy and requirements limit guests on site to 300 at one time; regarding noise, do not allow the removal of tents after 10 p.m., hire security for each event, they are responsible for closing doors if noise is heard in the neighborhood, all the events are managed by one staff member,have voice mail to reach the Principal at any time,if complaint comes in over the weekend will be addressed on Monday;as a result of the first meeting with Planning Commission over the fitness center held three out reach meetings with the neighbors,had a good turnout, answered all the issues raised,will create a neighborhood-community program for the future;urge Commission to approve the proposed conditional use permit. Comments from the floor: Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, Donna Colson, 2616 Hale Drive; Michael Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Friederike Johnston, 2509 Adeline Drive; Charlotte Kiesel, 2105 Hale Drive; Alexandra Kromelow,2621 Adeline Drive;Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue;Ed Watson, 1444 Balboa Avenue; Aileen Whelan, 3029 Rivera Drive; Virginia Wright, 2811 Adeline Drive; David Tillman, 2533 Hayward Drive. Live across from the service driveway, Sisters of Mercy give a lot of good service but they are stressful to live near, have been a lot of changes since annexation and am opposed to granting them a conditional use permit with a base line as outlined,all the questions are not answered,roads serving the area were not built for the number of uses there, would like to see an environmental document done on this request; feel that the 17 parking spaces on the service driveway are a safety issue, my cars have been hit, sudden noises at night wake them up,submitted comment letter and pictures of damaged cars. Aware of the uses on the Sisters of Mercy site and all they do for the community,attended two of their outreach meetings, addressed issues in a positive manner,have contacted representatives with questions and concerns,all have been resolved,encourage approval. Resident and contractor in Burlingame for 20 years,purchased property --� from Sisters of Mercy,built a house which now live in,very accommodating during his construction;traffic, noise and parking do not seem to be a problem in the neighborhood,his construction had a greater impact; long family relationship with the Sisters of Mercy, feel they are a huge asset to the community with the school,religious facilities and free public use of the trail,they are an asset to the homeowner as well,provide open space, quality education, urge approval. Further comment from the floor: Not concerned with the school use,concerned with the night club type use on the site during the summer;the use of the batting cage with pinging from the bats 50 feet from the houses, drunk drivers after events, this has nothing to do with religious activities, if need parties to raise funds, should do it off site. 30 year resident,attended Mercy High School,Kohl Mansion was available for music, fine arts,weddings, etc. when she was a student,makes us feel welcome, give the property to all of us and not ask for return,they were surrounded by cows when they came,now the city owes them a lot. Support the high school and retreat center, not use as a party center, questions about the conditions: condition 8 is referring to what events,does it include school vacations,what happens during the summer—use 4 nights a week; condition 10 is DJ outside in a tent,have they done noise measurements to determine if proposal is within city code;numbers allow rental of Kohl during the year,happy someone on campus now to take night calls,last year called Police more than 3 times,know others called also,but log says only three,seems to be a problem with the logs. Resident 40 years, traffic has increased a lot,problem is Adeline and Alvarado, traffic through school should be made one way to protect the neighborhood, in 1979 not hear parties and there was no traffic; should be allowed one party per weekend,should stop at 10:00 p.m.on Friday,Saturday and 6 p.m. on Sunday. Lived in Burlingame entire life, Sisters of Mercy tremendous resource, relative's sisters at the convent, ask not to do anything that would harm this resource, without Kohl Mansion the -� revenue to the school would be reduced and the economic viability of the school would be damaged;parking has been made available on the campus,not nearly as bad today as was in 1979 when guests parked on the dirt edge on the north side of Adeline Drive along the edge of the campus; have walked by at night and do 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 not hear a lot of noise,about the same as a neighborhood party. Alumnae,Member of Board of Mercy High School,local business woman,long term resident as is family,not heard relatives who live nearby complain about noise,invite neighborhood at Christmas,allow the public to use their trail and site to enjoy open space, ask approve conditional use permit. Continued comment from the floor: live across and up from the high school since 1988,high school activity is consistent, the greatest change is in the late night events and noise from them; Commission should look at being sure the existing noise regulations continue to apply, would like a direct means to address the noise problem, switchboard covered 24/7 is good; all amplification, not just music should be kept inside; 11:00 p.m. is too late for week night events; conditions for use of Kohl Mansion should be clearer to renters and should be included in their contracts, so not a surprise when asked to comply during an event. Commissioner asked if 11:00 p.m. is too late on weeknights for all events, or just parties? Really just parties. Property backs up to Kohl Mansion,people walk the trail all the time,have never head noise,flutes at night on occasion; wedding music is stopped at a certain time (was married at Mercy). Applicant Response: letter from neighbor's attorney is written as if the uses on the Sisters Mercy site and High School are nonconforming, this is not so, they have a conditional use permit from the County which runs with the land, were asked by City staff and the community to accommodate them to establish a more specific baseline; it is clear from the LAFCo letter, exhibit E page 2, that part of the activities on the site at the time of annexation were cultural and community events; they hold weddings at the school and that is not incompatible with school use, many schools are used for weddings, they also host community events and concerts, these are common ways that private schools fund improvements and scholarships. Regarding the conditions would like a heading `Sisters of Mercy' added before condition 14; would like to correct condition 18 to allow 35 not 25 employees, that count does not include the 10 employees of the school who work in Russell Hall; are fine with providing a contact person on site, started such a program January 2, 2007; will work with staff to add a calendar of events on their web site, may need some time to get this done; are fine with adding a condition which requires that students be dropped off on site not off campus and have suggested wording; not fine with changing condition 10 to prohibiting all amplified sound outside, clearly students at Mercy need opportunity to have student events outside during the day, pep rallies are important to school spirit. Commissioner asked, good that 24/7 switchboard operator added, what happens after the call is received? Person who answers is trained to handle an event problem, over sees the security guards on campus, security guard will contact the event manager who is a staff member who is present for the full term of the event. Commissioner asked, if an event is over at 11:00 p.m., and the party planners cannot take the tents down what can they do? The party planners may pack up the kitchen and put dishes away, can put the extra food, dishes etc. in catering truck parked in the service area behind the Mansion, truck leaves between 11:30 and 11:45 pm. So there is one truck after 11:00 p.m.? Yes. How hard would it be to stop week-day events at 9:00 p.m.? In May and June through Summer have events on Thursday evenings both weddings and parties. Commissioner asked how did you monitor music before the complaints? Security guards on campus also provide security for the events at the Mansion, one of their jobs is to monitor the level of the music, they walk the perimeter of the campus and see how it sounds outside. There is no objective standard? No but would welcome suggestion by the City for a more objective measure. There are easily available portable decibel meters, could establish a baseline and measure during an event and log. Seems from testimony that some nearby areas are affected by noise from events at Kohl Mansion and other areas are not, have you looked at that? No, have no data to support but would be happy to evaluate. CA asked what does the applicant expect the total number of events to be a Kohl Mansion each year? Applicant noted don't know if prepared to answer that, Mansion can be used week-end nights through out the year, never had a limit, larger events are always on Friday and Saturday nights. What kinds of events occur at Kohl Mansion? Weddings, parties, speakers, music, 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 high school events like sports awards night. The approach used is not to address the number of events; but the fact that there will never be more than 300 guests on the site at one time plus 50 staff or support personnel. This year there have been four (4) events at the Mansion since the beginning of January, including a reception for the departing Bishop on a Sunday 7 - 9 p.m., a fund raiser for the Catherine Center which was dinner with piano music. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: Mercy High School and Center are integral parts of the cultural fabric of the city, compatible with the city and glad that the hotline with formal process to communicate with events in process and get instant response has been put into place; truck traffic noise leaving is not an issue, one catering truck leaving after 11:00 p.m. seems acceptable; use of a noise meter would begin to define the neighbor's concerns in terms of the city's requirements, when measure should look at the measurement location to determine if noise is traveling differently, a meter would be a more objective measure, 11:00 p.m. should be all right on week-days with good monitoring; should add a condition that the applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with an update on the complaints received and their responses,this would allow an evaluation of the effectiveness of the various conditions approved. Agree that the Sisters of Mercy are invaluable to the community and generally a good neighbor, should add a condition that they acquire a portable decibel meter, that the on-site security force be trained in its use and that no noise from the site should exceed the city's noise standard of a an increase of 5 decibels over ambient at property line, also a copy of the city's noise ordinances and requirement should be available on site and should be included in every rental contract; the word `only' should be added to condition 8 relating to use of Kohl Mansion and condition 18 relating to use of Russell Hall, and should add a condition that these conditions shall be reviewed in a year to evaluate how effective they are in establishing a base line for the operations of all the collective uses on the Sisters of Mercy site. The condition requiring the drop off of students on site should also be added. Commissioners comments continued: support these conditions and think the details can be worked out when revisit in a year,can remember cars parking on the unpaved north side of Adeline,no longer happens;would like to add a condition that a calendar of events for the whole site be published and the 24/7 hot line as now implemented be included in the conditions. CA noted would like to see the quantity of events defined some how, maybe the log of events could be included in the annual response noting those events with amplified music and sound and those without. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, including the added conditions noted in the discussion and with the following conditions: MERCY HIGH SCHOOL (1) that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid-June,with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; (2) that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; (3) that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on site in designated parking areas,no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets; (4) that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site;parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; (5) that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Monday through Friday; (6) that Montessori Preschool shall only be open during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; (7) that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites or picking students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to the 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 site and drop students off or pick them up on-site in front of their school; KOHL MANSION (8) that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school,number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; (9) that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise and other requirements for operation included in these conditions of approval along with the requirement that the contractor shall be required to comply with each of these requirements or cease their event on the Kohl Mansion site; (10) that the base line for defining noise problems used on the Sisters of Mercy site and the sisters of Mercy High School site shall be the established City standard which includes: any noise which is five(5)decibels over the ambient noise level at the time of the event at property line;and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; (11) that the agency on site responsible for leasing the Kohl Mansion for non-school events shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s) as appropriate designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors; that the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters; that the Center and/or school staff shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along the property line of the Sisters of Mercy campus site; and that during each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year, the noise levels at these established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log, the log shall document which events used mechanical amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside,including those events with music; and that this data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; and that noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; (12) that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be only used: for events,including,but not limited to,receptions and musical concerts,only on Fridays, Saturdays,Sundays;weekday evenings after school;and,in addition,up to a maximum of six(6) events may be held on weekdays during the school year,provided most guests arrive by bus. Such uses of the Kohl Mansion shall be considered along with the other events on the Sisters of Mercy campus and the collective events shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus a total of fifty(50) event support staff on the campus, for a maximum of 350 persons; that any changes in the area leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums as stated in this and the other conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; (13) that evening events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end no later than 11:00 p.m.; (14) that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take-down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district,in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; (15) that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7 phone number for emergencies and complaints, that this telephone `hot line' shall be answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received,and that,in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion,a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; (16) that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing online to the public and directly by mail to the neighbors a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy,the calendar of events shall include, at a minimum, the nature of the event, the duration of the event, the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; that this calendar shall be compiled, maintained and distributed 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 regularly through out the year; MERCY CENTER (17) that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests;meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.;these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants,and retreats which last an average of three(3)days and a maximum of ten(10)days with an average of 33 retreat participants; (18) that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs;daily meditation,chapel and prayer groups;evening services,including,but not limited to,the Friday evening Taize service;Sunday mass;non-profit organizational meetings,Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; SISTERS OF MERCY (19) The Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset; (20) that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; (2 1) that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; (22) that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; (23) that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, shall be open only during the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees; ENTIRE SITE (24) that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at any one time; and (25) that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event; participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site, there shall be no overflow parking on the surrounding public streets; (26) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year(January 2008) to evaluate the effectiveness of the conditions in establishing a base line for operations of the collective uses on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy which compose this site, this review shall include a review of any complaints logged, including the responses and resolutions of the complaints, and any changes to operations initiated as a result of any complaints received or from the administration of the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comments on the motion: noise standard used should be the same as used throughout the city, increase of five(5)decibels over ambient at property line; do not think in condition 10 music should be replaced with the word`sound',should weekend and weekday be different in terms of ending time of evening events;these conditions will be monitored and measured and will be reviewed in a year; suggest that remove the wording in condition 10 which limits amplified music to inside Kohl Mansion and replace with city noise standard of increase of five decibels over ambient at property line,the occasional pep rally for the high school students should continue to be allowed. Vice-Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the base line conditions for the uses on the Sisters of Mercy site at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive as amended by the Commission. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 Chair Brownrigg returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. Vice-Chair Deal passed the gavel back to Chair Brownrigg. JX. D IIGN REVIIEW-S 4. 1221 CABRILLO AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPEC Z TS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMEN AND CHED GARAGE (BRET AND SUZANNE BOTTARINI, APPLICANTS AND P PERTY ORS;MARK ROBERTSON DESIGNER 62 NOTICED PROJECT PLANNER:R N HURIN CP Monr briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff: worked construction site maintenanc equirements,would they apply to this site yet? Staff responded no,but ey could be added as a condition of proval. The new requirements have not been approved by the Cit ouncil yet. There is a basement area w' h this project, when is it considered to be habitable space. Staff responded that the Building Code con 'ders habitable space to be any area with a 7'-6" ceilin eight but that the Planning Department counts an area with a ceiling height of 6'-0" or greater tow s FAR. Chair Brownrigg opened tlt�public comment. Mark Robertson,desigfier,918 E. Grant Pl.,San Mateo,and Brett Bottarini, property owner, stated that the house was designeein a Craftsman style with a large front porch. Commission commented ■ Will there be a sump pump located in the baseme 'patio area; where will it be located; and make sure it is soundproof, ■ In regards to the uniform plate heik4t of 8'-6//at the second floor, have you looked at any other options;concern with the uniformity othe r of line without breaking up more of the line;would like to see a little more play to plate heights;'the plate heights vary then the whole thing would not seem like a second story; ■ What is the 18" catch basin on the plans? ■ Some of the trim is a little weak, hould be at 1 a§tR6X; posts at front porch should have a proper material size, current size shoule increased; ■ Should adhere to 9' plate onlie first floor and 8'-1"p1a on the second floor, which was made a standard in Burlingame; co idstill vault up ceilings for 12`,4n height inside; asked for 8'-1"on all other projects because its the standard for comparison and�`because of slope in area; heights of houses on the same si e of the street should be shown on a sketch; ■ Lowering the hous s odd for a Craftsman, not typically one step u .or on slab; most houses seen 18" off grade, th�eds one is 12"; and ■ Good job,but a little more detailing; porch off laundry room is a gr\brought The applicant res ended that: the sump pump will be in an enclosed mechanical rement and will be sound- of, asked architect for more ceiling height on the second floor,theate heights were used; is crown moldings and can't do them with vaulted ceilings;the 18" bubbler at the street ith a three inch pipe to the sidewalk with an open grate for overflow; e down into th ground without getting involved with water and flooding issues to accommodate the plate heights the operty owners wanted. 10 ATTACHMENT E CITY OF BURLINGAME BURL® PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ... .rf, 096y16504325 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 • o s. '� TEL (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790 { 0 www.burlingame.org am 11� .Lr� � _ .A s g Maiied Prom 94010 US POSTAGE Site: 2300 & 2750 ADELINE DRIVE PUBLIC HEARING The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, February 21 , 2007 at NOTICE 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision on an application for conditional use permit to establish a baseline for an existing high school and religious facility use at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive zoned R-1 . (APN 027-370-010 & 027-370-020) Mailed: February 9, 2007 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject applcation(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. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) � 11 �� CITY ,� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM # 6b MTG. 3/5/07 'MCO9�RATEG JUNE a X00 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMID� BY v DATE: February 27, 2007 APPROVED FROM: Central County Fire Department BY SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF REVISION TO BURLINGAME MUNICI AL CODE §17.04.030 Recommendation: Approve an amendment to the Burlingame Municipal Code § 17.04.030, introduced on February 21, 2007, to clarify the original intent of the Retrofit Sprinkler Ordinance for Commercial Buildings. A. Adopt proposed ordinance . Background: B . Direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinanee within 15 days of adoption. Burlingame Municipal Code § 17.04.030, specifically where it recognizes the retrofit installation of fire sprinklers in commercial buildings, was amended and became effective January 2005. At that time, the intent of the changes to this particular section was to change the threshold requirements from a "financial qualifier" to a "square footage of remodel qualifier". The result of this package maintained the same sprinkler force and effect as the sprinkler ordinance that was originally adopted in 1992 and previously amended in 2001 . With the threshold change in 2001 from buildings in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. to buildings in excess of 2,000 sq. ft. a significant number of buildings have been required to come into compliance with the commercial retrofit requirements. In keeping with the original intent of the fire department, and the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, to increase the number of sprinklered buildngs in the downtown area and protect the economic value and infrastructure, the application of this section has come into question with multi-tenant buildings. The proposed modification to Burlingame Municipal Code § 17.04.030 clarifies the intent of this section to ensure buildings that meet the threshold requirements, regardless of the number of different tenant changes, are retrofitted with fire sprinklers. Budget Impact• No impacts identified. Attachments: Expressed Terms and Text of Burlingame Municipal Code § 17.04.030 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 17.04.030 (ADDING SUBSECTIONS 1003.2.1.2 TO THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE) TO CLARIFY 3 SPRINKLER RETROFITTING REQUIREMENTS 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. Chapter 17.04 currently provides standards for the installation of sprinkler fire 9 extinguishing systems in commercial and residential buildings. This ordinance is intended to clarify 10 the point at which such systems will be required to eliminate reference to a"premises," and instead 11 make clear that the measurements apply to an entire building. 12 13 Section 2. Subsections 1003.2.1.2(6) and (7) of the Uniform Fire Code as contained in 14 Section 17.04.030 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 15 6. When a building is partially retrofitted with an approved automatic sprinkler fire 16 extinguishing system pursuant to this section, the building shall complete the fire extinguishing 17 system retrofit throughout the unprotected building interior areas within six (6) years from 18 completing the initial partial retrofit. 19 7. The size or cost of additions and alterations used in calculating the size or replacement 20 cost value formula shall not be cumulative with regard to individual additions or alterations in a 21 building unless either of the following two circumstances apply: 22 (a) Where more than one (1) addition or alteration for which building permits are required 23 are made within a two (2) year period. In such circumstances, the sum of the size or costs of these 24 additions or alterations during this two (2)year period shall be aggregated for the purpose of 25 calculating the size or replacement cost value formula; or 26 (b) Where more than one (1) addition or alteration for which building permits have been 27 issued have not yet received final Building Department approval. In such circumstances, the sum of 28 these issued but not yet finalized building additions' or alterations' sizes or construction costs shall be 2/21/2007 j I aggregated for the purpose of calculation of the size or replacement cost value formula. 2 EXCEPTIONS: The cost of additions and alterations used in calculating the replacement 3 cost value formula shall be exclusive of the cost to design and install an automatic fire sprinkler 4 extinguishing system pursuant to this section; building roof repair/replacement; building heating 5 and/or cooling unit repair/replacement; and any other federal, state and local construction code 6 upgrade requirements including but not limited to the American Disability Act architectural barrier 7 removal requirements, Title 24 handicap compliance requirements, seismic retrofit requirements, 8 asbestos and other hazardous material abatement. 9 10 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 11 12 Mayor 13 14 1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 15 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21St day of 16 February, 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 17 of , 2007, by the following vote: 18 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 2� 23) City Clerk U:\FILES\ORDINANC\ufc2OO7-I.bid.wpd 24 25 26 27 28 2/21/2007 2 CITY AGENDA on. ITEM# 6c BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. ,o DATE 3/5/2007 Sa TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT �--` � BY DATE: February 21, 2007 APPROVE BY— FROM: Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE SETTING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND LOAN REIMBURSEMENT LIMITS FOR CAMPAIGNS FOR ELECTIVE CITY OFFICES RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance setting campaign contribution limits and loan reimbursement limits and instruct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION: On February 5, 2007, the Council reached consensus on campaign contribution limits and introduced an ordinance that would do the following: a. Establish campaign contribution limits based on an"election period." For individual contributors, this would be $500; for organizations, this would be $1,000. The election period would be determined for each candidate based on when the candidate had been a candidate for City elective office last. b. Establish a maximum limit of$12,000 for repayment of any personal loans by the candidate to the candidate's campaign that could be repaid from campaign contributions after the date of the election. The ordinance also establishes definitions that narrow the application of State terminology to a City election. However, where no such narrowing is needed, the State definitions and interpretations would apply, such as for the term "contributions." The election periods are dependent on what elections occur and whether a candidate is successful or not; the dates match those of normal campaign statement filing dates insofar as possible. As you can see, defining the "election period" is one of the more difficult aspects, because each candidate may have different experiences leading up to an election: there are incumbents, candidates running again, and first-time candidates. In addition, there may be intervening special elections. Mayor and Council Re: Adoption of Ordinance Establishing Campaing Contribution Limits February 21, 2007 Page 2 The campaign contribution limits would be adjusted every two years in March based on the December CPI adjustments. This would match with campaign statement periods that end on December 31 as well as the generic general election periods. A contributor would be able to make an incremental contribution to match the adjusted limits if an"election period" spanned odd- and even-numbered years. Examples of how these provisions would apply are attached. This proposed ordinance follows four meetings of the Council discussing the various aspects of campaign finances. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance State FPPC definition of contribution: Gov't Code § 82015 State definition of candidate: Gov't Code § 82007 State definition of controlled committee: Gov't Code § 82016 Examples of application I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING CONTRIBUTION AND LOAN REIMBURSEMENT LIMITS IN CAMPAIGNS FOR 3 ELECTIVE CITY OFFICES 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The City of Burlingame is committed to open and fair processes, including 8 election campaigns. The high costs involved in campaigning for public office create the 9 possibility and temptation to accept large contributions that may lead to the perception, if not 10 the actuality,of undue influence over an officeholder. In order to minimize this possibility and 1 I to make it possible for all candidates to decline such offers,the City Council has reviewed past 12 spending in City campaigns,considered campaign contribution limits at both the local and State 13 level, and received public testimony and comment from citizens on the appropriate and 14 necessary levels of contribution limits for the City. This ordinance is intended to establish fair 15 contribution limits that will reduce any actual or perceived influence of contributions on elected 16 City officials while ensuring that candidates can raise the money necessary to conduct effective 17 campaigns for office. 18 19 Section 2. A new Chapter 2.25 is added as follows: 20 Chapter 2.25 21 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS 22 Sections: 2.25.010 Definitions. 23 2.25.020 Limits on contributions. 2.25.030 Limitation on repayment of personal loans. 24 25 2.25.010 Definitions. 26 (a) The following words have the following meanings when used in or in connection 27 with the provisions of this chapter: 28 (1) "Candidate" means a candidate for an elective city office. 3/5/2007 1 (2) "Controlled committee" means a controlled committee controlled directly or 2 indirectly by a candidate for elective city office or that acts jointly with a candidate for elective 3 city office or another controlled committee in connection with the making of expenditures. 4 (3) "Election period" means the following: 5 (A)Except as further limited by subsections(B), (C), and(D)below,for a candidate or 6 a controlled committee in a general municipal election, "election period" means the period 7 beginning on January 1 after the last general or special municipal election for the affected office 8 seat and ending on December 31 following the next general municipal election for the particular 9 office seat. This election period is normally four(4) years. 10 (B)For a candidate or a controlled committee in a special municipal election held to fill 11 a vacancy in an elective city office,"election period"means the period beginning on the day the 12 vacancy in office began and ending on the December 31 following the special municipal 13 election; provided, however, that for a candidate at the special municipal election who 14 established a controlled committee for the office or accepted contributions before the vacancy 15 occurred,the election period means the period beginning on January 1 following the last general 16 municipal election for the particular office seat affected by the vacancy and ending on the 17 December 31 following the special municipal election. 18 (C) For a candidate or a controlled committee in a special municipal election held to 19 recall an elected city officer, including the elected official who is the subject of the recall 20 election, "election period"means the period beginning on the date that the notice of intention 21 to circulate a recall petition is filed with the city clerk pursuant to the Elections Code and ending 22 on the December 31 following the special municipal election; provided, however, that for any 23 candidate at the special municipal election who established a controlled committee or accepted 24 contributions for the office before the vacancy occurred, the election period means the period 25 beginning on January 1 following the last general municipal election for the particular office 26 affected by the vacancy and ending on the December 31 following the special municipal 27 election. 28 (D)For a candidate who is recalled at a special municipal election or who is not elected 3/5/2007 2 I at a general or special municipal election and for a controlled committee for such a candidate, 2 "election period" begins again on the January 1 following the election at which the candidate 3 was recalled or not elected and ends on the December 31 following the next general or special 4 municipal election at which the person is a candidate again. 5 (4) "Individual" means a natural person. 6 (5) "Organization" means a partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, 7 company, corporation, limited liability company, association, committee, and any other 8 organization or group of persons acting in concert. 9 (b) Except as more specifically defined above, all words and phrases in this chapter 10 shall have the same meaning and be interpreted according to the definitions contained in the 11 California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended (Government Code sections 81000 and 12 following),and the definitions and interpretations established in the regulations,resolutions,and 13 opinions of the Fair Political Practices Commission pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 14 1974, as amended. 15 16 2.25.020 Limits on contributions. 17 (a)It is unlawful for any individual to make contributions to any single candidate or to 18 any single controlled committee totaling more than $500 in an election period. 19 (b)It is unlawful for any organization to make contributions to any single candidate or 20 to any single controlled committee totaling more than $1,000 in an election period. 21 (c)It is unlawful for any candidate or controlled committee to accept contributions from 22 any individual totaling more than $500 in an election period. 23 (d)It is unlawful for any candidate or controlled committee to accept contributions from 24 any organization totaling more than $1,000 in an election period. 25 (e) The maximum amounts specified in this section shall be automatically adjusted by 26 the finance director on March 1 of each even-numbered year to be the product obtained by 27 multiplying the maximum amount specified in this section by a fraction,the numerator of which 28 is the Index as defined below,published for the month of December immediately prior to that 3/5/2007 3 I March 1, and the denominator of which is the Index published for December, 2006. 2 (1) "Index"means the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers(CPI-U),All Items, 3 for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA(1982-84=100)published by the U.S. Department of 4 Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics. Should the Index no longer be published,the finance director 5 shall select a comparable index that the finance director determines measures the increase and 6 decrease in the cost of living in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area. 7 (2) The finance director shall send the revised maximum amounts to the city clerk and 8 the city council and make them available to the public. In no event shall the revised maximum 9 amounts be less than the then-current maximum amounts. 10 (3)The revised amounts shall be applicable to total contributions allowed by this section 11 for the entire election period as applicable to each candidate or controlled committee in which 12 the March 1 adjustment occurs. 13 14 2.25.030 Limitation on repayment of personal loans. 15 Following the date of the election for which a candidate is seeking elective office, it is 16 unlawful for the candidate to repay himself or herself or for any controlled committee to repay 17 the candidate from contributions to the candidate or the controlled committee for any loan 18 amount incurred during that election's election period by the candidate in excess of$12,000. 19 20 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published according to law. 21 22 Mayor 23 24 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 25 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 26 5`" day of February,2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 27 on the day of , 2007, by the following vote: 28 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3/5/2007 4 I NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 4 City Clerk 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3/5/2007 5 GOVERNMENT CODE § 82015 § 82015. Contribution (a) "Contribution" means a payment, a forgiveness of a loan, a payment of a loan by a third party, or an enforceable promise to make a payment except to the extent that full and adequate consideration is received, unless it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that it is not made for political purposes. (b)(1) A payment made at the behest of a committee as defined in subdivision(a) of Section 82013 is a contribution to the committee unless full and adequate consideration is received from the committee for making the payment. (2) A payment made at the behest of a candidate is a contribution to the candidate unless the criteria in either subparagraph(A) or(B) are satisfied: (A) Full and adequate consideration is received from the candidate. (B) It is clear from the surrounding circumstances that the payment was made for purposes unrelated to his or her candidacy for elective office. The following types of payments are presumed to be for purposes unrelated to a candidate's candidacy for elective office: (i) A payment made principally for personal purposes, in which case it may be considered a gift under the provisions of Section 82028. Payments that are otherwise subject to the limits of Section 86203 are presumed to be principally for personal purposes. (ii)A payment made by a state, local, or federal governmental agency or by a nonprofit organization that is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. (iii) A payment not covered by clause (i), made principally for legislative, governmental, or charitable purposes, in which case it is neither a gift nor a contribution. However,payments of this type that are made at the behest of a candidate who is an elected officer shall be reported within 30 days following the date on which the payment or payments equal or exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) in the aggregate from the same source in the same calendar year in which they are made. The report shall be filed by the elected officer with the elected officer's agency and shall be a public record subject to inspection and copying pursuant to the provisions of subdivision(a) of Section 81008. The report shall contain the following information: name of payor, address of payor, amount of the payment, date or dates the payment or payments were made,the name and address of the payee, a brief description of the goods or services provided or purchased, if any, and a description of the specific purpose or event for which the payment or payments were made. Once the five thousand dollars ($5,000) aggregate threshold from a single source has been reached for a calendar year, all payments for the calendar year made by that source must be disclosed within 30 days after the date the threshold was reached or the payment GOVT CODE 82015 - 1 was made,whichever occurs later. Within 30 days after receipt of the report, state agencies shall forward a copy of these reports to the Fair Political Practices Commission, and local agencies shall forward a copy of these reports to the officer with whom elected officers of that agency file their campaign statements. (C) For purposes of subparagraph(B), a payment is made for purposes related to a candidate's candidacy for elective office if all or a portion of the payment is used for election-related activities. For purposes of this subparagraph, "election-related activities" shall include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) Communications that contain express advocacy of the nomination or election of the candidate or the defeat of his or her opponent. (ii) Communications that contain reference to the candidate's candidacy for elective office, the candidate's election campaign, or the candidate's or his or her opponent's qualifications for elective office. (iii) Solicitation of contributions to the candidate or to third persons for use in support of the candidate or in opposition to his or her opponent. (iv) Arranging, coordinating, developing,writing, distributing, preparing, or planning of any communication or activity described in clauses (i), (ii), or(iii), above. (v) Recruiting or coordinating campaign activities of campaign volunteers on behalf of the candidate. (vi) Preparing campaign budgets. (vii)Preparing campaign finance disclosure statements. (viii) Communications directed to voters or potential voters as part of activities encouraging or assisting persons to vote if the communication contains express advocacy of the nomination or election of the candidate or the defeat of his or her opponent. (D) A contribution made at the behest of a candidate for a different candidate or to a committee not controlled by the behesting candidate is not a contribution to the behesting candidate. (c) The term "contribution" includes the purchase of tickets for events such as dinners, luncheons, rallies, and similar fundraising events; the candidate's own money or property used on behalf of his or her candidacy other than personal funds of the candidate used to pay either a filing fee for a declaration of candidacy or a candidate statement prepared pursuant to Section GOVT CODE 82015 -2 13307 of the Elections Code; the granting of discounts or rebates not extended to the public generally or the granting of discounts or rebates by television and radio stations and newspapers not extended on an equal basis to all candidates for the same office; the payment of compensation by any person for the personal services or expenses of any other person if the services are rendered or expenses incurred on behalf of a candidate or committee without payment of full and adequate consideration. (d) The term "contribution" further includes any transfer of anything of value received by a committee from another committee, unless full and adequate consideration is received. (e) The term "contribution" does not include amounts received pursuant to an enforceable promise to the extent those amounts have been previously reported as a contribution. However, the fact that those amounts have been received shall be indicated in the appropriate campaign statement. (f) The term "contribution" does not include a payment made by an occupant of a home or office for costs related to any meeting or fundraising event held in the occupant's home or office if the costs for the meeting or fundraising event are five hundred dollars ($500) or less. (g)Notwithstanding the foregoing definition of"contribution," the term does not include volunteer personal services or payments made by any individual for his or her own travel expenses if the payments are made voluntarily without any understanding or agreement that they shall be, directly or indirectly, repaid to hum or her. GOVT CODE 82015 - 3 GOVERNMENT CODE § 82007 § 82007. Candidate "Candidate" means an individual who is listed on the ballot or who has qualified to have write-in votes on his or her behalf counted by election officials, for nomination for or election to any elective office, or who receives a contribution or makes an expenditure or gives his or her consent for any other person to receive a contribution or make an expenditure with a view to bringing about his or her nomination or election to any elective office, whether or not the specific elective office for which he or she will seek nomination or election is known at the time the contribution is received or the expenditure is made and whether or not he or she has announced his or her candidacy or filed a declaration of candidacy at such time. "Candidate" also includes any officeholder who is the subject of a recall election. An individual who becomes a candidate shall retain his or her status as a candidate until such time as that status is terminated pursuant to Section 84214. "Candidate" does not include any person within the meaning of Section 301(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. GOV'T CODE 82007 - 1 GOVERNMENT CODE § 82016 § 82016. Controlled committee (a) "Controlled committee" means a committee that is controlled directly or indirectly by a candidate or state measure proponent or that acts jointly with a candidate, controlled committee, or state measure proponent in connection with the making of expenditures. A candidate or state measure proponent controls a committee if he or she, his or her agent, or any other committee he or she controls has a significant influence on the actions or decisions of the committee. (b)Notwithstanding subdivision(a), a political party committee, as defined in Section 85205, is not a controlled committee. GOVT CODE 82016 - 1 EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF ORDINANCE TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS Five candidates: Candidate A Candidate B Candidate C Candidate D Candidate E 2009 In 2009, four candidates (A, B, C, and D)run for City Council. Candidates A and B are elected. Campaign contribution limit at the time of election is $500 per election period. 2010 In March 2010, the contribution limit is adjusted by the CPI, which is a 10% increase to $550. 2011 In May 2011, Candidate B moves to Marin County, so a vacancy occurs. Special election in August 2011 to fill unexpired term. Candidate C decides to run for office vacated by Candidate B. A new Candidate E also runs for the same vacated office, but Candidate D does not run for any office. The following election periods apply to the special election candidates: For Candidate C—January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011 ($550 contribution limit for entire period)–runs from January 1 after election in which Candidate C was an unsuccessful candidate (2009 general election) For Candidate E—date of vacancy in office (May 2011) or January 1, 2011 if Candidate E had formed a committee before vacancy occurred($550 contribution limit for entire period)to December 31, 2011 Candidate E is elected to the vacant office. 2012 In March 2012,the contribution limit is adjusted by CPI, which is a 20% increase to $660. 2013 For general election in 2013, all candidates decide to run. The following election periods apply to the general election candidates: EXAMPLES - 1 For Candidate A—January 1,2010 to December 31, 2013 ($660 contribution limit for entire period)–runs from January 1 after election at which Candidate A was elected to the office (2009 general election) For Candidate C—January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 ($660 contribution limit for entire period)–runs from January 1 after last election in which Candidate C was an unsuccessful candidate (2011 special election) For Candidate D—January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013 ($660 contribution limit for entire period)–runs from January 1 after last election in which Candidate D was an unsuccessful candidate(2009 general election) For Candidate E—January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 ($660 contribution limit for entire period)–runs from January 1 after election at which Candidate E was elected to the office (2011 special election) For example, if Mrs. Wilberforce had given $550 to Candidate A's controlled committee in May 2011, she can contribute another $110 to the committee between March 2012 and December 31, 2013, under the adjusted limits. Candidate C had loaned her own campaign$25,000 for the 2011 campaign. She was repaid $5,000 in October before the election, so that she had an outstanding loan balance of$20,000 on election day. She can be reimbursed an additional $12,000 after the election, but$8,000 has become her personal contribution to the campaign. Candidate C then loans her campaign another$10,000 for the 2013 campaign. This amount is also eligible for repayment from campaign contributions. EXAMPLES - 2 CITY 0 ,�. 11 BURLINGAME AGENDA STAFF REPORT ITEM # 6d "moo A Som MTG. �AATED JUNEd DATE 3.05.07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2007 APPROVED ! FROM: CITY PLANNER BY YY Contact No: (650) 558-7250 `, �/ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMETNS FOR EXTIENSIONS TO PERMIT AND AMENDING CHAPTER 8.17 TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCITON SITE MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should hold a public hearing on the proposed Ordinance to amend the Municipal Code for building requirements for extensions of building permits and requirements for construction site maintenance. Following the public hearing, the City Council should act on the proposed ordinance. The public hearing for these amendments to the building code was published in the San Mateo County Times, as required by law. Categorically Exempt: C.S. 15321 Enforcement Actions by regulatory Agencies. Class 21 (a) Actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use issued, adopted or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard of objective, administered or adopted by the regulatory agency. General Plan Compliance: The General Plan is implemented by the zoning code and the building and fire codes. Because the California Building Code and California Fire Codes are based on protection of life and public safety, they are determined to be consistent with the city's development policy and therefore the city's General Plan. These code amendments clarify the intended protection of life and the public's safety in the City of Burlingame. Further the provisions of this ordinance clarify the administration of the zoning code regulations regarding the term of planning approvals which are based on the duration of building permits. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on January 8, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended to City Council proposed changes to the Burlingame amendments to the California Building Code which include requirements for extending building permits, renewing building permits and for construction site maintenance during building. The Commissioners voted 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) to recommend the amendments to the City Council for adoption. In their discussion the commissioners noted that in the provision addressing construction site maintenance it was not clear that the term `litter' included construction debris; and in their action they amended the language of this provision. (See attached Ordinance draft CS 8.17.015). In the discussion it was noted that this provision was being recommended because currently there is no code section which can be used to require builders who create a neighborhood visual nuisance during their construction to clean up the site. This PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMETNS FOR EXTENSIONS TO PERMIT AND AMENDING CHAPTER 8.17 TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCITON SITE MAINTENANCE March 5,2007 provision would address that problem. Enforcement would be employed either if the city determines that the condition of the site is a public safety nuisance or if someone complains about construction site maintenance, and their complaint is substantiated after a site inspection. It should be noted that in this same action, the Planning Commission adopted a Planning Commission Resolution which created an additional inspection during construction of projects which require design review. This new step is a framing certification by an architect or residential designer that confirms that the framing of the structure is consistent with the approved design. This certification must be submitted before a final framing inspection will be scheduled by the Building Division. Since this direction is related to process and Planning Commission standard conditions, it does not require City Council action and was not included for consideration in this staff report. City Council Introduction of the Proposed Building Code Amendments City Council reviewed the proposed ordinance at their meeting on February 21, 2007. The ordinance was introduced it without change on a unanimous voice vote. Council discussion addressed: this ordinance will define when construction on a project should be finished, will avoid long delays experienced like the project on Hillside; will there be flexibility if contractor has an issue arise unexpectedly during construction, like a property line adjustment, such issues can be addressed individually; how will the short time frame permit extension work, would apply to a project done a number of years before which never had a final inspection, will pay a fee equal to two hours of inspection time, be inspected and given 30 days to complete punch list; does the city require fencing as a part of construction site maintenance? Not in this ordinance, fencing usually the option of the builder unless required because site is a public safety nuisance. BACKGROUND When the Planning Commission reviewed the Municipal Code provisions for demolition permits and the penalties for doing work without a building permit, Commission also recognized that there was a related planning/building issue which had not been addressed, permit extensions and renewals. Permit extensions are a concern to the Planning Commission because once a planning approval is granted, the planning approval continues until work under the building permit is completed or the building permit expires. It has always been assumed that builders have strong economic incentive to complete a project as quickly as possible so extensions are not a problem. However, occasionally we encounter a builder who sits on a project. Because a planning approval can be extended only once, and for no more than a year, developers can get their building permit (which holds the planning approvals) and then sit inactive paying for consecutive building permit extensions. Currently a building permit can be renewed an unlimited number of times by simply paying the same fee the first time and double the building permit fee for any number of subsequent renewals. There is a second problem related to building permit extensions. On occasion a contractor will remodel a house or build a new one without getting a final inspection. Sometimes the new owner is unaware that a final inspection was not made; or, on a remodel, the homeowner was under the mistaken assumption that the county assessor does not reassess a property until the final inspection has been made. This is not so; often today the issuance of the building permit triggers reassessment. But old notions die hard. So not infrequently the Building Division is approached years later by a homeowner who now wants to sell their house, only to discover that they cannot because they cannot document that a final inspection of the earlier improvements was done and any required corrections completed. Finally, as the subcommittee continued to work, another related issue arose: should the City have a construction site maintenance requirement e.g. litter and debris control. There have been numerous 2 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQ UIREMETNS FOR EXTENSIONS TO PERMIT AND AMENDING CHAPTER 8.17 TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCITON SITE MAINTENANCE March 5,2007 complaints from neighbors on blocks where houses are under construction that the construction sites are an eyesore, with litter blowing all over or littering the ground; property line fences down with landscaping ignored and dying; and no containers provided to fix these problems or effort made to maintain the vegetation on the site. The City's Code Enforcement officer has pointed out that there is no provision in the Burlingame Municipal Code that she can use to enforce construction site maintenance unless it becomes a fire hazard or can be declared a public nuisance. These problems were the focus of the Permit Processing Subcommittee's discussion. The solutions proposed by the Subcommittee, as amended by the Planning Commission, are summarized below. Attached at the end of the staff report is an annotated set of the proposed regulations which explains the reasoning behind each of the proposed changes. Summary of Proposed Municipal Code Amendments: CS 18.07.070 Section 303.4- Expiration o No change is proposed to the duration of the initial building permit. The duration of building permits is based on valuation with the shortest time being 6 months for$10,000 or less valuation and 36 months for $10,000,000 or more in valuation. o The changes to the current regulations are based on the permit extensions provisions and include: o Request for an extension must be submitted before the original permit expires. o A permit may be extended only twice. o If a permit is extended the work must be active, the applicant must call for a major inspection every 120 days or the extension and permit will expire. o At the end of two extensions, the building permit will expire, with the subsequent loss of both Planning approvals and any exemptions obtained from compliance with the earlier building code requirements. o Regardless of the extension provisions, if a project requiring a planning approval has been issued a building permit and there has been no construction action on the building permit, the planning approval shall be voided. CS 18.07.075 Short time extension to a building permit. o Building official shall have the authority to issue one `short term' extension to a building permit if the following criteria are met; o No other extensions have been previously granted. o The request for the extension is received in writing. o The applicant can provide a copy of the original construction plans that were approved by the city. o There is a record that all inspections have been passed except the final inspection. o A fee equal to two hours of inspection is paid at the time the extension is issued. o The project shall be inspected based on the building code requirements in effect at the time the original work being inspected was done. o The work identified in the final inspection must be completed within 30 days. CS 18.07.080 Section 304.2 amended—Permit fees. o Fees for permit extensions will increase with each extension: the first extension will be two times the original building permit fee; the fee for the second extension, which is the last 3 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMETNS FOR EXTENSIONS TO PERMIT AND AMENDING CHAPTER 8.17 TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCITON SITE MAINTENANCE March 5,2007 extension, shall be three times the original building permit fee. CS 8.17.025 Construction Site Maintenance o Focus is on personal litter and construction debris generated by workers, employees, contractors and others who may be on the site during construction. o Property owner or contractor is required to provide covered litter containers on site during construction, in sufficient number to hold all the litter generated, and clean up construction debris. o Litter on site shall be placed in the containers at the end of each working day, construction materials should be covered. BUDGET IMPACT: None. These regulations will be administered and enforced by existing staff in the Building Division, Planning Department and, where appropriate, by the City's Code Enforcement Officer. EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 18.07 to Specify Requirements for Issuance of a Demolition Permit and to Clarify Civil Penalties for Work without Construction Permits. Attachment B: Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18 Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2007. Attachment D: Public Notice, Published February 24, 2007 U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2007\Action Permit Extn Bldg 3.5.07.doc 4 ATTACHMENT A 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO PERMIT AND AMENDING 3 CHAPTER 8.17 TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION SITE MAINTENANCE 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. Current provisions of the Municipal Code do not provide clear timelines for 9 completion of building construction, and projects can drag on for years without significant incentives 10 or penalties for a failure to complete the construction. This adversely affects neighborhoods and 11 makes the ultimate construction outdated with regard to health and safety codes. This ordinance will 12 set timelines and incentives to complete construction in a reasonable fashion. It also establishes a 13 basic community standard for maintaining a construction site. 14 15 Section 2. Section 18.07.070 is amended to read as follows: 16 18.07.070 Section 303.4 amended—Permit expiration—Failure to complete. 17 Section 303.4 is amended to read as follows: 18 303.4 Expiration. All work to be performed under a building permit shall be completed 19 within the maximum time allowed for the construction as follows: 20 Total Estimated Cost Total Time Allowed 21 $10,000 or less........................................................... 6 months 22 Over $10,000 to and including $50,000..................... 12 months 23 Over $50,000 to and including $1,000,000................ 18 months 24 Over $1,000,000 to and including $2,000,000........... 24 months 25 Over$2,000,000 to and including $10,000,000 ........ 30 months 26 Over $10,000,000 ...................................................... 36 months 27 Failure to complete the work within the time allowed, unless an extension of time has been 28 specifically approved by the building official will cause the permit for such work to become null and 2/21/2007 1 I void. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be 2 required to recommence work. The request for an extension of time must be submitted in writing 3 prior to the expiration of the time allowed. 4 The time limit allowed to complete the work and obtain a building final for any permit that 5 has been extended shall be one year from the date of the extension. Failure to complete the work 6 within the time allowed by a first permit extension will cause the permit for such work to become 7 null and void, unless a second extension has been specifically approved by the building official. A 8 new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to 9 recommence work. Prior to expiration of a first extension of a building permit, an owner may apply 10 for a second extension. The request for a second extension of time must be submitted in writing 11 prior to the expiration of the time allowed under the first extension. 12 Every permit extension issued by the Building Official under the provisions of the technical 13 codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such 14 permit extension is not recommenced within 120 days from the date of such permit extension, or if 15 the building or work authorized by such permit extension is suspended or abandoned at any time 16 after the work is recommenced for a period of 120 days. The building or work shall be considered 17 suspended or abandoned if a substantial inspection has not been conducted. The following are 18 considered substantial inspections when all corrections have been performed and that portion of the 19 work has been signed off by a city inspector: 20 1. Foundation; 21 2. Underground plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 22 3. Underfloor framing, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 23 4. Shear walls, hold downs, roof diaphragm, and connectors; 24 5. Rough framing, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 25 6. Insulation; 26 7. Sheetrock; and 27 8. Final 28 After suspension or abandonment and before such work can be recommenced, a new permit 2/21/2007 2 I shall be first obtained and the fee therefore shall be the amount required for the original permit. 2 The expiration of a building permit without an extension pursuant to this section or at the end 3 of the second extension shall result in the expiration of any approvals under Chapter 25 (Zoning) of 4 the Burlingame Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, including local amendments. 5 The fees for the first extension shall be the amount required for the original permit. If no 6 changes in plans or specifications have been made, no additional plan checking fees will be required. 7 The fee for the second extension shall be two (2) times the original building permit fee. 8 There shall be no extensions of a building permit after the second extension. 9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a building permit was issued for part 10 or all of a project or building which was required to obtain a special permit, variance or traffic 11 allocation, the building permit shall expire and such special permit, variance or traffic allocation 12 shall be null and void if substantial progress has not occurred within one year from the issuance of 13 the building permit. Substantial progress shall be when the total foundation has been formed, 14 inspected and poured. The Council may grant an extension of a permit upon the showing by the 15 permittee of hardship or unforeseen circumstances. 16 17 Section 3. A new Section 18.07.075 is added to read as follows: 18 18.07.075 Short time extension to a building permit. 19 (a) The building official shall have the authority to issue a single short time extension of a 20 building permit if all of the following conditions are met: 21 (1) No other extensions for the project have been previously granted; and 22 (2) The request for a short time extension is received in writing; and 23 (3) The person requesting a short time extension must present the original or a copy of the 24 original construction plans that were approved by the city; and 25 (4) There is a record showing that the project has passed all required inspections, except for 26 the final inspection; and 27 (5) A fee generally equal to two hourly inspections as set by city council resolution is paid at 28 the time the short time extension is issued. 2/21/2007 3 I (b) The short time extension shall expire thirty(30) days after issuance. Failure to complete 2 the work within the time allowed by the short time extension will cause the permit for such work to 3 become null and void. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all 4 fees shall be required to recommence work. 5 6 Section 4. A new Section 8.17.015 is added to read as follows: 7 8.17.025 Construction site maintenance. 8 Any property owner or person in charge of a construction site shall furnish covered litter 9 containers for construction litter, including construction debris. All waste matter or litter from 10 construction and related activities shall be picked up and placed in these covered containers at the 11 end of each working day. Waste matter or litter receptacles of a sufficient number must be located on 12 the construction site to receive construction debris, personal litter, and any other waste matter 13 generated by the employees, workers, invitees, or other persons using the site. 14 15 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 16 17 Mayor 18 19 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 20 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of 21 February, 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 22 of , 2007, by the following vote: 23 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 24 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 25 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 26 27 City Clerk 28 U:AFILES\0RDINANC\uac2007-1 clean.bld.wpd 2/21/2007 4 ATTACHMENT B Draft: Base draft December 11, 2006 Including December 8, 2006 Permit Processing Subcommittee Meeting comments and Planning Commission January 8, 2007 amendments. Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18 & 8 specify requirements for extensions to permit and amending Chapter 8.17 to require construction site maintenance Section 2. Section 18.07.070 is amended to read as follows: 18.07.070 Section 303.4 amended—Permit expiration—Failure to complete. Section 303.4 is amended to read as follows: 303.4 Expiration. All work to be performed under a building permit shall be completed within the maximum time allowed for the construction as follows: Total Estimated Cost Total Time Allowed $10,000 or less 6 months Over $10,000 to and including $50,000 12 months Over$50,000 to and including$1,000,000 18 months Over$1,000,000 to and including$2,000,000 24 months Over$2,000,000 to and including$10,000,000 30 months Over$10,000,000 36 months set f A,, her- ;.,. Failure to complete the work within the time allowed, unless an extension of time has been specifically approved by the building official will cause the permit for such work to become null and void. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to recommence work. The request for an extension of time must be submitted in writing prior to the expiration of the time allowed. The time limit allowed to complete the work and obtain a building final for any permit that has been extended shall be one year from the date of the extension. Failure to complete the work within the time allowed by a first permit extension will cause the permit for such work to become null and void, unless a second extension has been specifically approved by the building official. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to recommence work. Prior to expiration of a first extension of a building permit, an owner may apply for a second extension. The request for a second extension of time must be submitted in writing prior to the expiration of the time allowed under the first extension. Every permit extension issued by the Building Official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit extension is not recommenced within 120 days from the date of such permit extension, or if the building or work authorized by such permit extension is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is recommenced for a period of 120 days. The building or work shall be considered suspended or abandoned if a substantial inspection has not been conducted. The following are considered substantial inspections when all corrections have been performed and that portion of the work has been signed off by a city inspector: 1. Foundation; 2. Underground plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 3. Underfloor framing,plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 4. Shear walls, hold downs, roof diaphragm, and connectors; 5. Rough framing,plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 6. Insulation; 7. Sheetrock; and 8. Final After suspension or abandonment and before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained and the fee therefore shall be the amount required for the original permit. The expiration of a building permit without an extension pursuant to this section or at the end of the second extension shall result in the expiration of any approvals under Chapter 25 (Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, including local amendments. Annotation: At the subcommittee meeting it was noted that permit extensions should be limited to one year. The request for a second extension must be submitted before the first extension expires because failure to complete the work within the allowed time voids the permit. The subcommittee agreed that during the extension period the person holding the permit should be required to call for a substantial inspection every 12o days or the extension and the building permit should become void. There are two requirements for expiration: 1) lack of continued construction progress based on regular inspections as measured by having at least one substantial inspection every 12o days; and 2) exceeding the maximum time limit on a building permit which is based on the value of construction. The fees for the first extension shall be the amount required for the original permit. If no changes in plans or specifications have been made, no additional plan checking fees will be required. The fee for-the seeend and subsequent extensions shall be double the Ewiginal pefmit fee or-$500.00, ,.,,,ieheveis gr-eaten The fee for the second extension shall be two (2) times the original building permit fee. There shall be no extensions of a building permit after the second extension. Total Estimated Gest T1 Ot 1 Time A 11ewe rl 0,000 or- less ths Over- $10,000 to and ineluding $5 G)G) 12 months Over- $50,000 to and ifieluding $1,000,000 Over $1,000,000 te and ineluding$2,000,000 $2,000,000 te and inehiding $10,000,000 Over- $10,000,000 36 months Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a building permit was issued for part or all of a project or building which was required to obtain a special permit, variance or traffic allocation, the building permit shall expire and such special permit, variance or traffic allocation shall be null and void if substantial progress has not occurred within one year from the issuance of the building permit. Substantial progress shall be when the total foundation has been formed, inspected and poured. The Council may grant an extension of a permit upon the showing by the permittee of hardship or unforeseen circumstances. Annotation: Fees for building permit renewals should be based on the Fee Extension Table in the current Municipal Code, but should escalate geometrically e.g. first renewal, same fee as original; second renewal, double original fee. Applicants should be allowed no more than two renewals of their building permit. After the second renewal the applicant should have to reapply for both Planning and Building permits and pay whatever fees are in effect at the time. (City Planning and Building fees are evaluated annually.) With extensions a project valued at up to $1,000,000 would be allowed up to 72 months to be completed. Moreover, with expiration of the building permit, any Planning approvals would also expire. The applicant will be required to go through the planning review process again and make any changes to the project required by any changes to the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, or Fire Code. Then the applicant will be required to resubmit for a building permit, go through building plan check again, and get a new building permit. These provisions include the requirement that if, after a building permit is issued, there is no work on the project, the Planning approvals shall expire even if the building permit has a longer life. The property owner would then need to return to the Planning Commission for a new action. Section 3. A new Section 18.07.075 is added to read as follows: 18.07.075 Short time extension to a building permit. (a) The building official shall have the authority to issue a single short time extension of a building permit if all of the following conditions are met: (1) No other extensions for the project have been previously granted; and (2) The request for a short time extension is received in writing; and (3) The person requesting a short time extension must present the original or a copy of the original construction plans that were approved by the city; and (4) There is a record showing that the project has passed all required inspections, except for the final inspection; and (5) A fee generally equal to two hourly inspections as set by city council resolution is paid at the time the short time extension is issued. (b) The short time extension shall expire thirty(30) days after issuance. Failure to complete the work within the time allowed by the short time extension will cause the permit for such work to become null and void. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to recommence work. Annotation: The Subcommittee thought that it would be beneficial to allow the Building Official the authority to grant a 'short extension' to a building permit so that if someone's permit had just recently expired, or a contractor had failed to get a final inspection in the past, additional time can be allowed to obtain the final inspection on the project. Currently the applicant must purchase a new permit. The `short time extension'would allow the contactor 3o days to schedule the final inspection and complete the identified work. The smaller fee should be based on the cost of the inspections ($8o to $loo per hour.) A'short time extension' should be allowed only once at the end of the expiration of the initial building permit. It should not be allowed if the building permit has already been extended one or more times. It should be noted that it is the property owner's responsibility to document that work done previously was inspected as required by the City up to the final inspection. This documentation might include an original copy of the job plans bearing the `Approved' stamp of the Burlingame Building Division. Permits extended under the `short time extension' shall expire after thirty (30) days. `Short time extensions' may not be renewed. If a short term permit expires the property owner must apply for a building permit and comply with the current code requirements. Section 4. A new Section 8.17.015 is added to read as follows: 8.17.025 Construction site maintenance. Any property owner or person in charge of a construction site shall furnish covered litter containers for construction litter including construction debris. All waste matter or litter from construction and related activities shall be picked up and placed in these covered containers at the end of each working day. Waste matter or litter receptacles of a sufficient number must be located on the construction site to receive construction debris, personal litter, or any waste matter generated by the employees, workers, invitees, or other persons using the site. Annotation: The issue of maintenance of a construction site is a code enforcement issue. Currently there are provisions in the Burlingame Municipal Code to address surface water runoff during construction. But there are no provisions to address litter, weed abatement or even maintenance of vegetation which is not a protected tree. The Subcommittee recommended that a provision should be added to the code to address maintenance of the site during construction. It was suggested that we borrow the language currently used, and time-tested, from the City of Millbrae. On January 8, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended that the Ordinance should be taken forward for City Council action. The Planning Commission amended the language of this section to make it clear that `construction debris' was clearly included with `litter.' They felt that this would facilitate the use of this provision in code enforcement. ATTACHMENT C City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 9. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE: REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING PERMITS, RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY ON FRAMING CERTIFICATION(NOTICE IN SAN MATEO TIMES)PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 8, 2009, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been working with the Chief Building Official,City Planner and City Attorney to address three issues: building permit extension times which also affect Planning approval extensions; fees for building permit extensions; construction site maintenance;and certification of framing for design review projects. The first three are amendments/changes to the Municipal Code are also recommendations to the City Council for action. The framing certification is a Planning Commission policy and should be adopted by Planning Commission Resolution. CBO Joe Cyr joined CP in responding to Commissioners questions. Why should the city not hire a qualified inspector for certification of the framing? If the City certifies the framing then the city becomes liable for whatever goes wrong in the building in the future, especially since this is not a life/safety issue; city does not want the exposure. Would not like to see this certification as a profit center for the City. What kind of litter does the construction site maintenance provision refer to? CP noted paper and other waste.CA noted that `litter' also includes demolition debris scattered on the lawn or around the site for extended periods of time. Commissioner noted that responsible builders have dumpster on site,but the streets are so narrow that these can block traffic and cause a parking problem,not want them in the street any longer than necessary,this encourages dumpsters. Committee member noted that dumpsters were discussed,and it was noted that dumpsters are so expensive that they are not kept throughout construction, daily removal in a smaller truck is now more common. CA noted that litter includes all discarded material. Commissioner noted that stacked building materials would not be a problem. CP noted certainly not if they were covered. Commissioner noted that this does not seem to read that drywall and other debris would need to be removed from the site every night. CBO noted that currently there is no construction site maintenance ordinance,and thus no way to regulate serious abuse or address neighbor's legitimate complaints. Commissioner noted he supported the framing certification being done by an architect or residential designer because too frequently the architect is not engaged in the project after it has been approved by the Planning Commission and the building permit has been issued. Commissioner noted that he had done several framing certifications since the Commission directed that a condition be added to residential design review projects,think it works well and is a great idea. Self certification rarely works. Architect would be certifying what he can see at framing, there will still be a design review inspection as a part of the final inspection to address details added after framing. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. The definition of litter notwithstanding,Commission should approve this amendment;regarding framing certification would also like to see a notice of completion filed with the County Recorder, so everyone would know up front if a project had not called for a final inspection,this should be required for all substantial remodels and all new construction. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: All agree on the permit extension and framing certification,think the construction site regulation is a dramatic change,would prefer to see a condition requiring site maintenance added to the Planning Commission's action on each project. Don't have a problem covering materials stored on the site or refuse and dumpsters at night,would have the benefit of keeping the neighbors from tossing their things into the dumpster; concerned about trash receptacle on site, when full should pick up, ok if it must be covered went they drive away; practically this is a code enforcement issue. 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 C. Cauchi, noted that the construction site maintenance issue is practically a code enforcement issue and moved to adopt the planning commission resolution establishing architectural certification of the framing for all projects subject to design review prior to calling for a final framing inspection and recommendation to the City Council for approval of the changes to the municipal code for permit extensions, short term extensions,permit extension fees and construction site maintenance with amendment to the text(in italics) to include: "Any property owner or person in charge of a construction site shall furnish covered litter containers for construction litter, including construction debris. All waste matter or litter from construction and related activities shall be picked up and placed in covered containers at the end of each working day. Waste matter or litter receptacles of a sufficient number must be located on the construction site to receive personal litter, construction debris, or any waste matter generated by the employees, workers, invitees, or other persons using the site." The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Commission resolution for architectural certification of the framing before the final framing inspection and to recommend to the City Council amendments to the municipal code for permit extension, short term permit extensions, permit extension fees and the amended construction site maintenance provisions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(MR.AND MRS.BERNARD CORRY,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Auran noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that two letters were submitted by neighbors sharing concerns about the project. There were no questions of staff. Commissioner noted that he met with the applicant on the site to discuss the details of the project. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, and Bernard Corry,property owner, noted that this is a difficult site to work with because of the upward slope, there is a difference of 12 feet from front to rear, they are proposing to maintain the finished floor of the house as it exists because the sewer main is located in the easement to the rear of the property;detached garage is at the rear of the lot and therefore had to adjust the slope of the driveway to make it easier to back onto the street,otherwise driveway would be very steep. Public comment continued: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, noting that there are a lot of neighborhoods in Burlingame with the sewer line at the rear;however,there may also be a sewer line in the street at the front of the house, should check with Public Works;should consider planting a Jacaranda tree in front yard,would be appropriate for Craftsman style house;chimney along left side of house is too high and massive;should consider shifting the house six inches to the right to provide a wider driveway,would make it easier for vehicles to enter and exit the site;concerned that the design of the proposed door is being used on a lot of houses, should consider using a craftsman style door with divided lites, ledge and recessed 18 9 ;6AM ATTACHMENT D CITY OF BURLINGAME SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDI- NANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND THE UNIFORM ADMINIS- TRATIVE CODE AS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 18.07 TO ESTABLISH STRONGER LIMITS ON THE LENGTH OF TIME DURING WHICH A CONSTRUC- TION PERMIT IS VALID,TO LIMIT THE EXTENSIONS OF SUCH PERMITS, AND TO PROVIDE A SHORT TERM EX- TENSION TO COMPLETE WORK AND TO ADD A NEW SECTION 8.17.015 TO SET STANDARDS FOR MAINTENANCE OF CONSTRUCTION SITES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Burlingame will consid- er adoption of a proposed ordinance on Monday. March 5, 2007, at a public meeting at 7:00 p.m, in the City Hall Council Cham- bers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califomia, that would amend Section 18.07.070 to do the following: 1) Ilmlt extensions on any construction permit under Chapter 18.07 to no more than two exten- sions of one year each; 2) require substantial progress in the form of specified inspections no less often than every 120 days during any extension; 3) affirm that If the construction permit expires the accompanying land use and fire approvals will expire also; and 4) es- tablish that the fee for the second extension will be two times the original building permit fee. The proposed ordinance would also es- tablish a process for a short time extension to allow property owners to obtain final in- spections when work has been stopped for an extended period of time. In addition, the ordinance would set basic construction site maintenance requirements to require the clean-up and proper storage and removal of construction debris and litter. Anyone Inter- ested in building construction of any kind in the City should review the entire ordinance The City Council will receive testimony on the proposed ordinance from all interested persons who appear at the Council meeting, To receive additional information about the proposed ordinance and a complete copy of the proposed ordinance, or to provide writ- ten comments, interested persons may con- tact the City Clerk, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, phone (650) 558-7203. A complete copy of the ordinance is available for review at the City Library at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame,CA. San Mateo County Times,#750920 February 24,2007 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 6e ITEM# aoq 9,m MTG. AATED JUNE 6` DATE March 5,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBMi BY DATE: March 5,2007 APP VED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY A SUBJECT: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlinga Approving the Issuance by the Burlingame Financing Authority of Not to Exceed $27,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds to Finance Certain Improvements to the Water and Wastewater Systems of the City; Authorizing Execution and Delivery of Installment Sale Agreements and a Bond Purchase Agreement; Approving Form of Official Statement; and Authorizing Execution of Documents and the Taking of All Necessary Actions Relating to the Financing with the Burlingame Financing Authority Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Hold a Public Hearing 2. Approve the Resolution Background: The proposed resolution authorizes the sale of up to $27 million in revenue bonds for water and sewer improvements. This is the third and final planned series of revenue bond that finance the ten-year capital improvement plans for the water and sewer systems. The city issued $8.7 million in revenue bonds in 2003 (February 11, 2003) and $20.32 million in 2004 (March 11, 2004). The City Council approved the ten-year financial plan in 2002. The ten-year financial plan was updated in 2006. All projects funded with the 2007 bonds are included in the city's Capital Improvements Program. Purpose of the Bonds The Bonds are being issued to provide funds to the City to (i) finance improvements to the City's Water System and Wastewater System, (ii) to fund reserve accounts for the Bonds, and (iii) to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. The City may opt to purchase a surety bond instead of funding a reserve fund. Attachment A. provides a listing of the water and sewer projects to be financed from the proceeds of the bonds. Pledge of System Net Revenues Debt service payments are secured by a pledge of the net revenues of the water and wastewater systems. The 2006 water and sewer rate ordinance implemented three successive years of rate adjustments. The rate adjustments cover the additional debt service payments. The bonds will be sold on a negotiated basis. E.J. De La Rosa Company will serve as underwriter for the bonds. Bonds will be priced on March 20, 2007 and the sale will close on April 4, 2007. The proceeds will be deposited in the Bank of New York, the City's Trustee Bank. Copies of the Preliminary Official Statement, Trust Agreement, Installment Sale Agreements (Water and Wastewater), Continuing Disclosure Certificates and Underwriter's Contract of Purchase are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk. Electronic copies are also available for e-mail to Council members as well as interested members of the public by contacting the City Clerk. Attachments: 1 . Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving the Issuance by the Burlingame Financing Authority of Not to Exceed $27,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds to Finance Certain Improvements to the Water and Wastewater Systems of the City; Authorizing Execution and Delivery of Installment Sale Agreements and a Bond Purchase Agreement; Approving Form of Official Statement; and Authorizing Execution of Documents and the Taking of All Necessary Actions Relating to the Financing with the Burlingame Financing Authority; 2. Attachment A. - Water & Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 - Water System Capital Improvements Programs - Water & Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 — Sanitary Sewer System Capital Improvements Programs 3. Preliminary Official Statement Components - Sources and Uses of Funds - Bond Debt Service - Bond Debt Service Breakdown - Bond Summary Statistics - Bond Pricing (Estimates, Actual Pricing Determined at Sale) S:\2007 Water & Wastewater Bonds\City Council Agenda Report (March 5, 2007).doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY OF NOT TO EXCEED $27,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS OF THE CITY; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENTS AND A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT; APPROVING FORM OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING OF ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS RELATING TO THE FINANCING WITH THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (the "City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burlingame (the "Agency") have heretofore executed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of May 15, 1995 (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), by and between the City and the Agency, which Joint Powers Agreement creates and establishes the Burlingame Financing Authority(the "Authority"); and WHEREAS,pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California(the "Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985") and the Joint Powers Agreement, the Authority is authorized to issue bonds for financing public capital improvements whenever there are significant public benefits to be realized; and WHEREAS, the City desires to approve the Authority's issuance of not to exceed $27,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Burlingame Financing Authority Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing the construction of certain improvements to the water and wastewater systems of the City(the "Projects"); and WHEREAS, in order to finance the Projects, the City desires to enter into an installment sale agreement (water system) and an installment sale agreement (wastewater system) (collectively, the "Installment Sale Agreements"); and WHEREAS, the Authority and City will enter into a Contract of Purchase (the "Bond Purchase Contract") with E.J. De La Rosa Inc. (the "Underwriter); and WHEREAS, there have been submitted and are on file with the City Clerk proposed forms of the Installment Sale Agreements, Bond Purchase Contract, an Official Statement with respect to the Bonds proposed to be sold by the Authority, and a Trust Agreement by and 1 between the Authority and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. (successor in interest to BNY Western Trust Company) (the "Trust Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority and the execution and delivery of the Installment Sale Agreements will result in significant public benefits through demonstrable savings in the effective interest rates and bond issuance costs expected to be paid for the bonds issued to finance the Projects, and that it furthers the public purpose to assist in such financing, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby finds, determines, declares and resolves as follows: Section 1. All of the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and the City Council so finds and determines. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27,000,000, to finance the Projects. The City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer of the City are hereby directed to perform the duties, if any, imposed upon each of them by the provisions of the financing documents approved herein, including the Trust Agreement for the Bonds and the Installment Sale Agreements, and the Finance Director/Treasurer of the City is hereby authorized and directed to hold the funds and accounts created in said financing documents and directed or permitted to be held by the City. Section 3. The proposed form of Installment Sale Agreement (Water System)by and between the City and the Authority, on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The City Manager and the Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver an installment sale agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officers may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance for the Bonds), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof, provided, however, that the term of said installment sale agreement shall end no later than April 1, 2031. Section 4. The proposed form of Installment Sale Agreement (Wastewater System)by and between the Authority and City, on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver an installment sale agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officers may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance for the Bonds), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof; provided, however, that the term of said installment sale agreement shall end no later than April 1, 2031. 2 Section 5. The proposed form of Bond Purchase Contract, by and among E.J. De La Rosa, the Authority and the City, on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The City Manager and the Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, or any such officer's designee, are each hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver a bond purchase contract in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof; provided, however, the underwriting discount (not including original issue discount) shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds. Section 6. The proposed form of Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the "Official Statement"), on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The City Manager and the Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver an Official Statement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. The Underwriter is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Official Statement to all actual purchasers of the Bonds. Distribution by the Underwriter of a preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds is hereby approved and the City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized and directed, to execute a certificate confirming that the preliminary Official Statement has been "deemed final" by the City for purposes of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. Section 7. The City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute a Continuing Disclosure Certificate containing such covenants of the City as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of such Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Section 8. The officers and City Council members of the City are hereby authorized and directed,jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents and certificates which they deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the execution and delivery of the documents mentioned herein and otherwise to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby, including but not limited to obtaining bond insurance. Section 9. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Council of the City with respect to the financing of the Project are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. Section 10. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption and approval. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Burlingame at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of March, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof. 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I, , Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify as follows: The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by a vote of a majority of the City Council of the City of Burlingame at a regular meeting of said Council duly and regularly and legally held at the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, on March 5, 2007, of which all of such members had due notice, as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of said resolution appeared on said agenda. I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes. Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect. Dated: , 2007. City Clerk of the City of Burlingame 4 Attachment A. Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROJECTS FY 2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 Totals Studies Water Capacity and Improvement Studies $ 340,000 $ 360,000 $ 380,000 GIS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Sub-total studies $ 390,000 $ 410,000 $ 430,000 $ 1,230,000 Pipeline Mills Transmission Main $ 1,000,000 $ - $ Gate-Grove Village Main Replacement $ 120,000 $ 3,470,000 Burlingame Ave $ 100,000 $ 210,000 Emergency Main replacement $ 270,000 $ 320,000 $ 430,000 Sub-total Water Mains $ 1,270,000 $ 540,000 $ 4,110,000 $ 5,920,000 Miscellaneous Water Standard Plans $ 50,000 Water meter replacement $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Hydropneumatic Tank Inspection $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Sub-total miscellaneous water $ 150,000 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 370,000 Pump Stations Trousdale Pump Station $ 2,570,000 $ 3,440,000 Sub-total pump stations $ 2,570,000 $ 3,440,000 $ - $ 6,010,000 Scada Scada infrastructure $ 120,000 Sub-total Scada $ 120,000 j$ 1$ -j$ 120,000 Total $ 4,500,000 1$ 4,500,000 $ 4,650,000 1$ 13,650,000 Feb.27,2007 Attachment A. Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROJECTS FY 2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008-09 Totals Studies Sewer Capacity and Improvement Studies $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 GIS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Sub-total studies $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 150,000 $ 600,000 Sewer Mains Budinghome Subdivision $ 2,217,000 $ - $ - California-Grove Area Sewer Improvements-Ph. 1 $ 2,300,000 California-Grove Area Sewer Improvements-Ph.2 $ 2,030,000 1200 Block Paloma Ave.Sewer Rehabilitation $ 250,000 Mills Canyon Sewer $ 400,000 Sub-total Sewer Mains $ 2,617,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 2,030,000 $ 7,197,000 Miscellaneous sewer repairs Foaming $ 50,000 Valves $ 50,000 $ - Lateml repairs $ - $ 50,000 Sub-total miscellaneous sewer $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 150,000 Pump Stations Mitten Pump station $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Sub-total pump stations $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 600,000 Waste Water Treatment Plant Gravity Thickener Rehabilitation Launder Replacement $ 60,000 Reliability Improvements $ 533,000 Retention Basin $ 150,000 $ 550,000 $ 1,100,000 Outfall line condition assessment $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 60,000 Sub-total treatment plant $ 733,000 $ 600,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 2,553,000 Total $ 3,700,000 $ 3,700,000 1 $ 3,700,000 j $ 11,100,000 Feb.27,2007 SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Burlingame Financing Authority Water & Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 2007 2007 Water Wastewater Installment Installment Sources: Payments Payments Total Bond Proceeds: Par Amount 14,895,000.00 12,105,000.00 27,000,000.00 14,895,000.00 12,105,000.00 27,000,000.00 2007 2007 Water Wastewater Installment Installment Uses: Payments Payments Total Project Fund Deposits: Water Project Fund 13,650,000.00 13,650,000.00 Sewer Project Fund 11,100,000.00 11,100,000.00 13,650,000.00 11,100,000.00 24,750,000.00 Other Fund Deposits: DSRF 982,288.00 798,172.50 1,780,460.50 Delivery Date Expenses: Cost of Issuance 110,333.33 89,666.67 200,000.00 Underwriter's Discount 104,265.00 84,735.00 189,000.00 Bond Insurance 44,078.65 35,822.22 79,900.87 258,676.98 210,223.89 468,900.87 Other Uses of Funds: Additional Proceeds 4,035.02 -3,396.39 638.63 14,895,000.00 12,105,000.00 27,000,000.00 Mar 1, 2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 1 BOND DEBT SERVICE Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 Period Annual Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service 04/04/2007 10/01/2007 548,032.93 548,032.93 04/01/2008 655,000 3.540% 557,319.00 1,212,319.00 1,760,351.93 10/01/2008 545,725.50 545,725.50 04/01/2009 685,000 3.550% 545,725.50 1,230,725.50 1,776,451.00 10/01/2009 533,566.75 533,566.75 04/01/2010 705,000 3.560% 533,566.75 1,238,566.75 1,772,133.50 10/01/2010 521,017.75 521,017.75 04/01/2011 735,000 3.570% 521,017.75 1,256,017.75 1,777,035.50 10/01/2011 507,898.00 507,898.00 04/01/2012 760,000 3.610% 507,898.00 1,267,898.00 1,775,796.00 10/01/2012 494,180.00 494,180.00 04/01/2013 790,000 3.630% 494,180.00 1,284,180.00 1,778,360.00 10/01/2013 479,841.50 479,841.50 04/01/2014 815,000 3.660% 479,841.50 1,294,841.50 1,774,683.00 10/01/2014 464,927.00 464,927.00 04/01/2015 845,000 3.710% 464,927.00 1,309,927.00 1,774,854.00 10/01/2015 449,252.25 449,252.25 04/01/2016 880,000 3.750% 449,252.25 1,329,252.25 1,778,504.50 10/01/2016 432,752.25 432,752.25 04/01/2017 910,000 3.790% 432,752.25 1,342,752.25 1,775,504.50 10/01/2017 415,507.75 415,507.75 04/01/2018 945,000 3.920% 415,507.75 1,360,507.75 1,776,015.50 10/01/2018 396,985.75 396,985.75 04/01/2019 980,000 4.020% 396,985.75 1,376,985.75 1,773,971.50 10/01/2019 377,287.75 377,287.75 04/01/2020 1,025,000 4.110% 377,287.75 1,402,287.75 1,779,575.50 10/01/2020 356,224.00 356,224.00 04/01/2021 1,060,000 4.180% 356,224.00 1,416,224.00 1,772,448.00 10/01/2021 334,070.00 334,070.00 04/01/2022 1,105,000 4.230% 334,070.00 1,439,070.00 1,773,140.00 10/01/2022 310,699.25 310,699.25 04/01/2023 1,150,000 4.270% 310,699.25 1,460,699.25 1,771,398.50 10/01/2023 286,146.75 286,146.75 04/01/2024 1,205,000 4.310% 286,146.75 1,491,146.75 1,777,293.50 10/01/2024 260,179.00 260,179.00 04/01/2025 1,260,000 4.340% 260,179.00 1,520,179.00 1,780,358.00 10/01/2025 232,837.00 232,837.00 04/01/2026 1,310,000 4.370% 232,837.00 1,542,837.00 1,775,674.00 10/01/2026 204,213.50 204,213.50 04/01/2027 1,370,000 4.400% 204,213.50 1,574,213.50 1,778,427.00 10/01/2027 174,073.50 174,073.50 04/01/2028 1,430,000 4.410% 174,073.50 1,604,073.50 1,778,147.00 10/01/2028 142,542.00 142,542.00 04/01/2029 1,495,000 4.440% 142,542.00 1,637,542.00 1,780,084.00 10/01/2029 109,353.00 109,353.00 04/01/2030 1,560,000 4.460% 109,353.00 1,669,353.00 1,778,706.00 10/01/2030 74,565.00 74,565.00 04/01/2031 1,625,000 4.480% 74,565.00 1,699,565.00 1,774,130.00 10/01/2031 38,165.00 38,165.00 04/01/2032 1,700,000 4.490% 38,165.00 1,738,165.00 1,776,330.00 27,000,000 17,389,372.43 44,389,372.43 44,389,372.43 Mar 1,2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 2 BOND DEBT SERVICE BREAKDOWN Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 2007 Water 2007 Wastewater Period Installment Installment Ending Payments Payments Total 04/01/2008 969,803.04 790,548.89 1,760,351.93 04/01/2009 982,182.00 794,269.00 1,776,451.00 04/01/2010 978,692.00 793,441.50 1,772,133.50 04/01/2011 979,808.00 797,227.50 1,777,035.50 04/01/2012 980,349.50 795,446.50 1,775,796.00 04/01/2013 980,187.50 798,172.50 1,778,360.00 04/01/2014 979,397.00 795,286.00 1,774,683.00 04/01/2015 977,927.00 796,927.00 1,774,854.00 04/01/2016 980,675.50 797,829.00 1,778,504.50 04/01/2017 977,488.00 798,016.50 1,775,504.50 04/01/2018 978,538.00 797,477.50 1,776,015.50 04/01/2019 978,154.00 795,817.50 1,773,971.50 04/01/2020 981,446.00 798,129.50 1,779,575.50 04/01/2021 978,224.50 794,223.50 1,772,448.00 04/01/2022 978,771.50 794,368.50 1,773,140.00 04/01/2023 977,968.50 793,430.00 1,771,398.50 04/01/2024 980,854.00 796,439.50 1,777,293.50 04/01/2025 982,192.50 798,165.50 1,780,358.00 04/01/2026 982,029.50 793,644.50 1,775,674.00 04/01/2027 980,347.00 798,080.00 1,778,427.00 04/01/2028 982,127.00 796,020.00 1,778,147.00 04/01/2029 982,288.00 797,796.00 1,780,084.00 04/01/2030 980,658.00 798,048.00 1,778,706.00 04/01/2031 977,302.00 796,828.00 1,774,130.00 04/01/2032 982,206.00 794,124.00 1,776,330.00 24,489,616.04 19,899,756.39 44,389,372.43 Mar 1,2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 3 BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 Dated Date 04/04/2007 Delivery Date 04/04/2007 First Coupon 10/01/2007 Last Maturity 04/01/2032 Arbitrage Yield 4.285438% True Interest Cost(TIC) 4.324205% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 4.330395% All-In TIC 4.424742% Average Coupon 4.283835% Average Life(years) 15.034 Duration of Issue(years) 10.691 Par Amount 27,000,000.00 Bond Proceeds 27,000,000.00 Total Interest 17,389,372.43 Net Interest 17,578,372.43 Total Debt Service 44,389,372.43 Maximum Annual Debt Service 1,780,358.00 Average Annual Debt Service 1,776,166.95 Par Average Average PV of 1 by Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life change Serial Bonds 27,000,000.00 100.000 4.284% 15.034 28,236.60 27,000,000.00 15.034 28,236.60 All-In Arbitrage TIC TIC Yield Par Value 27,000,000.00 27,000,000.00 27,000,000.00 +Accrued Interest +Premium(Discount) -Underwriter's Discount -189,000.00 -189,000.00 -Cost of Issuance Expense -200,000.00 -Other Amounts -79,900.87 -79,900.87 Target Value 26,811,000.00 26,531,099.13 26,920,099.13 Target Date 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 Yield 4.324205% 4.424742% 4.285438% Mar 1,2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 4 BOND PRICING Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 Maturity Bond Component Date Amount Rate Yield Price Serial Bonds: 04/01/2008 655,000 3.540% 3.540% 100.000 04/01/2009 685,000 3.550% 3.550% 100.000 04/01/2010 705,000 3.560% 3.560% 100.000 04/01/2011 735,000 3.570% 3.570% 100.000 04/01/2012 760,000 3.610% 3.610% 100.000 04/01/2013 790,000 3.630% 3.630% 100.000 04/01/2014 815,000 3.660% 3.660% 100.000 04/01/2015 845,000 3.710% 3.710% 100.000 04/01/2016 880,000 3.750% 3.750% 100.000 04/01/2017 910,000 3.790% 3.790% 100.000 04/01/2018 945,000 3.920% 3.920% 100.000 04/01/2019 980,000 4.020% 4.020% 100.000 04/01/2020 1,025,000 4.110% 4.110% 100.000 04/01/2021 1,060,000 4.180% 4.180% 100.000 04/01/2022 1,105,000 4.230% 4.230% 100.000 04/01/2023 1,150,000 4.270% 4.270% 100.000 04/01/2024 1,205,000 4.310% 4.310% 100.000 04/01/2025 1,260,000 4.340% 4.340% 100.000 04/01/2026 1,310,000 4.370% 4.370% 100.000 04/01/2027 1,370,000 4.400% 4.400% 100.000 04/01/2028 1,430,000 4.410% 4.410% 100.000 04/01/2029 1,495,000 4.440% 4.440% 100.000 04/01/2030 1,560,000 4.460% 4.460% 100.000 04/01/2031 1,625,000 4.480% 4.480% 100.000 04/01/2032 1,700,000 4.490% 4.490% 100.000 27,000,000 Dated Date 04/04/2007 Delivery Date 04/04/2007 First Coupon 10/01/2007 Par Amount 27,000,000.00 Original Issue Discount Production 27,000,000.00 100.000000% Underwriter's Discount -189,000.00 -0.700000% Purchase Price 26,811,000.00 99.300000% Accrued Interest Net Proceeds 26,811,000.00 Mar 1,2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 5 SEB. 23. 2007 10 ; 36AM NQ 2086 F. 3 Y_C Ir NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Burlingame (the"City") will conduct a public hearing (the "Public Hearing") at its regular meeting on MondaV, March 5,2007 at 7:00 p-m.,or as soon there- after as the matters may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Council, City Hall,501 Primrose Lane,Burlingamo,Califor- nia. Pursuant to Section 6586.5 of the Callfor- nia Government Code (the"Code"),the pur- pose of the hearing Is to consider: (i)appro- val of the Issuance by the Burlingame Fi- nancing Authority(the"Authority") of its Wa- ter and Wastewater Revenue Bonds Series 2007 (the 'Bonds") in an amount not to ex- uaed$26,000,000 for the purpose of finano- Ing(1)City-wide water system improvements including replacement of water distributlon/ transmission mains,valves,pumpstatlon Im- provements, storage tanks and reservoirs, SCADA Improvements,water quality studies, chloramination conversion plan and related improvements, and (2) City-wide sewer sys- tem Improvements inciudinq studies, design and construction of reolacement/rehabilita- tlon of sewer pipelines,manholes,cleanouts, laterals,and pumpstation improvements and SCADA improvements,and(il)whether there are any significant public benefits to the City, such as savings In effective Interest rates,as a result of assistance from the Authority. Interested persons wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of the Bonds,the use of the prooeeds, and whether there are anv significant public benefits to the City from the Issuance and sale of the Bonds, may be present and be heard at the Public Hearing, or may submit written comments and questions not later than 4.00 p.m.on the business day preceding the Public Hearing to the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Lane,Burlingame,California 940103997. Due to time constraints and the number of persons wishing to give oral testimony, time restrictions may be placed on oral testi- monv at the Public Hearing regarding this proposal. You may wish to make your com- ments In writing to assure that you are able to express yourself adequately. Date:2007 CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME San Mateo County Times,#751373 February 28,2007 CITY AGENDA 8a. ITEM# BURLINGAME MTG. STAFF REPORT DATE 3/5/2007 A TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: February 28, 2007 APPR BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION SUPPORTING EXPANSION OF AND SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS TO TRANSIT SERVICE ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY PENINSULA RECOMMENDATION Consider resolution requesting Caltrain to consider alternative schedules and to complete the safety improvements to the rail line as soon as possible. DISCUSSION Train service to and from Burlingame has been severely reduced in the past three years. An ad hoc group of elected officials and citizens has been working to develop ideas to present to Caltrain and SamTrans that would restore some of the lost service and improve the interconnections to other transit assets. The attached resolution has been proposed by the ad hoc group to set out these concerns. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING EXPANSION OF AND SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS TO TRANSIT SERVICE ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY PENINSULA RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, Caltrain service in San Mateo County has been reduced by more than twenty percent since the year 2000, in contrast to the approximate thirteen percent reduction in Santa Clara County and the two percent increase in the City& County of San Francisco; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame contributes approximately$1.2 million annually to Caltrain from Measure A funds which would otherwise be allocable to the City of Burlingame for street repairs, shuttles, and many other transportation needs; and WHEREAS, transit service receives fifty percent of the funds collected under Measure A, which represents a contribution from the cities in San Mateo County and the County of San Mateo or approximately$25 million annually from funds which would otherwise be available to localities; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has lost 63 weekday Caltrain stops since the year 2000; and WHEREAS, the reduction in Caltrain service at many stations has made it more difficult for many riders to use Caltrain and reduced that attractiveness of the City for commuters, employers, employees, and businesses; and WHEREAS, the substantial reduction of Caltrain service has had a significant negative economic impact upon properties near Caltrain stations,particularly merchants who have lost daily customers who now choose to use their cars to get to work or to distant transit hubs; and WHEREAS, increased, reliable, and timely Caltrain service is necessary to support, attract, and encourage transit-oriented development; and WHEREAS, the growing senior population of San Mateo County will necessitate further dependence upon mass transit; and WHEREAS, additional connections to Caltrain by shuttles and SamTrans buses are needed to encourage transit ridership; and WHEREAS, safety along the rail corridor is a growing concern; and 1 f WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame wishes to encourage greater availability and use of mass transit to address the climate change crisis and to facilitate the needs of its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City of Burlingame urges Caltrain to retain an outside scheduling consultant to develop and evaluate alternative train schedules that would provide a better balance between local service, limited service, and express train service within the County, in order to meet the needs of more passengers. 2. In order to better serve local needs,the cities be provided the opportunity to review and comment on the alternative schedules so developed. 3. Caltrain complete with all due diligence the safety improvements planned within the County. 4. Caltrain, SamTrans, and the cities work together to develop and evaluate additional and improved means of connectivity between transit services. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: City Clerk 2 Comparison of Weekday Caltrain Service between Nov., 2000 & February, 2007 Total Weekday Stops Station Nov. 2000 Feb. 2007 Difference % Chanq2 4th & King 78 96 18 23% 22nd Street 64 56 -8 -13% Paul Avenue 7 0 -7 -100% San Francisco County 149 152 3 2% Bayshore 64 38 -26 -41% South San Francisco 65 44 -21 -32% San Bruno 67 60 -7 -10% Millbrae 65 88 23 35% Broadway, Burlingame 62 0 -62 -100% Burlingame 63 62 -1 -2% San Mateo 70 74 4 6% Hayward Park 66 38 -28 -42% Hillsdale 71 78 7 10% Belmont 68 52 -16 -24% San Carlos 71 68 -3 -4% Redwood City 72 78 6 8% Atherton 63 0 -63 -100% Menlo Park 76 70 -6 -8% San Mareo County 943 750 -193 -20% Palo Alto 78 84 6 8% California Avenue 75 58 -17 -23% San Antonio 74 52 -22 -30% Mountain View 78 84 6 8% Sunnyvale 78 62 -16 -21% Lawrence 77 60 -17 -22% Santa Clara 78 64 -14 -18% College Park 15 4 -11 -73% San Jose - Diridon 78 96 18 23% Tamien 68 48 -20 -29% Capitol 8 6 -2 -25% Blossom Hill 8 6 -2 -25% Morgan Hill 8 6 -2 -25% San Martin 8 6 -2 -25% Gilroy 8 6 -2 -25% Santa Clara County 739 642 -97 -13% Grand Total 1831 1544 -287 -16% Number of Trains 78 96 18 23% San Francisco County 152/149 2% San Mateo County 750/943 -20.50% Santa Clara County 642/739 -13.10% Measure "A"Allocations and Totals Local Entity FY 2004-2005 Cumulative Local Total '04205 Tax Caltrain Alloc. Caltrain Cumulative Atherton $ 219,108.00 $ 3,007,752.00 $ 1,095,540.00 $ 547,770.00 $ 7,519,380.00 Belmomt $ 411,149.00 $ 5,698,503.00 $ 2,055,745.00 $ 1,027,872.50 $ 14,246,257.50 Brisbane $ 88,436.00 $ 1,211,217.00 $ 442,180.00 $ 221,090.00 $ 3,028,042.50 Burlingame $ 488,152.00 $ 6,633,368.00 $ 2,440,760.00 $ 1,220,380.00 $ 16,583,420.00 Colma $ 35,468.00 $ 462,141.00 $ 177,340.00 $ 88,670.00, $ 1,155,352.50 Daly City $ 1,209,996.00 $ 16,207,856.00 $ 6,049,980.00 $ 3;024;990.00 $ 40,519,640.00 East Palo Alto $ 381,164.00 $ 4,583,064.00 $ 1,905,820.00 $ 952;910.00 $ 11,457,660.00 Foster City $ 389,915.00 $ 5,331,900.00 $ 1,949,575.00 $ 974,787.50 $ 13,329,750.00 Half Moon Ba $ 185,973.00 $ 2,336,075.00 $ 929,865.00 $ 464,932.50 $ 5,840,187.50 Hillsborough $ 352,463.00 $ 4,779,538.00 $ 1,762,315.00 $ 881,157.50 $ 11,948,845.00 Menlo Park $ 562,471.00 $ 7,329,991.00 $ 2,812,355.00 $ 1,406,177,50 $ 18,324,977.50 Millbrae $ 340,679.00 $ 4,691,670.00 $ 1,703,395.00 $ 851,697.50 $ 11,729,175.00 Pacifica $ 606,106.00 $ 8,280,762.00 $ 3,030,530.00 $ 1,515,265.00 $ 20,701,905.00 Portola Valley $ 172,906.00 $ 2,117,973.00 $ 864,530.00 $ 432,265.00 $ 5,294,932.50 Redwood City $ 1,117,359.00 $ 15,118,495.00 $ 5,586,795.00 $ 2,793,397.50 $ 37,796,237.50 San Bruno $ 590,472.00 $ 8,088,019.00 $ 2,952,360.00 $ 1,476,180.00 $ 20,220,047.50 San Carlos $ 497,252.00 $ 6,724,097.00 $ 2,486,260.00 $ 1,243,130.00 $ 16,810,242.50 San Mateo $ 1,389,670.00 $ 18,592,453.00 $ 6,948,350.00 $ 3,474,175.00 $ 46,481,132.50 South San Francisco $ 889,267.00 $ 11,869,382.00 $ 4,446,335.00 $ 2,223,167.50 $ 29,673,455.00 Woodside $ 205,574.00 $ 2,574,656.00 $ 1,027,870.00 $ 513,935.00 $ 6,436,640.00 Co. of San Mateo $ 1,533,525.00 $ 20,792,793.00 $ 7,667,625.00 $ 3,833,812.50 $ 51,981,982.50 Total $ 11,667,166.00 $ 156,431,714.00 $ 58,335,525.00 $ 29,167,762.50 $ 391,079,262.50 The highlighted column represents each city's 2004-2005 allocation of sales tax revenues to Caltrain, two and a half times more than its share of local sales tax revenues that can be used for local road and street repairs. CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b MTG. tirDq ORATED JUNE 6 9D0 DATE March 5,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: February 27,2007 APPROVED FROM: Ana Silva By Tel.No.: 558-7204 SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill two impending vacancies on the Planning Commission. The recommended due date is March 21, 2007. This will allow enough time for interviews and an orientation for Commission members. BACKGROUND: Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. The current commissioners will be invited to reapply if they wish to serve again. In addition, all past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancies. The following Commission Members' terms will expire as detailed below: Commissioner Term Expiration Terms Served Michael Brownrigg April 7, 2007 2 Jerry Deal April 7, 2007 1* *Previously served on Planning Commission from 1990 through 2001. Civic Engagement—March 5, 2007 What is it? • Also called citizen engagement • Involvement in community, input into local government Why do we want it? • Good to have more representation in government from democratic standpoint • Leverage community talents and resources to better serve community needs • Better understanding leads to: o More informed decisions by voters o Greater satisfaction with community o More businesses and people will want to live and work here (better economy) • It's fun and beneficial to feel connected to a community. Studies show people who get involved in their communities are healthier, their children do better in school and the crime rate in their cities is lower Subcommittee started by listing opportunities for civic engagement • 3 strategic areas: personal involvement, mass education and communications vehicles, community building • List examples from notes We've already done some things • Two public comment opportunities at council meetings • More Town Hall Meetings • Redesigned Web site—ongoing project; need more help • City e-newsletter • Citizens Academy—when? • Burlingame Pet Parade • Councilwoman Keighran's downtown clean-up effort • Kiosk at block parties • Financial planning seminars for high school and college students • Upcoming Centennial events • Economic development part-time person Some things we would like to do but can't afford • City PIO • Streaming video of council meetings on the Web, better audio • CRM software to manage inquiries coming in to City; better tracking (maybe afford?) Our major conclusion was that we can't do everything, so would like to recommend three projects as a starting point: • Print newsletter in addition to e-newsletter (through water bills and Rec Dept. brochure) • Neighborhood Network concept for emergency planning and to encourage block parties • Town Hall Meeting to discuss community issue task forces o Can make city buildings available at no charge or low cost o You can teach a rec class o You can pursue your dream for Burlingame o With council buy-in, some advice from staff will be available Citizen Engagement Council Subcommittee Meeting Goal: Citizen satisfaction Objectives: 1. Leverage community talents and resources to better serve community needs 2. Help community members understand the City is a place where their participation is valued and a wide range of ideas are considered 3. Help educate the community more completely on complex issues (e.g., aging infrastructure) 4. Help people feel committed and connected to their community Outcomes 1. Community satisfaction will be higher, as measured by surveys. 2. City will respond more efficiently and effectively to the public by reducing staff duplication of efforts. 3. More businesses and people will want to move and live here. 4. We will have citizen ambassadors who understand city issues and help educate the community. Strategic Areas 1. Personal Involvement a. Citizens b. Town Hall meetings c. Community Issue Task Forces (Council initiated or community initiated with Council concurrence) i. Economic enhancement opportunities ii. Video/film development iii. Neighbor Network to enhance emergency response iv. Going Green 2. Mass Education/Communications a. Web site and e-newsletters b. Cable access c. Short videos/films on city services or issues i. Day in the life of a street sweeper ii. Traffic Calming and my neighborhood's options iii. Preparing our neighbor for emergencies d. Inserts in water bills and Recreation Department brochure e. Surveys i. Possibly survey to see how many watch Council meetings. f. Kiosk g. Robo calling h. Local low-frequency radio channels i. Mailings j. Print version of city e-newsletter i. Include status on projects and city initiatives ii. Share major Council decisions iii. Staff would provide content; volunteers may design and coordinate the publishing. 3. Community Building a. Citizens Academy b. Community Barbecue c. Children's art show d. Centennial events e. Forums for sharing expertise with the community i. Publicize opportunity to offer recreation activities ii. Publicize procedure to reserve the Lane Room and other rooms for meetings. f. Block parties 4. Using Council to recruit and involve others a. Ann's downtown clean-up effort Page 1 of 1 CLK-Mortensen, Doris From: MGR-Nantell, Jim Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:47 PM To: GRP-Council Cc: GRP-Department Head Subject: Civic Engagement Attachments: Citizen engagement 2-20-07—notes edTN.doc Attached are some notes that Terry and Russ wanted to get to you for the Council discussion re: civic engagement at you meeting Monday night. 3/2/2007 February 19,2007 HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Please Schedule an appeal hearing for 2022 Trousdale Drive to be,:heard at the March 19, 2007 Council meeting. City Clerk City of Burlingame Parks&Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame,California 94010 Re:2022 Trousdale Drive -Trees To whom this may concern: We are appealing the Commissions decision to the City Council. I am enclosing the required$250.00 check. Sincerely, Walter&Evelyn Reed BURLiN6 ME Board of Trustees Minutes January 16,2007 I. Call to Order President Toft called the meeting to order at 5:30pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Bruce Carlton,Deborah Griffith, Katie McCormack, Pat Toft Trustee Absent: Nancy Brock Staff Present: Al Escoffier,City Librarian Sidney Poland;Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously approved the Warrants. M/S/C (McCormack/Carlton) IV. Minutes The Trustees approved as written the minutes of the November 28, 2006 meeting. M/S/C (Carlton/McCormack) V. Correspondence and Attachments The Trustees reviewed the correspondence. The City Librarian noted that the Easton tree now known as"Tom the Tree" is on the City Council agenda for this evening January 16,2007. VI. From the Floor-No one from the public attended. VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report-Highlights of Report 1. "The Big Read" The opening event for the"The Big Read"project will be hosted by the Library on April 3rd in the Lane Community Room. Drama students from the San Mateo High School and Hillbarn Theatre will give readings from"To Kill a Mockingbird". San Mateo students will also perform the stage play of"To Kill a Mockingbird"the first weekend in May at the Performing Arts Center. 2. Children's Services Story time is now being held 7 times a week. January is poetry month and school age children will be encouraged to participate by writing a poem and having it posted in the children's room if they wish. 480 Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 94010-4083 Phone(650)558-7474'Fax(650)342-6295•www.burlingame.org/library t B. Library Foundation 1. New Members/Old Members/Advisory Board Cecile Coar, 'Jim Ensign, and Mary-Helen McMahon were elected to the Foundation Board on January 11th. Long time board members, Jane Dunbar, Debbie Grewal and Lauren Rosen left the board due to term limits and have joined the. Advisory Board. Chip Coleman and Jim Nagel have also joined the Advisory Board. 2. City Librarian's "Wish List" The City Librarian submitted a 2007 "Wish List" to the Foundation with the suggestion that the Finance Committee review each item on the list in relation to their budget and then bring its conclusions to the full board at the February meeting. 3. Fund Raising Event Lisa Rosenthal and her committee are working on the first ever Foundation Author's Luncheon. They are presently waiting to hear if Jackie Speier will accept their invitation to be the featured author before a definite date can be set. C. Centennial Committee The Centennial Executive Committee will meet Friday January 26th, 3:00pm at the Recreation Center. The Events Calendar is published in the Recreation Bulletin. VIII. Unfinished Business - None IX. New Business - Budget Issues for 2007/2008 A. Unfunded Library Items The Trustees discussed-the items in the monetary range of$ 50,000 and under, $ 50,000-$ 100,000 and over $ 100,000. These items were determined by the Library management team. Trustee McCormack supported the increase in the Media Budget in the approximate amount of$20,000; Trustee Toft felt the installation of glass doors in the Reference Room would provide for a quieter study area. Cost of this item is approximately $ 25,000. Individual study rooms, at an approximate cost of$25,000, were also an item of interest to the Trustees. B. 2006-2007-Library Goals The City Librarian prepared this report to update the Trustees on goals that have been achieved and the status of goals that will continue into 2007 such as "Implementing results of Library Catalog ability study to provide grater functionality for library users" and "Implementing acquisitions module of automated system". Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 January 16,2007 y C. Library Goals for 2007-2008 - The Trustees reviewed and discussed a draft of the 2007 and 2008 goals proposed by the City Librarian and the Library department managers. 1 . New Carpet The City Librarian noted that new carpet has been selected for the area outside the Circulation office as well as a rubber flooring tile for the back stairway. 2. Outreach Program The Trustees inquired into the possibility of increasing the scope and public awareness of this program. They feel it is a valuable community asset and want to see it grow as a project. D. Potential Reductions A 10% The City Librarian discussed with the Trustees areas of possible library reductions that he and the department managerv, had considered in the event the public works sewer measure: proposed for the June ballot does not pass. 10% of the Librazy's current budget would be a $ 355,000 reduction. X. Announcements .Budget study sessions will be held Saturday January 27th at the Recreation Center and Wednesday evening February 5th at 6:00pm in the Lane Community Room. The City Librarian will sent meeting agendas to the Trustees. XL Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm. M/S/C (Griffith/Carlton) . The next meeting will be held February 16, 2007 at 5:30pm in the Library Conference room. Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 January 16, 2007 City Librarian's Report February 5, 2007 Poetry Month a Success! The Foundation-sponsored annual Children's Poetry Month reached over 350 school age children throughout both cities.The culminating event was the Sunday Poetry Reading on January 29th with over 40 children reading their poems. Participants received a poetry paperback book of their choice. Poetry is alive and well in Burlingame! THE BIG READ: To Kill a Mockingbird We are moving quickly with the BIG READ project for April 2007. Since we last reported on the event,we have received a$20,000 grant from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation,increasing our ability to program for the project and do adequate public relations.There are over 20 programs planned throughout the month. Among the highlights for Burlingame Library are: • Opening Reception at Burlingame featuring readings from the book by Brad Friedman,Charles Robinson Shaw,and live 30's music, April 3 • "To Kill a Mockingbird"film with Gregory Peck,April 7 • "Remember the Titans"film for teens,April 13 THE BIG READ events culminate with the"To Kill a Mockingbird"drama by the students of San Mateo High School the weekend of May 4th.A full calendar of events will be available by mid-March. One Book, One Community:Allende&Krasny We are fortunate to be underway with this reading initiative as well.We will feature Isabel Allende in conversation with Michael Krasny(KQED- Radio) at the San Mateo Performing Arts Center,October 11,2007. Over sixty auxiliary programs are planned throughout the county in preparation for this final event. Events will focus on the immigrant experience in California,the Gold Rush,Chilean history and culture, Chilean food, and many other events.Maryam will be doing the graphic work for this county-wide program. Centennial Events By now the Foundation Board is aware of the many Centennial events planned. The highlights are in the latest issue of the Recreation Department's brochure sent to all homes in Burlingame. The first event will be the parade in June. In addition, I have been assisting with the Burlingame History book which will be published by the Burlingame Historical Society by authors, Joanne Garrison and Jean Silveira. We are also working directly with the Burlingame Historical Society to mount an exhibit of old Burlingame photos to be exhibited and available for sale in the June/July timeframe. Easton Branch Library Tree The removal of the Easton Tree is on hold at least until May 2007, at which time city staff will advise City Council on the pros and cons of the tree removal. Should the tree be removed, both the Trustees and the Foundation have expressed interest in planting the most mature tree possible for the site. City Budget Work The City budget work begins in earnest this month. Department head and mid-managers will be working on the allocation of funds. We have many goals this year to accomplish, along with our marketing initiatives, so it should be a busy year! Foundation Budget Wishlist I met with the Foundation Finance Committee regarding the wishlist for the calendar year 2007. After some reflection on the needs of the library and the funding goals, it was decided to present the wishlist as submitted to the full Board for review and approval on February 8th. Foundation Events Jackie Speier has agreed to be our speaker for the first annual Foundation Fundraising Luncheon. The event will be held on Saturday, May 5th, at a local venue. The committee has met several times and things are moving along with the planning. Upcoming Events: • Foundation Board Meeting, Thursday, February 8th, 5:30 PM • Innovative Interfaces Conference (Al), Berkeley, February 12 & 13 • President's Day Holiday, Monday, February 19, Closed • Library Board Meeting, Tuesday, February 20th, 5:30 PM • Foundation Book Sale, April 27, 28, 29 • Foundation Author's Luncheon, May 5, 2007, Noon Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian February 5, 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 26, 2007 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the February 26, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Terrones Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 12, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended page 1, Note correction of From the Floor comments at the February 12,2007,meeting minutes to include in comments on 2209 Hillside that speaker was upset that the existing house on this lot was demolished without a permit. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, three comments, noticed recently new houses are not replacing all the concrete in the driveway apron and sidewalk, looks bad and false saving; study item looks more like new construction, should be considered so by the county assessor; and handed in a letter for Mrs. Terry Huebner regarding the hospital replacement project. CP Monroe acknowledged three desk items: current edition(February 2007) of the New Hospital Project News newsletter;letter from Mrs.Huebner dated February 26, 2007, regarding the Peninsula Hospital project re: scheduling the Mitigation Monitoring Panel meetings and asking what the intended role of that panel is; and a letter from Sigrid and Hans Geiger, 1237 Cabrillo Avenue,regarding flooding in their area which staff referred to Public Works, response attached. Chair Brownrigg asked all the commissioners if they had visited all the sites for proj ects on tonight's agenda.All commissioners noted that they had made site visits. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 945 PALOMA AVENUE,ZONED R-2-APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY DUPLEX WITH A DETACHED GARAGE AND CARPORT(STEVE JOHNSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROEJCT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted a business relationship with the applicant and recused himself from this action. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked for clarification if this was now considered to be new construction, if the original plans submitted showed the same first floor demolition City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 plan, and if the minor modification previously granted still applied. Staff responded that as shown on the plans being considered tonight, the project would be considered new construction by both the building and planning departments, staff will check to see if the plans originally submitted to the building department, before the stop work order showed the same extensive first floor demolition. SP pointed out that this was a duplex project in an R-2 zone so is not subject to design review. The minor modification was for the location of the garage. The variance now requested is because the existing front porch,which extended into the front setback and was intended to be retained(nonconforming), was demolished. Commissioners asked: was the original foundation for the porch and house retained and intended to be reused; when does a minor modification granted on a property become void; was a penalty fee levied for removal of the porch without a demolition permit; when is work considered new construction both in the Building Department and in the Planning Department. C. Auran moved to bring this item back on the consent calendar as new construction with a front setback variance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: would like to know if page 2 showing major demolition or the porch was reviewed by the city and approved as a part of the original building permit; appears that after getting a building permit they took down whatever they wanted,after they said they were not going to change some items,not a good message. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to bring this variance back on the consent calendar once the questions have been answered,he noted that it could be called off for further review if it appeared -� necessary. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal recused; C. Terrones absent)voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 7:25 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no items on the consent calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1136 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(SARAH & BENJAMIN CHEYETTE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TIM HALEY, TSH INTERNATIONAL, ARCHITECT) (59 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report February 26, 2007, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted a desk --� item on this project from C. Terrones, submitted because he supported moving this FYI to action at the last meeting. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. He noted the comments on this project submitted by C. Terrones. Sarah Cheyette,property owner,represented the project. She noted that she was not aware that the front porch had not been built per plans,will promise to correct that; agreed to retaining half timbers at time of design review because thought were not redoing all the stucco,but house has no other Tudor detail, these were added on at time of construction,now that redoing all the stucco want to improve the appearance by removing them so that they would not mix styles, add shutters. Commissioners noted that as drawn the front porch should come further forward toward the street,the increased depth provides better design;metal vent rather than wood, metal mixes material and adds a modern element which is not consistent with the design, should be removed, easy to do this with stucco mold; originally it would have been easy to project out porch roof 18 inches, not so easy to do now; will the timbers over the front door and garage door be added; appears that the detail which added the architectural character to this project which had a number of exceptions to the code, have been removed, boards at the highest gable end should be installed at second story, shutters should be installed, side elevation shows porch extended one foot or so, should do that; window over the front door should be changed, its proportion does not work, plan show 3 x 3 panel, symmetry of the window over the front door should match the narrower window that shown on the plans, present window is inconsistent; gable to right on the front is one plane, lost shadow line, builder made a mistake, fixing that would add a lot of interest to the front of the house. Applicant noted that the neighbors are not concerned about the changes,feel that the new is a lot better,with more articulation than the original, problem with the window over the front door occurred when decided to keep the bathroom on the second floor rather than install the two story entry which was in the original plans,needed to raise the window so it would not extend through the floor. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: remember the discussion of this item,now not happy with any of the aesthetics,OK if take the Tudor off the upper gable, important that the vents be returned to the original tall narrow shape and wood material,both on the house and over the garage door;it would help to add shutters at the windows, put the porch forward some, it should project forward from the gable, if it was originally approved by the Commission as it is now built would not ask for that change; wise to come back with both originally approved drawings and as built drawings, so have better information. CA noted that this application is not ready for action because the drawings are not accurate, recommend Commission be specific about the changes they wish. Commissioner noted that items listed earlier should be included: • Reinstall vents with stucco mold and wood, same tall narrow shape approved,on house and garage; • Add shutters at windows; • Put porch forward some so that it projects forward from plane of the house; • Add fascia beams at front door and at garage,if not half timber then what would architect suggest for detailing; and • Change the bathroom window so that it proportionately reflects the original design. C. Osterling made a motion to continue this item until new drawings have been prepared which reflect what is there and what the applicant wants should include list noted;the previously approved plans should also be included in the submittal. Motion seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: if install shutters should have ones that are sized to cover the windows, C. noted that,because they are not so heavy(large),in this case decorative shutters maybe all right;more information is needed about the situation with the front porch,how was it shown originally,how was it built,how can the window be adjusted(so it is not jammed under the eaves) to make the front work. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue with directed corrections. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent)voice vote. There is no appeal to this action. The item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 3. 2209 HILLSIDE DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MILLER DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Osterling recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report February 27, 2007, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg noted for the record the concerns provided by C.Terrones,particularly the change to the gutters. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, spoke for the project. He noted the reasons for some of the changes, regarding the gutters he felt that painted white they do better visually than the unpainted copper would because they broaden the eave. Commissioner asked what kind of rail was proposed for the front stairs? Architect noted that because there were four(4) stairs would need a rail had not considered design. Commission suggested that grade be changed so only need three steps and no railing or a small unobtrusive metal railing off to the side. -� Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,concerned with this project because of the way they handled demolition without a permit;when submitted FYI they were requesting amendment before work was done,not wait FYI review but built items,why did they not wait to build? Noted for the record at the previous meeting on this item commented that was pleased with plan but also that was unhappy that the demolition did not have a permit. Minutes did not reflect that was unhappy with the demolition. Chair noted that the minutes for the February 12,2007,meeting From the Floor item should be amended to reflect that she was unhappy that the demolition took place on this site without a permit. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C.Deal made a motion to approve this project,noting that the painted gutters are appropriate to the proposed design, the downspouts although moved to the front are typical of the design, whether the columns are square or round it up to the architect, a required handrail should be added but should not be heavy or obtrusive to the front fagade and should not project from the columns,understand the problem on on-going work,application for FYI was made a month ago,difficult to wait but if do undertake construction applicant takes the risk the Commission may require removal,by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 1,2006,sheets A-1 through A-5,and L-1,and date stamped January 31,2007,sheets A-1 through A- 4, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit,and that any required porch railing at the front of the building shall not be visually prominent,shall be the minimum required,and shall not proj ect at the front of the entry columns; —� 2) that the property owner shall pay to the city within in 5 working days of the Planning Commission's action on this application$7,500.00 for the New Construction Waste Plan and a$5,408.25 deposit to remove the existing structures, failure to meet this deadline shall cause the Planning action on this project to be 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 voided; 3) that before the issuance of a building permit,but after approval of the construction plans by the Building Division, the property owner shall pay $388.00 to the Building Division, this fee includes the penalty for doing demolition without a permit, failure to pay the demolition permit fee and penalty shall cause the planning action on this proj ect to be voided; 4) that before the issuance of the building permit,the Chief Building Official shall determine that all materials,but particularly potentially hazardous materials, were appropriately removed from this site and appropriately deposited, and if they were not appropriately removed or deposited the Chief Building Official shall require appropriate remediation and notification of all state and local agencies responsible for regulation;notification shall include notice of both the violation and the correction, failure to comply with any required remediation shall cause the planning action on this project to be voided and it shall be disclosed to all future owners of the property that remediation did not occur and must be corrected before any future development or use can occur on the site; 5) that until building plans have been approved and a building permit issued , all NPDES remediations present on this site shall be shall be maintained as required by the City's inspector,and should construction on this site not occur within five(5)months of the Planning Commission's action on this project,the property owner shall create a grassy swale with domestic grass on the site to control runoff and provide appropriate irrigation and regular maintenance to establish the grass cover, this swale shall be retained until the site is developed, failure to install and maintain the grassy swale shall result in voiding the planning action on this project and the property owner shall pay a penalty equal to the cost of installation and maintenance until the property is sold and developed, the amount of the penalty shall be determined by the Public Works Department and shall be posted as a bond; 6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subj ect to Planning Commission review; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 9) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10) that all air ducts,plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, and NPDES Coordinator's March 3,2006 memo shall be met; 12) that the proj ect shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; 13) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 14) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: this four-square design can have a massive appearance and the rounded columns take some of that weight off, on the approved plans the gutters were to run down the sides of the building 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 leaving the front clean,they should be relocated and avoid the problem on the front of the structure of being painted to match the wall. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added condition that the railing on the stairs shall be designed to be and installed as unobtrusively as possible. The motion passed on a 5-0- 1-1 (C. Osterling abstaining,C.Terrones absent).Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. C. Osterling returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 4. 701 VERNON WAY,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFFREY BASHAW,PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Cauchi recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report February 26, 2007, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten(10)conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the project. He -� noted briefly the changes to the project,when he saw the changes he brought them to the city. Noted that the shutters were removed because they fell apart when taking them down. Garage door changed but still has the carriage look. French doors were proposed for the rear of the garage,but applicant thought they would only see the things stored inside from the back yard, so want to remove. Commission noted concern about the removal of the shutters, not think in this case the change in the number of grids in windows justifies Commission review. Architect noted willing to put the shutters back on. Comments from the public: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Concern is about the FYI process, saw changes and submit letter requesting FYI,but now completed in the field. Chair Brownrigg noted that work done that is not on the plans is done at the developers'risk,will have to change if the Commission directs it. Resident noted that this should be a learning experience, should come before change and make change after approved, maybe the FYI process is too long. CP noted that FYI process timing depends when submit relative to next Commission meeting, but generally get right on the agenda, process is longer when Commission calls item off to action calendar. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, amending the conditions to require that the shutters shown on the original approval be installed and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 25,2006, sheets A-1 through A-3 and date stamped January 31,2007, sheets A-4 through A-6, and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit, that the French doors at the rear of the garage shall be removed and that the shutters included in the original approval shall be installed on the house before scheduling the final inspection; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subj ect to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4) 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; 5) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's October 31, 2005, memos, the Fire Marshal's October 28, 2005, memo and the NPDES Coordinator's October 27, 2006, memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame;and 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions for the removal of the French doors in the garage and the addition of the shutters as shown on the original plans.The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Cauchi abstaining,C.Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 5. 1625 HOWARD AVENUE,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SECOND STORY ADDITION(TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAN AND EILEEN CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report February 22, 2007, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange,TRG Architects,represented the project. Noted that the only change to the original design was to put a balcony and French doors on the rear at the second floor in order to enable homeowner to move furniture into the second floor interior stair too difficult. Commissioners noted that the chimney is very tall;architect noted that it was existing and is now braced for seismic stability. Comments from the public: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. This is the way it should work,homeowner came in before the change was built. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 C. Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 1,2007 sheets A-1.0,A-2 and A-3,date stamped March 14,2006,sheets A-0 through A-6,and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal,Recycling Specialist, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 14,2006 memos shall be met; 3) that if the structure is demolished or if the building envelope is ever changed at a later date,the parking variances shall become void and the side setback requirements in effect at the time of demolition or additional remodel also shall be met; 4) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6) that prior to scheduling the 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type, etc.)to verify that the project -� has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 9) 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; 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11) that the proj ect shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 12) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:17 p.m. 6. 117 CHANNING ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE(JOHN KLOPF,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;GERALD AND NORMA COOK PROPERTY OWNERS) (73 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report 2/12/07, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Klopf, 3012 Sixteenth Street, San Francisco, project architect,represented the project and noted that the design review consultant was very helpful and suggested changes have been included, Planning Commission had originally suggested planting along fence line on 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 driveway side,neighbor indicated that would not like landscaping next to the fence because it will block sun to his property, landscaping was added next to the house instead, although the Commission had suggested using some of the excess driveway width for the addition, this was left as is because the owner needs the width to provide access for his wheelchair. Commissioner comments: Note that the landscape plans call for Italian Cypress along the driveway,this can be messy,encourage that you look at another species,calling out 24"box non-fruit species,would like to see the species identified,can select from the Planning Department's tree list;appreciate went through the design review process,but there are still some issues unresolved,wanted the front porch reoriented to the front,but chose to put garbage cans at the front instead,looks like a trash enclosure,still think porch could be widened without encroaching into the driveway, this would create a wider landing at the door, steps could be added toward the front; think the 3-foot diameter vents shown on the facades are inappropriate, should match the character of the neighborhood, did not see this feature anywhere. Commissioner comment continued: the rear is still a big stucco wall, aware of budget problem but should address,on the driveway side,it appears that gutter continues along the second floor edge,seems over long; special permit for declining height envelope is generally granted for architectural character, such as on a Colonial or Tudor style house where a straight wall is appropriate, in this case, cannot see the reason for exception,just want to bring the wall straight up; agree that the round vents are inappropriate, also should call out the material, prefer wood; the piece of roof which extends on the right side of the cantilevered section should be eliminated. Applicant comment: happy to change gable vent and add materials, regarding the trash location, that is where it is now,the garbage company rolls the cans from that location because of the owner's disability,can work on front porch,but will have to relocate sprinkler controls and cans; note that the conditions specify that all new windows shall be wood, propose to use vinyl,please clarify. Further Commission comment: do not know why the trash cans cannot go to the rear, for disabled accessibility the garbage company is required to offer that service,would like to see front porch addressed, will add a lot to the entry without a lot of expense,widen the porch to the current stairs and extend the porch to the end of where the steps are now, new steps to porch can come from street; might want to consider adding clerestory windows to the master bath at the rear,would help the bathroom with light and air and add visual interest at the back; discourage vinyl windows because of their looks,encourage wood or wood clad for looks and durability,do not require that existing windows be replaced,but insist that new windows shall be wood or wood clad, vinyl windows are not tried and true, do not know how well they will hold up over time;need to clarify that new materials will match existing,plan to use wood stucco mold like existing,and clarify that the existing exposed rafters are to remain, even though they are not shown on the plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to continue the item to the consent calendar when the following changes have been made and plan checked and there is room on the agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. • Enlarge landing and reorient front porch with stairs extending toward the front; • Add wood siding to gable ends; • Show species of trees to be planted on plans; • Replace Italian Cypress proposed with a different species; • Change round vents to a style more appropriate to the neighborhood, vents shall be made of wood; 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 • Address comments regarding the declining height envelope exception; • Remove trash enclosure from front of the house; • Remove piece of roof extending beyond cantilever on the driveway side; and • All new windows shall be wood or wood clad. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue with directed revisions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent). There is no appeal to this action. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 7. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT INVOLVING INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING TWO- STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR (JERRY WINGES,WINGES ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;MENDELL PARTNERS, PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 2/12/07, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven(11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges, 1290 Howard,project architect,was available for questions, and showed renderings of the approved fagade of the building and the proposed changes;wood above archway would be replaced with a plaster finish,the shape and size of the lighting has changed, and the proposed awnings above the windows are shown;planters were eliminated from front window,will use stone along the bottom to match the archway. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the changes are good, the awnings add depth and the new light fixtures are nice, also note that there will be a few operable windows that were not there before, this is an improvement. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 21, 2006,sheets A0.0,T-1,A0.1,A0.2,A1.0,A1.1,A2.0,and A3.0,date stamped September 26,2006,revised Lorton Avenue Elevation and Wall Section at Display Windows,and date stamped February 14,2007,sheets A2.0, A3.0 and A3.1; any changes to the colors or materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2) that the uses within the building shall be limited to 6,094 SF of retail on the first floor and 6,080 SF of office on the second floor; 3) that the security screen shall be of a design as shown in the brochures submitted by the applicant date stamped September 26, 2006, and shall be located in ceiling pockets behind the storefront window glass; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's July 5,2006 memos,and the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's July 10,2006,memos shall be met;5) 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; 6) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls,moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10) that the proj ect shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. 8. 50 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED RR— APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT INVOLVING INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING(MCA ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;HACOR, INC PROPERTY OWNER) 4 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report February 26, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jeff Wright, MCA Architects, 33 Northwest First Avenue Seattle,represented the project. Noted that these changes were made after it was discovered that the building was over budget, replaced metal cladding with stucco, tried to keep same color and scored stucco to have same pattern as metal, widened the joints to increase the shadow. Commissioners noted that parking lifts were added on the outside and feel that this is a value engineering effort, unfortunate you are proposing a big, big building with a lot of stucco, nice colors may reduce mass, but colors change over time, it is important to the city to establish quality in this area,have held a number of new buildings or remodels to this higher standard, you could reduce the amount of metal siding not take it all off. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: will look about the same as shown on the boards,will lose the brick piece which provides the building with distinction,important to establish precedent of quality buildings in Rollins Road area; pleased no change in color, look what approved on Primrose recently seems to follow the same contemporary style; this is more contemporary than plain stucco, better than what is there now; more sympathetic regarding cost, went over budget by adding stacked parking, which benefited the city by increasing on-site parking;proposal is a downgrade,if check record see that this applicant asked for a radical parking variance put stacked parking because without would not have project, now cutting money from building so the city suffers;not opposed to stucco on the main part of the building,could add a curved roof (air foil)over the new mezzanine and front fagade;could add signage to identify the entry more clearly;not sure signs would work,agree that this is a downgrade,have held other property owners to a higher standard, �.. know have added parking but should hold course here. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 Chair Brownrigg moved to place this item on the consent calendar with the guidance to the architect that the Commission is not satisfied with the loss of all elements which make this building special, review the comments,and allow him to come back with changes,if the changes are not significant enough the item can be called off the consent calendar,this business represents anew employer in the city and more jobs. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: want to see the project move ahead but it is important to maintain the quality of the design, all the metal should not be removed,could use less or use a less expensive metal. Thought that the entry could be different dimension, air foil, curved roof would look better than a box on a box; could clearly call out the office piece at the front and the new mezzanine and break up visually from the other components of the building, for example. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the applicant has submitted a new design which is closer in quality to the originally approved design. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent) voice vote. A continued action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1456 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHIWA HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal indicated that he has a business relationship with the applicant and recused himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Stuart Grunow, JD & Associates, project applicant, was available for questions. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke, noting that Tudor style is more traditional if the plate heights are varied,this still looks like a box on a box with Tudor type facade,the three vented dormers on the roof front accentuate added height,the tower element at the front is imposing,the bay window feature brings the perception of the house closer to the street. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • The rear gable end roof at the back of the house should be clipped so it is not so prominent; • On left side elevation,timbers are curvilinear on first floor,squared on second floor,right elevation has different pattern, should be simplified, there is inconsistency between the vertical versus horizontal patterns; • Garage door seems inconsistent, does not coordinate with other elements; • Not as troubled by the inconsistencies in the timbering, does not need to be symmetric to be consistent with the Tudor style; • The Tudor style is reflected in the windows used on the front elevation,but should use divided lite windows on the side and back to be consistent with the Tudor style; -� • Need to decide if committed to using the diamond paned windows in the front,they are more costly, if they will change, should reflect that in plans now; • Not consistent to have a large single pane window below the diamond pane on the right front; 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 • Half timbers should be thicker,increase from 2 x 6 to 2 x 8 or 2 x 10,will get better look,it is more traditional; • Roof on right elevation provides a great opportunity for solar panels even if the roof is reduced in size, there are rebates available; • Identify the tree species to be used on the landscape plan; • Take a close look at the Photinia shrub proposed,can get diseased,also will create a tall hedge along the back which is undesirable; • Look closely at front landscaping and random pattern of lawn,would like to see something that ties more closely to Tudor style and add a tree at the front from the Planning Department's tree list; and • Mass is broken down at the front but is lost at the back, mass and bulk not handled well. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C.Deal recused;C.Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 10. 624 TRENTON WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(KATRINA KUHL,KUHL ARCHITECTURE,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;SUZI AND FRANK HENNELLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Cauchi noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Katrina Kuhl,project architect,represented the project and was available for questions,noting that this is an attempt to be a mesh between a modern style and what is in the neighborhood now by using low pitched roof, propose to use extruded aluminum windows with an anodized bronze finish. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Found nothing in the neighborhood that this project fits in with; do not have a problem with the contemporary style by itself,but it does not fit in with the context of this neighborhood; • Think this is a good approach to do something different using traditional forms, think this style works pretty well given the style of the houses on the block; • On the plans, call out the species of the new trees and shrubs to be planted; • Roof pitch is shown as 2/12 with composition shingle, should it be 3/12 to meet warranty requirements; 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 • Might want to use aluminum with a painted finish,that will soften it a little as opposed to anodized aluminum, also it can be repainted in the future; • Keeping the low roof pitch helps tie the building in to the neighborhood, house is not too tall; and • Would benefit the project to put a row of windows at the top of the new garage door,will provide light inside and lighten the look of the door. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: endorse this approach although sympathetic with commissioner's concerns, have to leave room for different styles; not support the motion think this project is a mistake in this neighborhood, people will question design review, will get comments. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-1-1 (C. Deal dissenting, C. Cauchi abstaining and C. Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 11. 819 WALNUT AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR ANEW,TWO- —� STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A BASEMENT (MICHAEL RABBIT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER)(46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 918 Grant Place, San Mateo, project applicant, was available for questions and provided a detail for the guard rails at the front porch. Commissioners noted that the sections show 8'-plate height on the second floor and the elevations show 8'- 6", which is correct? The second floor plate height would be 8'-6". Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, and Paul Dibbro, 815 Walnut,noted that although this is a big house, it is handled well by using a basement and putting the floor area below ground where there is less visible mass, like to see this approach used more often, there are a lot of healthy shrubs proposed for removal, would like to see the existing plants rescued and replanted, a little concerned with the loss of the existing porte cochere; will be living next to new basement, concerned with noise from fans and pumps when they kick in. Commissioners noted that this is a nice design with a lot of articulation and had the following comments regarding the project: • Think that column to the caps have too much of a taper, should be thicker at the top; • See Craftsman detailing on the porch, then on sides just see shingles, would like to see more traditional Craftsman details; • The gable end on the rear elevation should be changed to a hipped roof,would reduce the bulk; 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 • Concerned with feature at the top of second floor on the north elevation behind the front porch, notches at top of wall should be eliminated; • Basement patio will be a maintenance nightmare,will create a pool and flood if sump pump stops working; • Carry chimney to the ground instead of having it sit on top of the first floor roof; • Not sure about the trim on the west elevation at the second floor windows at corners of master bedroom, battered corners look okay on the west elevation, but concerned with how it will wrap around the corner; • If basement patio were eliminated and replaced with light well, would have room to do some landscaping to soften the left elevation; Would like to see the old, well established Camellia plants saved and replanted, could be pruned back ahead and replanted,wouldn't work along the driveway,they would be too wide and encroach on the driveway, but could be put in the front or back yard; and • Should add a condition that the sump pump shall be in a sound proof enclosure. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made,plan checked and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 12. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE TITLE 22, SIGNS, TO ESTABLISH NEW REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS-PROJECT PLANNER:MAUREEN BROOKS(NOTICED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES) SP Brooks briefly presented the project description,noting that the subcommittee had been working on the sign code update for two years now,had studied the existing sign environment and made recommendations on what works and what does not work. Subcommittee came up with the new regulations based on a new approach which determines the overall square footage of signs allowed based on the speed of travel of the street or public way on which the signs are located. Commissioners commented on the letter from Mark Hudak regarding the existing pole sign shared by Holiday Inn Express and Max's Opera Caf6, and asked if there is a way that this signage could be"grandfathered"under the new code. Planning staff clarified that the pole sign itself is now nonconforming and can continue to be used. However, the off-premise advertising issue would be created by the property when the property is divided and the existing two businesses are no longer on one parcel. This is not a nonconforming situation,but a new situation which would be created by the property owner's action subdividing the property. Commissioners expressed concern with the proposed regulation which would prohibit awnings from being internally lit,think it is too restrictive,is there a way to regulate so that the internal lights can illuminate only the portions of the awning where the letters are located and no more, and the rest of the awning remains dark. Planning staff noted that it is difficult to regulate the intensity of illumination, will look into various methods used for awning lighting and report back; note that there is a limit on the overall area of signage �-- allowed on a site,is this the approach that was used for Fox Plaza;yes,the same approach is proposed in the sign code update,where with a variance,signage can be moved from one frontage to another and the number of signs can be increased,but there is a cap on the overall or total square footage allowed. 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 Commissioners noted that there is an incentive for two sided monument signs,each counted as a one sided sign when determining is counted toward overall sign area,can we require that the copy on both sides be the same? Planning Staff noted monument signs are treated separately from other signage(wall,projecting and awning signs)and only one side of a monument sign is counted. CA Anderson noted that because the courts have restricted regulation on content,could not require copy to be the same on both sides. Commissioners asked about the use of artwork as signs,how would the new regulations restrict,do not want to discourage that kind of creativity. Planning staff noted that some artwork is not regulated by the sign code,if it does not specifically identify a business;if the art is determined to be a sign,it would be regulated in the same way it is now,by its size and location on the site,roof signs would continue to be prohibited,but a projecting sign could be designed creatively. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Chair Brownrigg noted that this item will be brought back to the Commission on the action calendar when the additional information is provided. The public hearing will be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, notices will be mailed to people who have expressed interest in the sign code update and the information will also be posted on the City's website. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS - There were no Commissioner's Reports for review. -� XI. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of February 21, 2007. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 21, 2007. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary 16 02-22-07 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: JANUARY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Knife 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Other Dangerous weapon 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Strong-Arm 1 0 1 0 1 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Other Dangerous weapon 2 2 2 2 0 0.00 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Assault - Other (Simple) - 12 24 12 24 -12 -50.00 Burglary - Forcible Entry 3 5 3 5 -2 -40.00 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 4 14 4 14 -10 -71.43 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Larceny Shoplifting 1 5 1 5 -4 -80.00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 15 22 15 22 -7 -31.82 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 14 12 14 12 2 16.67 Larceny Bicycles 1 0 1 0 1 Larceny From Building 2 3 2 3 -1 -33.33 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 5 1 5 1 4 400.00 Larceny All Other 7 11 7 11 -4 -36.36 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 7 7 7 7 0 0.00 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 ------- ------ ------ ------ 74 113 74 113 74 113 74 113 02-22-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change All Other Offenses 21 32 21 32 -11 -34.38 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 Arson 2 0 2 0 2 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 1 1 1 1 0 0.00 Child Neglect/prot custody 5 7 5 7 -2 -28.57 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Death Investigation 4 4 4 4 0 0.00 Disorderly Conduct 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Driver's License Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Driving Under the Influence 11 7 11 7 4 57.14 Drug Abuse Violations 4 2 4 2 2 100.00 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Drunkeness 11 4 11 4 7 175.00 Embezzlement 1 1 1 1 0 0.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 1 0 1 0 1 False Police Reports 1 0 1 0 1 False Reports of Emergency 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Found Property 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Fraud 3 0 3 0 3 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 6 4 6 4 2 50.00 02-22-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change Hit and Run Accidents 2 3 2 3 -1 -33.33 Impersonation 2 0 2 0 2 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 1 0 1 0 1 Liquor Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 2 3 2 3 -1 -33.33 Mental Health Cases 8 9 8 9 -1 -11.11 Missing Person 4 6 4 6 -2 -33.33 Missing Property 4 7 4 7 -3 -42.86 Municipal Code Violations 9 7 9 7 2 28.57 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 Offenses Against Children 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Other Assaults 12 24 12 24 -12 -50.00 Other Juvenile Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Other Police Service 2 4 2 4 -2 -50.00 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 1 1 1 1 0 0.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 1 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 1 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 Prowling 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Resisting Arrest 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Restraining Orders 0 0 0 0 0 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 0 0 0 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 02-22-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................. .. Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Suspended License 5 4 5 4 1 25.00 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Towed Vehicle 36 21 36 21 15 71.43 Trespassing 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 0 0 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 - 0 Vandalism 12 17 12 17 -5 -29.41 Vehicle Code Violations 2 0 2 0 2 Violation of Court Order 1 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 Warrants - Felony 2 2 2 2 0 0.00 Warrants - Misd 4 6 4 6 -2 -33.33 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 3 0 3 0 3 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------ ------ 169 204 189 204 189 204 189 204 02-22-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 3731 2 , 095 3 , 731 2 , 095 Moving Citations 245 208 245 208 --- ---- --- - -- - ----- -- - - -- 3976 2 , 303 3 , 976 2 , 303 ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ 3976 2 , 303 3 , 976 2 , 303 LVl\L llv Vi y.iu Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 02/22/2007 at 01 : 49: 00 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 01/01/2007 to 01/31/2007 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids All % officer: ID: cnt Valid cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 1107 29.16 16 22.54 98.58 DOTSON 509 894 23.55 19 26.76 97.92 FEITELBERG 508 758 19.97 14 19.72 98.19 GARRETT 501 1017 26.79 22 30.99 97.88 MORAN 201 20 0.53 0 0.00 100.00 Total 3796 71 Page 1 of 1 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME Burlingame Financing Authority AGENDA ITEM# 18a `coq Som MTG. AATED JUNE DATE March 5,2007 TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND BOARDMEMBERS SUBMI BY DATE: March 5,2007 APP OVED �j FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY / Irl � SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Water iid Wastewater Revenue Bonds to Finance Certain Improvements to the Water and Wastewater Systems of the City; Authorizing the Procurement of Bond Insurance for the Bonds; Approving the Forms of a Trust Agreement and Installment Sale Agreements; Approving Forms of and Authorizing Publication and Distribution of an Official Notice of Sale, a Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds, and an Official Statement Describing Said Bonds; and Authorizing Execution of Documents and the Taking of All Necessary Actions Relating to the Issuance of the Bonds Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Resolution. Background: The proposed resolution authorizes the sale of up to $27 million in revenue bonds for water and sewer improvements. This is the third and final planned series of revenue bond that finance the ten-year capital improvement plans for the water and sewer systems. The city issued $8.7 million in revenue bonds in 2003 (February 11, 2003) and $20.32 million in 2004 (March 11, 2004). The City Council approved the ten-year financial plan in 2002. The ten-year financial plan was updated in 2006. All projects funded with the 2007 bonds are included in the city's Capital Improvements Program. Purpose of the Bonds The Bonds are being issued to provide funds to the City to (i) finance improvements to the City's Water System and Wastewater System, (ii) to fund reserve accounts for the Bonds, and (iii) to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. The City may opt to purchase a surety bond instead of funding a reserve fund. Attachment A. provides a listing of the water and sewer projects to be financed from the proceeds of the bonds. Pledge of System Net Revenues Debt service payments are secured by a pledge of the net revenues of the water and wastewater systems. The 2006 water and sewer rate ordinance implemented three successive years of rate adjustments. The rate adjustments cover the additional debt service payments. The bonds will be sold on a negotiated basis. E.J. De La Rosa Company will serve as underwriter for the bonds. Bonds will be priced on March 20, 2007 and the sale will close on April 4, 2007. The proceeds will be deposited in the Bank of New York, the City's Trustee Bank. Copies of the Preliminary Official Statement, Trust Agreement, Installment Sale Agreements (Water and Wastewater), Continuing Disclosure Certificates and Underwriter's Contract of Purchase are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk. Electronic copies are also available for e-mail to Council members as well as interested members of the public by contacting the City Clerk. Attachments: 1. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving the Issuance by the Burlingame Financing Authority of Not to Exceed $27,000,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds to Finance Certain Improvements to the Water and Wastewater Systems of the City; Authorizing Execution and Delivery of Installment Sale Agreements and a Bond Purchase Agreement; Approving Form of Official Statement; and Authorizing Execution of Documents and the Taking of All Necessary Actions Relating to the Financing with the Burlingame Financing Authority; 2. Attachment A. - Water& Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 - Water System Capital Improvements Programs - Water & Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 — Sanitary Sewer System Capital Improvements Programs 3. Preliminary Official Statement Components - Sources and Uses of Funds - Bond Debt Service - Bond Debt Service Breakdown - Bond Summary Statistics - Bond Pricing(Estimates, Actual Pricing Determined at Sale) 5:\2007 Water&Wastewater BondsTinancing Authority Agenda Report(March 5,2007).doc 2 BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS OF THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE PROCUREMENT OF BOND INSURANCE FOR THE BONDS; APPROVING THE FORMS OF A TRUST AGREEMENT AND INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENTS; APPROVING FORMS OF AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF AN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE,A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL BONDS, AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT DESCRIBING SAID BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING OF ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS RESOLVED, by the Burlingame Financing Authority Board: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (the "City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burlingame (the "Agency") have heretofore executed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of May 15, 1995 (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), by and between the City and the Agency, which Joint Powers Agreement creates and establishes the Burlingame Financing Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California(the "Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985") and the Joint Powers Agreement,the Authority is authorized to issue bonds for financing public capital improvements whenever there are significant public benefits; and WHEREAS, the Authority desires to issue bonds for the purpose of financing the construction of certain improvements to the water and wastewater systems of the City (collectively, the "Projects"); and WHEREAS, this Board of the Authority hereby determines that there are significant public benefits, including through demonstrable savings in the effective interest rates and bond issuance costs expected to be paid for the Bonds issued to finance the Projects, and that it furthers the public purpose to assist in such financing; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve such significant public benefits and public purpose, this Board of the Authority desires to authorize the issuance and sale by public sale of not to exceed $27,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Burlingame Financing Authority Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 (the 'Bonds"); and 1 WHEREAS ,the Authority and City will enter into a Contract of Purchase (the 'Bond Purchase Contract") for the Bonds with E.J. De La Rosa Inc. (the "Underwriter"); and WHEREAS,this Authority now desires to approve the form and authorize the distribution of a preliminary form of the Official Statement describing the Bonds and a final Official Statement for the Bonds; and WHEREAS,the Authority desires to enter into a Trust Agreement(the "Trust Agreement")with The Bank of New York Trust Company,N.A. (successor in interest to BNY Western Trust Company) (the "Trustee"), for the purpose of securing the Bonds; and WHEREAS, in order to finance the Projects, the Authority desires to enter into an installment sale agreement(water system) and an installment sale agreement(wastewater system) (collectively,the "Installment Sale Agreements")with the City; and WHEREAS,there have been presented to this meeting proposed forms of the Trust Agreement, Installment Sale Agreements, Official Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; NOW. THEREFORE, the Governing Board of the Burlingame Financing Authority hereby finds, determines, declares and resolves, as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and the Authority hereby so finds and determines. Section 2. The issuance and sale of the Burlingame Financing Authority Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $27,000,000, are hereby approved. Section 3. (a) The proposed form of Trust Agreement by and between the Authority and Trustee, on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved. The Executive Director of the Authority(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority,to execute and deliver a trust agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance as set forth in Section 9 hereof), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. The date, maturity date or dates (not to exceed April 1, 2031), interest rate or rates (not to exceed a true interest cost of five percent(5%)per annum), interest payment dates, series, denominations, forms, registration privileges, manner of execution, place or places of payment, terms of redemption and other terms of the Bonds shall be as provided in said Trust Agreement, as finally executed. 2 (b) The Bank of New York Trust Company,N.A. (successor in interest to BNY Western Trust Company) is hereby approved and appointed as Trustee of the Authority with respect to the Bonds, and shall be authorized to act as Trustee in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement. (c) The Treasurer and Controller of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to hold the funds and accounts created under the Trust Agreement and specified therein to be held by the Treasurer and Controller of the Authority, in trust as a fiduciary for the owners of the Bonds as set forth in said documents. Section 4. The proposed form of 2007 Installment Sale Agreement(Water System), by and between the City and the Authority, on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved. The Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority,to execute and deliver an installment sale agreement in substantially said form,with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance as set forth in Section 9 hereof), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof, provided,however,that the term of said installment sale agreement shall end no later than April 1, 2031. Section 5. The proposed form of 2007 Installment Sale Agreement(Wastewater System), by and between the Authority and City, on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved. The Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority, to execute and deliver an installment sale agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance as set forth in Section 9 hereof), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof; provided, however, that the term of said installment sale agreement shall end no later than April 1, 2031. Section 6. The proposed form of Bond Purchase Contract among the Authority, the Underwriter and the City, on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved. The Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority, to execute and deliver a bond purchase contract in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof; provided, however, the underwriting discount(not including original issue discount) shall not exceed one percent(1%) of the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds. Section 7. The proposed form of Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the "Official Statement"), on file with the Secretary of the Authority and incorporated into this Resolution by reference, is hereby approved. The Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is each hereby authorized and directed, for the Authority,to execute 3 and deliver an Official Statement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. The Underwriter is hereby directed to distribute copies of the Official Statement to all actual purchasers of the Bonds. Distribution by the Underwriter of a preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds is hereby approved and the Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed, to execute a certificate confirming that the preliminary Official Statement has been "deemed final" by the Authority for purposes of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. Section 8. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized to negotiate with providers of bond insurance for the Bonds, and, if the Executive Director determines it is in the best interests of the Authority and the City, to commit to purchase or enter into or approve agreements providing for bond insurance for some or all of the Bonds. Section 9. The Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized on behalf of the Authority to execute a Continuing Disclosure Certificate containing such covenants of the Authority as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. The Authority hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of such Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Section 10. The officers and directors of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed,jointly and severally,to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents and certificates which they deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and otherwise to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby. Section 11. The officers and board members of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed,jointly and severally, to execute and deliver any Certificate of the Authority or Written Request of the Authority required to be delivered pursuant to the Trust Agreement. Section 12. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full,true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the Burlingame Financing Authority at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of March, 2007, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS: NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: Chair 4 SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE Secretary of the Burlingame Financing Authority, do hereby certify as follows: The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by a vote of a majority of the members of the Governing Board of said Authority at a special meeting of the Governing Board of said Authority duly and legally held at City Hall, Burlingame, California, on March 5, 2007, of which meeting all of such members had due notice, as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of said resolution appeared on said agenda. I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes. Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect. Dated: , 2007. Secretary of the Burlingame Financing Authority 5 Attachment A. Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROJECTS FY 2006-07 1 FY2007-08 I FY2008-09 Totals Studies Water Capacity and Improvement Studies $ 340,000 $ 360,000 $ 380,000 GIS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Sub-total studies $ 390,000 $ 410,000 $ 430,000 $ 1,230,000 Pipeline Mills Transmission Main $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - Gate-Grove Village Main Replacement $ 120,000 $ 3,470,000 Burlingame Ave $ 100,000 $ 210,000 Emergency Main replacement $ 270,000 $ 320,000 $ 430,000 Sub-total Water Mains $ 1,270,000 $ 540,000 $ 4,110,000 $ 5,920,000 Miscellaneous Water Standard Plans $ 50,000 Water meter replacement $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Hydropneumatic Tank Inspection $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Sub-total miscellaneous water $ 150,000 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 370,000 Pump Stations Trousdale Pump Station $ 2,570,000 $ 3,440,000 Sub-total pump stations $ 2,570,000 $ 3,440,000 $ - $ 6,010,000 Scada Scada infrastructure $ 120,000 Sub-total Scada $ 120,000 $ - $ - $ 120,000 Total $ 4,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4,650,000 $ 750,000 Feb.27,2007 Attachment A. Burlingame Financing Authority Water &Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PROJECTS FY 2006-07 FY2007-08 FY2008.09 Totals Studies Sewer Capacity and Improvement Studies $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 GIS $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Sub-total studies $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 150,000 $ 600,000 Sewer Mains Burlinghome Subdivision $ 2,217,000 $ - $ - California-Grove Area Sewer Improvements-Ph. 1 $ 2,300,000 California-Grove Area Sewer Improvements-Ph.2 $ 2,030,000 1200 Block Paloma Ave.Sewer Rehabilitation $ 250,000 Mills Canyon Sewer $ 400,000 Sub-total Sewer Mains $ 2,617,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 2,030,000 $ 7,197,000 Miscellaneous sewer repairs Foaming $ 50,000 Valves $ 50,000 $ - Lateral repairs $ - $ 50,000 Sub-total miscellaneous sewer $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 150,000 Pump Stations Mitten Pump station $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Sub-total pump stations $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 600,000 Waste Water Treatment Plant Gravity Thickener Rehabilitation Launder Replacement $ 60,000 Reliability Improvements $ 533,000 Retention Basin $ 150,000 $ 550,000 $ 1,100,000 Outfall line condition assessment $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 60,000 Sub-total treatment plant $ 733,000 $ 600,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 2,553,000 Total $ 3,700,000 1 $ 3,700,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 11,100,000 Feb.27,2007 SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Burlingame Financing Authority Water& Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2007 2007 2007 Water Wastewater Installment Installment Sources: Payments Payments Total Bond Proceeds: Par Amount 14,895,000.00 12,105,000.00 27,000,000.00 14,895,000.00 12,105,000.00 27,000,000.00 2007 2007 Water Wastewater Installment Installment Uses: Payments Payments Total Project Fund Deposits: Water Project Fund 13,650,000.00 13,650,000.00 Sewer Project Fund 11,100,000.00 11,100,000.00 13,650,000.00 11,100,000.00 24,750,000.00 Other Fund Deposits: DSRF 982,288.00 798,172.50 1,780.460.50 Delivery Date Expenses: Cost of Issuance 110,333.33 89,666.67 200,000.00 Underwriter's Discount 104,265.00 84,735.00 189,000.00 Bond Insurance 44,078.65 35,822.22 79,900.87 258,676.98 210,223.89 468,900.87 Other Uses of Funds: Additional Proceeds 4,035.02 -3,396.39 638.63 14,895,000.00 12,105,000.00 27,000,000.00 Mar 1, 2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 1 BOND DEBT SERVICE Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 Period Annual Ending Principal Coupon Interest Debt Service Debt Service 04/04/2007 10/01/2007 548,032.93 548,032.93 04/01/2008 655,000 3.540% 557,319.00 1,212,319.00 1,760,351.93 10/01/2008 545,725.50 545,725.50 04/01/2009 685,000 3.550% 545,725.50 1,230,725.50 1,776,451.00 10/01/2009 533,566.75 533,566.75 04/01/2010 705,000 3.560% 533,566.75 1,238,566.75 1,772,133.50 10/01/2010 521,017.75 521,017.75 04/01/2011 735,000 3.570% 521,017.75 1,256,017.75 1,777,035.50 10/01/2011 507,898.00 507,898.00 04/01/2012 760,000 3.610% 507,898.00 1,267,898.00 1,775,796.00 10/01/2012 494,180.00 494,180.00 04/01/2013 790,000 3.630% 494,180.00 1,284,180.00 1,778,360.00 10/01/2013 479,841.50 479,841.50 04/01/2014 815,000 3.660% 479,841.50 1,294,841.50 1,774,683.00 10/01/2014 464,927.00 464,927.00 04/01/2015 845,000 3.710% 464,927.00 1,3097927.00 1,774,854.00 10/01/2015 449,252.25 449,252.25 04/01/2016 880,000 3.750% 449,252.25 1,329,252.25 1,778,504.50 10/01/2016 432,752.25 432,752.25 04/01/2017 910,000 3.790% 432,752.25 1,342,752.25 1,775,504.50 10/01/2017 415,507.75 415,507.75 04/01/2018 945,000 3.920% 415,507.75 1,360,507.75 1,776,015.50 10/01/2018 396,985.75 396,985.75 04/01/2019 980,000 4.020% 396,985.75 1,376,985.75 1,773,971.50 10/01/2019 377,287.75 377,287.75 04/01/2020 1,025,000 4.110% 377,287.75 1,402,287.75 1,779,575.50 10/01/2020 356,224.00 356,224.00 04/01/2021 1,060,000 4.180% 356,224.00 1,416,224.00 1,772,448.00 10/01/2021 334,070.00 334,070.00 04/01/2022 1,105,000 4.230% 334,070.00 1,439,070.00 1,773,140.00 10/01/2022 310,699.25 310,699.25 04/01/2023 1,150,000 4.270% 310,699.25 1,460,699.25 1,771,398.50 10/01/2023 286,146.75 286,146.75 04/01/2024 1,205,000 4.310% 286,146.75 1,491,146.75 1,777,293.50 10/01/2024 260,179.00 260,179.00 04/01/2025 1,260,000 4.340% 260,179.00 1,520,179.00 1,780,358.00 10/01/2025 232,837.00 232,837.00 04/01/2026 1,310,000 4.370% 232,837.00 1,542,837.00 1,775,674.00 10/01/2026 204,213.50 204,213.50 04/01/2027 1,370,000 4.400% 204,213.50 1,574,213.50 1,778,427.00 10/01/2027 174,073.50 174,073.50 04/01/2028 1,430,000 4.410% 174,073.50 1,604,073.50 1,778,147.00 10/01/2028 142,542.00 142,542.00 04/01/2029 1,495,000 4.440% 142,542.00 1,637,542.00 1,780,084.00 10/01/2029 109,353.00 109,353.00 04/01/2030 1,560,000 4.460% 109,353.00 1,669,353.00 1,778,706.00 10/01/2030 74,565.00 74,565.00 04/01/2031 1,625,000 4.480% 74,565.00 1,699,565.00 1,774,130.00 10/01/2031 38,165.00 38,165.00 04/01/2032 1,700,000 4.490% 38,165.00 1,738,165.00 1,776,330.00 27,000,000 17,389,372.43 44,389,372.43 44,389,372.43 Mar 1,2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB 2007) Page 2 BOND DEBT SERVICE BREAKDOWN Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 2007 Water 2007 Wastewater Period Installment Installment Ending Payments Payments Total 04/01/2008 969,803.04 790,548.89 1,760,351.93 04/01/2009 982,182.00 794,269.00 1,776,451.00 04/01/2010 978,692.00 793,441.50 1,772,133.50 04/01/2011 979,808.00 797,227.50 1,777,035.50 04/01/2012 980,349.50 795,446.50 1,775,796.00 04/01/2013 980,187.50 798,172.50 1,778,360.00 04/01/2014 979,397.00 795,286.00 1,774,683.00 04/01/2015 977,927.00 796,927.00 1,774,854.00 04/01/2016 980,675.50 797,829.00 1,778,504.50 04/01/2017 977,488.00 798,016.50 1,775,504.50 04/01/2018 978,538.00 797,477.50 1,776,015.50 04/01/2019 978,154.00 795,817.50 1,773,971.50 04/01/2020 981,446.00 798,129.50 1,779,575.50 04/01/2021 978,224.50 794,223.50, 1,772,448.00 04/01/2022 978,771.50 794,368.50 1,773,140.00 04/01/2023 977,968.50 793,430.00 1,771,398.50 04/01/2024 980,854.00 796,439.50 1,777,293.50 04/01/2025 982,192.50 798,165.50 1,780,358.00 04/01/2026 982,029.50 793,644.50 1,775,674.00 04/01/2027 980,347.00 798,080.00 1,778,427.00 04/01/2028 982,127.00 796,020.00 1,778,147.00 04/01/2029 982,288.00 797,796.00 1,780,084.00 04/01/2030 980,658.00 798,048.00 1,778,706.00 04/01/2031 977,302.00 796,828.00 1,774,130.00 04/01/2032 982,206.00 794,124.00 1,776,330.00 24,489,616.04 19,899,756.39 44,389,372.43 Mar 1,2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 3 BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 Dated Date 04/04/2007 Delivery Date 04/04/2007 First Coupon 10/01/2007 Last Maturity 04/01/2032 Arbitrage Yield 4.285438% True Interest Cost(TIC) 4.324205% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 4.330395% All-In TIC 4.424742% Average Coupon 4.283835% Average Life(years) 15.034 Duration of Issue(years) 10.691 Par Amount 27,000,000.00 Bond Proceeds 27,000,000.00 Total Interest 17,389,372.43 Net Interest 17,578,372.43 Total Debt Service 44,389,372.43 Maximum Annual Debt Service 1,780,358.00 Average Annual Debt Service 1,776,166.95 Par Average Average PV of 1 by Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life change Serial Bonds 27,000,000.00 100.000 4.284% 15.034 28,236.60 27,000,000.00 15.034 28,236.60 All-In Arbitrage TIC TIC Yield Par Value 27,000,000.00 27,000,000.00 27,000,000.00 +Accrued Interest +Premium(Discount) -Underwriter's Discount -189,000.00 -189,000.00 -Cost of Issuance Expense -200,000.00 -Other Amounts -79,900.87 -79,900.87 Target Value 26,811,000.00 26,531,099.13 26,920,099.13 Target Date 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 04/04/2007 Yield 4.324205% 4.424742% 4.285438% Mar 1,2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 4 BOND PRICING Burlingame Financing Authority Water&Wastewater Revenue Bonds,Series 2007 Maturity Bond Component Date Amount Rate Yield Price Serial Bonds: 04/01/2008 655,000 3.540% 3.540% 100.000 04/01/2009 685,000 3.550% 3.550% 100.000 04/01/2010 705,000 3.560% 3.560% 100.000 04/01/2011 735,000 3.570% 3.570% 100.000 04/01/2012 760,000 3.610% 3.610% 100.000 04/01/2013 790,000 3.630% 3.630% 100.000 04/01/2014 815,000 3.660% 3.660% 100.000 04/01/2015 845,000 3.710% 3.710% 100.000 04/01/2016 880,000 3.750% 3.750% 100.000 04/01/2017 910,000 3.790% 3.790% 100.000 04/01/2018 945,000 3.920% 3.920% 100.000 04/01/2019 980,000 4.020% 4.020% 100.000 04/01/2020 1,025,000 4.110% 4.110% 100.000 04/01/2021 1,060,000 4.180% 4.180% 100.000 04/01/2022 1,105,000 4.230% 4.230% 100.000 04/01/2023 1,150,000 4.270% 4.270% 100.000 04/01/2024 1,205,000 4.310% 4.310% 100.000 04/01/2025 1,260,000 4.340% 4.340% 100.000 04/01/2026 1,310,000 4.370% 4.370% 100.000 04/01/2027 1,370,000 4.400% 4.400% 100.000 04/01/2028 1,430,000 4.410% 4.410% 100.000 04/01/2029 1,495,000 4.440% 4.440% 100.000 04/01/2030 1,560,000 4.460% 4.460% 100.000 04/01/2031 1,625,000 4.480% 4.480% 100.000 04/01/2032 1,700,000 4.490% 4.490% 100.000 27,000,000 Dated Date 04/04/2007 Delivery Date 04/04/2007 First Coupon 10/01/2007 Par Amount 27,000,000.00 Original Issue Discount Production 27,000,000.00 100.000000% Underwriter's Discount -189,000.00 -0.700000% Purchase Price 26,811,000.00 99.300000% Accrued Interest Net Proceeds 26,811,000.00 Mar 1,2007 10:44 am Prepared by KNN (Finance 6.001 burlingame:COMB2007) Page 5