Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2004.04.05
City ofBurlingame BURLINGAME \ CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 9x010 (650)55Z;7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting -Monday, April 5, 2004 Page 1 of 3 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. Introduce Ordinance to amend zoning code with new Introduction regulations for development on emerging legal lots in the R-1 zone b. Introduce Ordinance establishing zoning requirements for Introduction development on creek side lots C. Introduce Ordinance to amend Chapters 11.04 and 12.12 for a Introduction five year sunset clause obligating property owners to maintain and repair sidewalks d. Introduce change to City Ordinance 13.40.030- time of Introduction operation of parking meters e. Commissioner vacancies, Planning and Library Board Discussion f. Update on PG&E's proposed Jefferson-Martin Electrical Update Transmission Line 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Tentative and final parcel map for lot combination at 755 California Drive b. Weeds and rubbish abatement on private property C. Resolution authorizing agreement amendment No. 1 with Control Manufacturing for SCADA project design/build d. Resolution authorizing amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with the Culver Group for engineering design services or water system improvements e. Resolution of Intention: Broadway Area Business Improvement District setting 2004/05 Assessments f. Special Event permit-bicycle race in Burlingame Avenue Area City OfBUrE179dMC SURUNGAME . .. CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)5557200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, April 5, 2004 Page 1 of 3 CLOSED SESSION: a. Pending Litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(a): 6:15 Conference Room A Frances Day vs. City of Burlingame, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 436482 Dennis J. Amoroso Stop Notice Cases, Miscellaneous San Mateo Superior Court Case Numbers b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), Claim of Steve Parraga One matter, 1800 Ashton Avenue C. Personnel Matter(Government Code § 54957) One matter 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 15, 2004 Approve 5. PRESENTATION a. Introduce Sam Johnson, Superintendent, San Mateo Union Introduction High School District b. Presentation by CalTrans officials regarding eucalyptus trees Presentation on El Camino Real C. Presentation of the California Society of Municipal Finance Presentation Officers Award for Outstanding Financial Reporting 2002-2003 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS T&mayor may hmft speakers to three minutes each. a. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Amendment to the Hearing/Action General Plan to update the Bayfront Specific Plan 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 which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are City OfBUrKJ79=0 rAIRS15 CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD djIMP BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)5--&7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, April 5, 2004 Page 1 of 3 CT. Agreement between City of Burlingame and Burlingame Youth Baseball Association for lease of Bayside Park property for the construction, maintenance and operation of a baseball batting cage h. Agreement for auditing services with Caporicci & Larson, CPA's I. Appointment of Members of Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District beginning with the 2004 term j. Adopt Resolution of Intention to begin process for Public Hearings on whether to form a Burlingame Avenue Area Business Assessment District and imposed assessments for 2004/05 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. OLD BUSINESS 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, February 17, 2004; Traffic Safety and Parking, March 11; Parks &Recreation,March 18, 2004; Planning, March 22 & 29 b. Department Reports: Police, February, 2004 C. Letter from Bay Area Air Quality Management District concerning adoption of a wood smoke ordinance 15. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE:Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities,please contact the City Clerk at(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the 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.burlinizame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Monday, April 19, 2004 CITY 8tJRUNGAME 0 T[9 Jure 6• BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting of March 15,2004 CLOSED SESSION: CA Anderson advised that the Council had met in closed session before the public meeting and instructed the City Attorney on the further handling of these matters. a. Threatened Litigation (Government Code §5496.9(b)(1),(3)(C): Claim of Fernando Ronquillo and Claim of Brian McKague b. Various claims involving Dennis J. Amoroso Construction Company 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 Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Paolo Bonomo. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Coffey, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony MEMBERS ABSENT: Baylock 4. MINUTES Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 28, 2004 Special Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 1, 2004 Regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). 5. PRESENTATION a. RECOGNITION OF THE AGE 11 AND UNDER CYSA BOYS SOCCER TEAM ON WINNING THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP 1 Burlingame City Council March 15,2004 Approved Minutes P&RD Schwartz introduced the Burlingame-based age 11 and under soccer team who won first place at the California Youth Soccer Association's State Tournament in February coached by Paolo Bonomo. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #1732 TO AMEND CHAPTERS 11.04 AND 12.12 TO RESTORE OBLIGATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS PURSUANT TO STATE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE DPW Bagdon recommended Council hold a public hearing regarding the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 11.04 and 12.12 to restore obligation to property owners for maintenance and repair of sidewalks pursuant to State Streets and Highways Code. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Bud Harrison, 376 Lexington Avenue, spoke on adding a sunset clause to this ordinance. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to adopt Ordinance#1732 amending Chapters 11.04 and 12.12 to restore obligation to property owners for maintenance and repair of sidewalks pursuant to State Streets and Highways Code; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. Mayor O'Mahony requested staff to introduce a new ordinance in April further amending Chapters 11.04 and 12.12 by adding a sunset clause effecting a five-year expiration date for Ordinance #1732. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS a. APPOINTMENT OF TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSIONER Councilman Coffey recommended opening the application period to the public since the new vacancy will be due to expire in November 2004. Mayor O'Mahony suggested setting May 1, 2004, as the filing deadline. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. FY 2004-05 BUDGET REDUCTION STRATEGIES FD Nava recommended Council approve the recommended budget reduction strategies for FY 2004-05 as amended at the February 28, 2004 Special Council Meeting. Councilwoman Nagel requested a discussion on this item. She suggested the City fund half of the expense of the crossing guards with the school district funding the other half. Also, she suggested the City establish a limited budget to fund the training and attendance of the Planning Commissioners. 2 Burlingame City Council March 15,2004 Approved Minutes Vice Mayor Galligan stated that the crossing guard cost is the responsibility of the school districts, and funding should be determined by the City/School Liaison Committee. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve Item 9.a. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 3-1-1 (Nagel dissented, Baylock absent). CA Anderson stated that this action includes the exploration of finding funding for Planning Commission training activities. b. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FD Nava recommended Council approve payment of Warrants #93803-94296 duly audited in the amount of $2,598,113.01 (excluding Library checks #93803-93837), and Payroll checks #157485-157793 in the amount of$2,102,997.83 for the month of February 2004. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve Item 9.b. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 11. OLD BUSINESS DPW Bagdon presented a draft notice of the April 22, 2004 public hearing to discuss the soundwall and Highway 101 auxiliary lane to be constructed by Caltrans. 12. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, March 8, 2004 b. Department Reports: Building, February 2004; Treasurer's Report, February 2004 c. Letter from Comcast regarding scheduling change d. Surety Bonds Memorandum—CA Anderson advised that this memorandum is also addressed to the Finance Authority members. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris Mortensen Deputy City Clerk 3 Burlingame City Council March 15,2004 Approved Minutes A a� CITY STAFF REPORT Bt) JNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 5b MTG. DATE x+/5/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB TED BY t DATE: February 24,2004 APPR D FROM: Director of Parks&Recreation(558-7307) BY SUBJECT: PRESENTATION BY CALTRANS OFFICIAL REGARDING EUCALYPTUS TREES ON EL CAMINO REAL RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the report from Caltrans officials regarding the Eucalyptus Trees on El Camino Real. BACKGROUND: Mike Peterson, Region Manager; Christopher States, District Associate Biologist and ISA Certified Arborist for Caltrans; and James MacNair, independent Arborist, will discuss the criteria used in determining the need to remove II Eucalyptus trees on El Camino Real earlier this month. The discussions will focus on the reasons for removal, types of inspection and testing performed on each tree, amount and types of trees to be used as replacements and an offer for the public to meet with the Arborist in the field to verify the findings. Long-term maintenance plans will also be discussed. The public can also ask questions of the Arborist for clarification. Staff will also discuss the Community Notification plan that is now in place to alert the public when similar situations arise, involving either trees on El Camino Real or significant City trees. In preparation for the removal of these I I trees, staff appeared on Channel 2 television, issued press releases in conjunction with Caltrans, emailed/notified both Council and Commission and had several local newspaper articles written. However, because the timing of the project was unclear, much of this process was ineffective. In the future, staff, working more closely with Caltrans, will be more proactive in notifying the public. ATTACHMENTS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None ��� CITin STAFF REPORT BURL INGAME AGENDA CALIFORNIA ITEM # ba MTG. oD m , , DATE 4.5.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: MARCH 25, 2004 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER By �l SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE LARATION AND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO UPDATE THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Bayfront Specific Plan should include findings, action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. City Council has three action alternatives: a. to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Bayfront Specific Plan dated March, 2004 as recommended by the Planning Commission; b. to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Bayfront Specific Plan, including the "Alternative with Housing errata pages" dated December 2003, which would allow housing three sites in the Anza/Anza Point areas to be used for housing; or c. to recommend changes to the Bayfront Specific Plan and refer it back to staff and/or the Planning Commission to make the requested changes prior to Council action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At its regular meeting on January 26, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted, by a 4- 3 vote (Cers. Osterling, Vistica and Auran dissenting), to recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan dated December 2003, as drafted without the housing option on three sites in the Anza and Anza Point Areas (PC Minutes January 26, 2004). C/CAG ACTION REGARDING CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN: At its regular meeting on March 11 , 2004, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Board, acting considered the consistency of the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan with the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan (see attached letter from C/CAG Chair dated March 17, 2004). The plan was reviewed and evaluated as drafted (with no housing) and with the possibility of including a housing option on three properties (Option 2). The C/CAG Board determined that both options are consistent with the applicable airport/land use compatibility criteria for San Francisco International Airport, as contained in the San Mateo County CoMprehensive Airport Land Use Plan December 1996, as amended, subject to certain conditions requiring changes to the text of the Bayfront Specific Plan. The required changes, are to add a note that the plan is consistent with the CLUP, to add language addressing single-event noise and to include a statement on real estate disclosure requirements, have been incorporated into the text and maps of the plan dated March, 2004 (refer to the Introduction, page 2 and Chapter 6, pages VI-23 through VI-27). In its action, the C/CAG Board also made the following statement regarding the Option 2 which includes housing on selected sites: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO UPDATE THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 5, 2004 "Although the potential aircraft single-event noise impact at the three proposed housing sites could be mitigated to be consistent with the existing noise compatibility criteria for San Francisco International Airport, it appears contradictory to allow up to 800 dwelling units in a potentially high aircraft noise environment and then require those dwelling units to be acoustically treated to mitigate the noise impact to an acceptable level. Furthermore, approval of the 800 units on the Bay side of U.S. Highway 101 would be contrary to the Airport Land Use Commission's (C/CAG's) historical position on housing development on the Bay side of the freeway, would create a new noise consistency where one does not exist now, and could set a precedent for other cities to follow, regarding housing east of the freeway." BACKGROUND: In May of 2002, the City Council directed staff to begin work on the update of the Bayfront Specific Plan. The existing plan was adopted in 1981 , and the land use choices in this plan were developed based on the premise that the land uses in this area would provide a strong economic base for the City; and that the land use densities would be based on the traffic carrying capacity of the key intersections which serve this area. The update of the plan has been developed keeping these same basic premises. To assist in developing the plan, the City Council formed a Bayfront Working Group, made up of public members with diverse interests in the Bayfront Area, including two Planning Commissioners, people who own and operate businesses in this area, and residents who use the area's recreational facilities. A series of three public workshops, as well as seven meetings of the Bayfront Working Group, a joint meeting with the Working Group, the Planning Commission, and the City Council and two Planning Commission study sessions were held as a part of the development of this plan. The plan was developed incorporating the input of the Working Group members, residents attending the workshops, and comments from the Planning Commission during the study sessions. The groups were assisted by information contained in the Background Data Report, which is an assemblage of the technical reports describing the existing conditions within the Bayfront Area. The Draft Bayfront Specific Plan dated March, 2004 is attached for your review. The attached Planning Commission staff report from January 26, 2004 describes the seven sections of the plan and the purpose of each section. The Draft Plan builds on the successes of the existing plan adopted in 1981 , and attempts to refine and update those concepts to reflect current environmental constraints and land use trends. During the public workshops, Working Group meetings and Planning Commission study sessions, there has been consensus on most aspects of the plan, with the refinements in land use in the various subareas and new design guidelines seen as a positive change. The primary principles of the plan, to provide a strong economic base for the City and to stay within the limits of the area's circulation system have been maintained. The major land use changes have been to introduce a retail node in the Shoreline Area, to refine the densities of development throughout the entire planning area, and to add extended stay hotels to the allowable uses in the Anza and Anza Point areas. Another key component to the plan is the Design Guidelines chapter (refer to Chapter 5). This chapter establishes new design criteria which offer different standards tailored to each of the five unique subareas within the Planning Area, while maintaining a design thread which ties the areas together into a Bayfront unit. However, throughout the public and subcommittee meetings, there has been lively discussion regarding the land use component of the plan, particularly the issue of whether or not multi-family residential housing should be allowed in the Anza and Anza Point Subareas of the plan. At the direction of the Planning Commission after the study sessions, the plan was brought forward as originally drafted, with no housing -2- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO UPDATE THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 5,2004 proposed and an option for housing on three selected sites was included as an overlay to the proposed plan (see attached Alternative with Housing Errata Pages). Although the housing sites option was rejected by the Planning Commission, it is being brought forward to the City Council so that all options studied and discussed are available for consideration. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: An Initial Study was prepared for the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan, which looked at potential impacts to the environment associated with the adoption of the Bayfront Specific Plan. The initial study included an analysis of the option for housing on three selected sites, as well as the analysis of the plan as drafted, which does not include housing. The plan establishes Community Standards based on the existing environmental constraints in the area. These standards have been included in the negative declaration as mitigation measures, and will be used to evaluate future projects to ensure that the project will not cause impacts on the environment, or unduly expose users to adverse environmental conditions. Based on the findings of the initial study, it has been determined that the proposed Bayfront Specific Plan can be covered by a mitigated negative declaration since the initial study determined that any significant adverse impacts could be mitigated by application of the mitigations measures included in the plan as community standards. All future projects proposed to be developed within the Bayfront Specific Plan area would require separate environmental review and CEQA compliance at the time they are proposed and as a part of planning review. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY BY CHAPTER Attached for your review is the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan document dated March, 2004. The plan is divided into seven sections. This plan is an update to the Bayfront Specific Area Plan adopted in 1981, and builds upon the concepts established in the 1981 plan. Following is a brief description of the purpose of each section. 1. Introduction: The plan introduction section outlines how the plan came to be and describes the area in the regional context. It also defines the purpose of the plan and contains a vision statement for the Planning Area. 2. Goals and Policies: This section provides the policy framework on which the sections on Land Use, Traffic and Circulation, Design Guidelines and Community Standards are based. The goals and policies are intended to capture the overall vision for the Planning Area and to provide a link to the more detailed aspects of the plan. In the future,when the plan is being implemented, the policies become a reference used to determine whether projects proposed are consistent with the vision of the Plan and its implementation. 3. Land Use Plan: This section identifies the land uses and their densities appropriate for each of the five subareas within the Planning Area. There are two subareas in the Northern Bayfront Area, and three subareas in the Anza Area. This section describes the land use by type and location within each of the subareas, as well as specifying the density of development using either the number of rooms per acre (hotel) or floor area ratio (commercial and industrial). Key land use themes include maintaining the industrial character of the Inner Bayshore Area,while allowing for limited retail opportunities to serve the area's employees; addition of a retail node in the Shoreline Area to create a focal point for this area with frontage on the San Francisco Bay; maintain and improve the existing recreational opportunities within the Anza Extension subarea; and add the opportunity for extended stay hotels in the Anza and Anza Point areas, as well as recreation-related retail uses in the Beach and Lang Road areas. -3- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONAND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO UPDATE THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 5,2004 4. Traffic and Circulation: This section describes the trip generating characteristics of the land uses proposed at build-out densities in the plan, and describes the roadway changes proposed to improve circulation in the area. The densities of the land uses proposed are predicated on the trip-generating characteristics of those uses,particularly during the evening peak hour when the area's roadways are most congested. The Traffic Analyzer is a tool developed for implementation of the plan which can track each project's impact on the critical intersections within the Planning Area. 5. Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines Section will become a key implementation tool used at a staff level when development projects are submitted for review. The design standards developed are specific to the goals and policies of each subarea. For example, there are different standards for properties with bay frontage as compared to those for the Inner Bayshore Area, which has a more office/industrial character. 6. Development Framework and Community Standards: This section provides a description of the existing environmental conditions and constraints to development that affect the area. It also describes the infrastructure that is in place to serve current and future development in the Planning Area. The information and illustrations in this section provide measurable "Community Standards" for evaluating how potential constraints such as noise, airport safety,biological resources, and public facilities will be addressed by future development. These community standards also establish a baseline for environmental review of future projects. 7. Plan Implementation: The Implementation Section offers a description of the steps needed to implement the plan. Some of the implementation measures will be in the form of zoning code changes to bring the zoning for the Planning Area into conformance with the land use designations and standards of the plan. The Plan also provides a basis for the update of the Bayfront Development Fee, which has provided funding for necessary roadway improvements to keep traffic impacts on the area's intersections at an acceptable level of service. This development fee requires a developer to pay a proportional share,based on the trips the future project will generate, towards the roadway and streetscape improvements needed for the area-wide circulation system to function acceptably. The list of improvements to be funded through the updated Bayfront Development fee are listed in the Traffic and Circulation Section of the plan. Alternative with Housing Errata Pages: Also included in the binder are the "errata pages", the changes which would be required in the plan document if the alternative with an option for housing on three selected sites were to be approved. The three sites are shown on Figures III-5 and III-6, Anza and Anza Point Land Use Maps, and include the drive-in theater site and the parcel across Airport Boulevard in the Anza Point Subarea, and the long-term airport parking site in the Anza Subarea. If this alternative were added to the plan, the option of multiple family housing at a density of 30 units per acre would be allowed on these sites. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Minutes, January 26, 2004 Letter from C/CAG Board Chair dated March 17, 2004 regarding consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments City Council Resolution Notice of Public Hearing, Mailed March 26, 2004 General Land Use Map Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Bayfront Specific Plan dated March, 2004 Draft Bayfront Specific Plan: Alternative with Housing Errata Pages dated December, 2003 -4- RESOLUTION NO. �— RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, AN AMENDMENT TO THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,California Government Code Section 65450 allows for the preparation of specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all orpart of the area covered by the General Plan;and WHEREAS,the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan dated March,2004 has been found to be in conformance with the Burlingame General Plan;and WHEREAS,a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act,and it has been determined that with the mitigation measures proposed and incorporated as community standards as a part of the Bayfront Specific Plan,there are no potential significant environmental impacts from adoption of this specific plan;and WHEREAS,a citizens advisory committee considered the issues involved in the Bayfront and made recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council;and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held three public study meetings on the Bayfront Specific Plan, including a joint meeting with the City Council, and received and considered extensive public input from all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documentation; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame,after proceedings duly and regularly held as provided by law did,on January 26,2004,make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Bayfront Specific Plan, an amendment to the General Plan and ordered it to be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings as required by law;and WHEREAS,the City/County Association of Governments(C/CAG)Board,acting as the Airport Land Use Commission,at its regular meeting held on March 11,2004,determined that,with certain amendments which have been incorporated into the March,2004 Draft Plan,the City of Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan is consistent with the applicable airport/land use compatibility criteria for the San Francisco International Airport, as contained in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan December 1996,as amended;and WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 5,2004,at which time the Council received and considered the staff report and the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan dated March,2004 and all other written materials and testimony that any interested person wished to present prior to the close of the public hearing;and WHEREAS,the City Council,after this public hearing,and after due consideration of the minutes and recommendations of the Planning Commission,finds that Bayfront Specific Plan as updated should be adopted as an amendment to the General Plan. City Council Resolution Bayfront Specific Plan Negative Declaration and Amendment to General Plan NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by this City Council that: 1 . On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the Bayfront Specific Plan as set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and a mitigated negative declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 531-P is hereby approved. 2. The Bayfront Specific Plan, an amendment to the General Plan titled Exhibit "A", dated March, 2004, is hereby adopted. Findings for such adoption of the Bayfront Specific Plan are as set forth at the April 5, 2004 meeting and in this Resolution. MAYOR I, ANN MUSSO , City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of April , 2004 , by the following vote: `- AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 6. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN — PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON DRAFT BAYFRONT PLAN AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. (201 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report 1/26/04, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed the reasons for the update of the plan, and gave a brief summary of its purpose and contents. Commissioners asked if there were changes to make to the plan, such as increases in density, does the environmental document need to be revised. SP Brooks noted that based on the direction given by the Commission, the analysis for traffic circulation assumed a maximum of 800 dwelling units for residential development, and if the density were increased, that portion of the analysis would have to be revised. The impact on the environmental report would have to be decided when the effects were determined. Commissioners asked staff to explain the future projects proposed for U.S. 101 , specifically the Broadway and Peninsula interchanges. CP Monroe noted that while the auxiliary lane project is proceeding using allocated state and current Measure A funds, the proposal to reconstruct the Broadway interchange as an urban interchange would not be funded unless Measure A is extended. At that point, the Broadway interchange would be a high priority project, but it could be about ten years before it would be rebuilt. The Peninsula Interchange bridge will be widened as a part of the auxiliary lane project, and will be two lanes in each direction over the freeway with bike lanes, and improved on- and off-ramps. However, it will not be a full interchange, it will have northbound on and off-ramps only, with no freeway access in the southbound direction. An upgrade to Peninsula Interchange so it serves both north and southbound traffic is on the list for funding with an extension of Measure A. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Charmaine Curtis, AF Evans Development; Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Bob Lanzone, 939 Laurel Street, San Carlos; Scott Kirkman, USL Properties, representing New Town Hotel Inc., Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way; and Paul Leininger, 405 Chapin; made the following comments regarding the Bayfront Specific Plan: Think housing in the Bayfront area is a bad idea, it would be a misuse of the property, area is better served by the current zoning, this update process started as a bail-out process for the owner of 301 Airport, housing in that area with the bay views will be million dollar condos, not affordable; housing is ideal for the North Burlingame area, that area has close mass transit with regional access, housing on the Bayfront would be a short-term fix and a long-term disaster. Lived in Burlingame since 1980, have been using the Anza and Anza Extension areas for recreation all that time, have slowly watched development of the area, and it isn't half bad, the way it's landscaped, the trails, the businesses, fit into the long term plan, it's a wonderful place, when you talk about housing, wouldn't want to live there, its very windy, only two ways in and out traffic-wise, on top of that, it would put a second city where there are no services, would create an East Burlingame, no place to get a loaf of bread without getting in a car, it would take away some of the last nice open space, even with the current down slope, the economy will come back and the hotel market will improve; in terms ofwind, it was the windsurfers who stopped the office project, if propose to put big buildings up for housing, they will block the wind. Developer has come up with a conceptual plan for the 301 site that would include affordable rental units, senior housing and market-rate condominiums, would also include convenience retail, our group believes it is possible to create a viable new neighborhood, could provide a high quality living area, there are a lot of benefits, including affordable housing, understand that the action tonight will determine if the housing possibility is kept alive, would like the opportunity for you to evaluate our proposal, have worked in a lot of ~-' communities to come up with solutions, hope we have the opportunity to work with you. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Would like to compliment each member of the Commission and acknowledge the hard work of staff and the people from the community,as well as the people on the Working Group who were stakeholders,now at the --� end of the long process, had the benefit of their valuable input to the plan; came to the City Council originally and requested that the City start the process to update the Bayfront Specific Plan,the plan was put in place twenty years ago and it has succeeded, many of the goals of the plan have been reached, hotels, offices and restaurants built,now it is legitimate to ask if we want to rethink the goals,it may be that there are enough offices and hotels, and there are other sites where those uses can go, the Anza Point area is different from other places in the Bayfront area,it is far from the Airport,close to Coyote Point,it is a good idea to consider housing there because it would have less traffic impact,and it would be the only opportunity for a good sized affordable housing project,would be a way to get mixed use,if you offer the choice,it will give flexibility to attract different types of projects, everyone talks about affordable housing,but the only way to get it is if you can get the land at a decent price,there is an affordable housing component in the plan brought to you tonight,the developer is willing to donate the land for affordable housing,this is the only way to get significant affordable housing, this would not be a bail out for the developer, but a donation to the community, and the housing would remain permanently affordable. Represent a property owner in the Anza Point area, whether or not to have housing is the community's decision, there were plans approved for a 595-room hotel on client's site, economic studies indicate that hotels and offices are not feasible for ten years,would support allowing extended stay hotels in this area,the 85 rooms per acre may not help this property that much,don't think massive buildings will be approved in this area given the site's constraints so density may not be attainable,would support a housing overlay as an additional opportunity,given the wind and other issues,it would allow for smaller units compatible with the recreational opportunities in the area, would appreciate a conclusion on this issue, if housing is allowed, owner would want to do something compatible with the site across the street. Commissioners asked: what is the issue with extended stay and the 85 room per acre proposed density? Do you think that housing and extended stay hotels are not compatible? What uses were looked at for that site in the economic analysis,if the report says office and hotels won't happen for 10-15 years,there is a carrying cost, what will your client do? Have you had any other inquiries for other uses? Mr. Lanzone responded that given the type of hotel,would want to provide a campus like setting,probably propose about 700 rooms, would be below the maximum allowed. Other communities have extended stay and residential together,if it is proposed it should have a retail component,the two uses are not necessarily compatible. The economic analysis looked at hotels,offices and extended stay hotels as potential uses on that site,owner will hold on until they can do extended stay, they have owned the property since 1989, and it has been used for auto storage since that time. Scott Kirkman,USL properties representing New Town Hotels,the property owner, noted that they have explored everything,housing would give another alternative,right now the market rate for office space is$25 per SF,would need to be at least$40 per SF for a project to break even,don't see that happening for about 20 years,we hold BCDC permits on the site for a hotel project,studies done for the best use for this site determined that a staged extended stay hotel would be best, and that the hotel market will recover for that niche between 2007 and 2010,could do a Courtyard Marriott or similar project in stages,but would need to wait 3 to 5 years to begin;we did get an inquiry today from a residential home builder, and there appears to be some confidence that there is a need for that market, staff has always been very helpful when needed direction for this site. Have heard considerable discussion about the opportunity for housing,Burlingame now has a requirement -� for inclusionary affordable units, if developer does a project, it will have to include affordable housing, hoping that tonight there would be discussion of the pivotal areas of land use, why is the state-owned site designated for hotel use only, when it is a pivotal site for the Bayfront area as a whole, should provide 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 opportunities to make the area a destination, retail nodes should be designed around that issue, with a cultural center or museum as a focal point. Staff noted that the State lands parcel is limited because of its State ownership, the designation reflects State law. Have two businesses in the Bayfront area,have participated in the workshops,felt included and welcomed in the process, like what has been done looking at the whole picture, having a connected Bayfront trail, bringing residents to the area, the plan is forward thinking, deliberate, well adjusted with good ideas; housing has been the focal point of most of the discussion, in this environment with the airplanes, wind, noise,what is the value of homes, also where are the City services,the area is isolated,there would need to be increased police presence;also there would be future complaints from new residents about current uses in the area, such as fishing, people walking past residences on trails; like the design component of the plan, traffic flow on Broadway could be improved if the right turn south on freeway were designated only for right turns and the through traffic had its own lane,it would alleviate the back up across the interchange;everyone has been helpful in the process, people have given a lot of time to this project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chair Boju6s asked if Commissioners had any questions of staff. Commissioners asked: regarding the negative declaration,why was the analysis of housing limited to three sites and 800 total units? There is an existing bus route identified serving the Bayshore Highway portion of the area, could the bus route be extended to serve the rest of the area? In looking at the noise analysis worst case,the negative declaration notes that the noise level will increase because traffic increases, wouldn't it be less noisy if the cars are moving slower due to increased congestion?Why is ALUC concerned with aircraft noise in this area when the new plans are getting quieter? Staff noted that the location and number of housing units studied was based on Commission direction at the final study session. Bus routes are determined by SamTrans based on the ability of the area served to recover fare box revenue equal to 25%of the cost of providing service,extension to Anza would have to be determined by SamTrans based on estimated ridership fare box. The noise study looks at increases in noise as an average over time, and determined that the noise levels would increase, have to also take into consideration for speed the improved traffic flow as a result of the auxiliary lane project which is expected to be completed in the next few years. ALUC staff is noting a possible impact from single-event noise and potential impacts from the new large aircraft which may begin operations at SFO in 2006;it is not yet known how noisy they will be,but it is assumed that since the planes are much larger and will require more thrust to lift, that the noise levels may be higher than from current operations. Commission discussion: thank staff for a great job putting the plan together,thank the Working Group for their effort,noted that there were a meetings was held with some Commissioners with Charmaine Curtis and Amy Bailey regarding a housing proposal, would like to commend them and the landowner for putting together a plan that includes affordable housing,wanted to elaborate that although we do have inclusionary zoning rules,this proposal included more affordable units than the ordinance requires,twenty-five percent of the units would be administered so they would be affordable in perpetuity, so this option would provide a long-term solution; to have such a sizable chunk of the housing dedicated to affordable housing is a big asset, there is no other place in the City that this could be done at this scale. Continued discussion: appreciate the time spent by Charmaine Curtis and Amy Bailey in presenting the proposal, agree that affordable housing is something we need,project presented shows a mixture of uses, �-- senior housing, affordable rentals and market rate condominiums,the concept is good but don't agree with the project's placement in this area; we are also working on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Continued discussion: the discussion about housing is not just about a bailout for the current owner,housing was discussed and specifically left out when current plan was adopted for specific reasons,included housing •� now based on points made by the economist,we wouldn't see hotels for 15 years and offices for 20 years,the revenue shown projected for hotels is phantom; also,the Bay Area Council advises cities that when offices and jobs are encouraged, housing should also be included and that went into my decision; it was stated tonight that financial advisors said 2007 to 2010 for hotel market to return, would like to see that information to help us make decision. Commissioner discussion: we have had a strong economic base in past and will in the future, there are projections for timing of office market,but there are also increases in office rents now in Burlingame,there is a lower vacancy rate in Burlingame than in the rest of San Mateo County,think we should have affordable housing, but this is not the right location, North Burlingame is more appropriate for housing than the Bayfront area,we should want to connect more to Broadway to bring visitors to the shops and restaurants; would be a separate city in Burlingame,would they have adequate police and fire protection,based on this information, am against housing in the Bayfront. Continued discussion: sympathetic to land owner and high carrying costs, it is a drain on land owner,but much as like to help corporation,for the City it is not a wise policy to let the market dictate land use policy, the City and the Council have the responsibility to say what we want our City to be, the market will be flexible enough to follow land use policies;take issue with the revenue-generating potential of housing,there may be a moderate immediate return but not the magnitude of commercial for long term,this is important to the city, bothered that if the seed is planted for residential, will grow into more retail and residential and impact the potential for the entire area. Commissioners continued: went out to the site and spent time sitting, concern was raised about this area becoming and island separate from Burlingame,would we be more connected to people on Chapin than in this area, don't know,Hong Kong is a rocky,mountainous area with many pockets and people love it, less concerned with the island of humanity,also struck by comments that something will be built quickly if you plan for it; land across the road has been a parking lot for 14 years, also wonder, this is a special area underutilized by all of us, have a huge vacant site, this would bring people over there and make it more attractive, the economy seems to be turning around, concern with freeway access at Peninsula, might be better to wait two or three years and see what Caltrans will do at Peninsula interchange, if we decide to do that, residences would make the area more alive than offices,which tend to be sterile. Discussion continued: brought up a point that concerns me,if you put residential out there,people will just sleep there, they will go elsewhere for entertainment; we need to think outside the box and make this a destination area,there are all the people staying in hotels but no place to go, something more substantial,a use that would attract people to go there, that may be the solution, but don't think with residential it will work,there is not enough to keep people there,there is a demand,but once people are there and realize they don't have libraries,retail, etc., they will be asking for those services and there won't be a place to put it. Commissioner discussion: think we have a great lifestyle in Burlingame because it is walkable but don't think people will say they don't want to live there because there is no library within walking distance; it won't be identical,but they would enjoy a wonderful lifestyle;heart warmed by input from Commissioners, but hotel community has indicated there are hubs in other communities that have snitched some of the golden egg, as the market comes back, it will not necessarily land in Burlingame, there is an absorptior factor with the vacancy rate,so it may be some time before anything is built;now have conference center in South San Francisco that takes some of the market away,when plan was developed in the 1980's,housing 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 Plan as a potential area for housing, and looking at the Peninsula Hospital site where many of the surrounding offices may move onto the hospital site, there will be an opportunity for housing there on the existing office sites; that area also has BART, bus routes and Caltrain nearby, there are Transit Oriented Development programs offered through San Mateo County which grant jurisdictions incentive funds for affordable housing within one-third mile of mass transit,that would not work in the Bayfront,no transit in that area,more suitable for the North end of Burlingame,the infrastructure and services are already there, can't create that on the Bayfront,the Police Department now has one officer per shift in the Bayfront area,if residential is added,there will be an increase in calls and they won't increase the patrols,there will be cuts in this year's budget, if there are staff cutbacks there won't be the ability to increase services to this area, also would have to cut down the preventative patrols for the industrial area and hotels that the Police Department now does in this area;would look at this issue differently if this were the only area for housing,but have to look at the long-term goals of Burlingame,would get development immediately and revenue in short-term, but there are other opportunities,could put convention centers,once housing is developed there would be no more revenues long-term,would get more revenue from hotels,don't see as a neighborhood that would fit or work well with the Burlingame we have now. Commissioners continued: seems like what we are doing is weighing the pros and cons and providing guidance to the City Council,what struck me about the alternative plans is that the premise of the Specific Plan was that the area provide a strong economic base,has there been a change in policy of the City that we should deviate from that premise? still of a mindset that we should not;bothered that there had been some analysis of the best,highest use of a property in Anza Point,would like to see that,Mr.Hudak said that the best thing is.to give the land owner the most open zoning and we will get the best product,if we open it up to residential,they will apply,even if we don't have the other economic study,based on the data we have,don't see a reason to change from the premise to maintain a strong economic base;other communities are getting wise to the revenue-generating characteristic of hotels,even if we want them,other communities have gotten wind of our secret and the market is saturated at this time, other point that came out of the meeting with Charmaine Curtis and Amy Bailey was that even if housing is put only just on a part of Anza Point, will have to put in infrastructure,other services,and other residential will follow,this area will not be integrated with the rest of the community,will be a second city,not a viable integrated vibrant part of our community. Commission discussion continued: hate to base my decision solely on fiscal issues, good we have an economic base in the area and it should be preserved but that is not the only issue,in reviewing the fiscal impact, it is even positive with housing, two or three years ago, the Planning Commission reviewed the office project at 301 Airport,we said office doesn't work and some commissioners were touting housing,in the current economy,saying there can be no housing is a reaction,when the economy was booming and there was plenty of revenue, it was not an issue, now with a downturn it has become an issue, no housing for financial reasons is a reaction to the economic situation,to the north in Millbrae,there are commercial uses supporting the Airport,and to the south are recreation and residential uses in San Mateo,housing at southern end would fit in, and the plan shows strong industrial commercial component at the northern end; also, would like the plan to unite the east and west sides of town, and housing will help do that more than any other use; won't necessarily be the same as the other side,but people would come back and forth between, there is a regional need for housing, and we would have the possibility of having affordable units in perpetuity; have thought of this area as a strong industrial base, the current plan was written twenty years ago,now there is a different dynamic,this is a desirable place to live with great recreational opportunities, allowing people to live out there will tie the town together,enhance pedestrian activity and provide another opportunity for housing for people in Burlingame. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 was discussed,but today's economy is such that it will continue as it has, should have a broader range of what can come, and can look at proposals as they come up; with an entertainment destination such as an aquarium, the cost is monumental and who is going to go; land will lay idle unless we broaden the opportunity for landowners,have pros and cons,there are so many variables,we need to look at the land use policy and look at a proposal and decide if it is something that might work; a proposal will have to go through the Planning Department, the Commission and the Council, and the plan will give direction of Burlingame for tomorrow. Continued discussion: if we permit housing in the plan,and a proposal comes forward,how would you just say no; on what basis would you refuse; if you look closely and feel the design and density fits, could say yes,if not,no;if allow as a conditional use,there are any number of parameters;but if a developer comes to us, if housing is a permitted land use,we won't be able to outright reject,only can look at design,form and density,the inability to provide a straight answer demonstrates that point; let us not forget about the North Burlingame Specific Plan,and the housing component there,it will work much better at that location,would find it difficult to find a reason to deny once it is put into the plan as a possible use; the North end is a wonderful place for housing, what turned it around for me was the big chunk of affordable housing proposed,problem with the North end is there are a lot of different owners and each project will do the bare minimum of affordable,want to see larger amount of affordable,that's what attractive about this proposed project;from a business perspective,would say compared to Millbrae or Burlingame,Burlingame is a more desirable location for hotels because of the Bayfront environment;try not to lose sight that we don't have a project in front of us,as attractive as that plan is,we don't have that plan in front of us,while am a proponent of affordable housing,not at the expense of the overall land use policy,would be going for a short-term fix to guide for many years in the future, there are other places where housing can and will be developed,the conceptual plan was with a segment of affordable housing which is attractive,but not the way to make land use decisions. Commissioners continued: are there other uses precluded that we have not considered for retail nodes, would have to amend the plan, have goals and policies set up to encourage aquarium, other destination features; when we look at improving the bay trail, the highest priority should be where Broadway hits the trail north. Commissioners requested the following changes to the text of the plan: • correct the typo in Policy A-1 to read"a vibrant,visitor-oriented destination"and office warehouse commercial employment center; • Add Policy C-4: Enhance the Anza Point Area and Fisherman's Park as a recreational destination; • Revise Figure III-5 and text to include extended stay hotels on the State lands parcel in the Anza Area; In the"Alternative with Housing" Errata Pages: • Add Policy D-7: Any housing project shall have a 20 percent affordable component; • Add Policy to encourage extension of a bus route to serve the entire Bayfront area; • Amend the policies to encourage a destination commercial recreation feature of a large scale at the retail nodes or along the lagoon frontage. C. Auran made a motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The motion was seconded by C.Brownrigg. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The -� motion passed on a 7-0 vote. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 2004 C. Auran then made a motion to recommend to Council approval of the Bayfront Specific Plan as drafted. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C.Osterling then made a motion to approve the Bayfront Specific Plan errata pages,with housing included as an option on three selected sites. The motion was seconded by C.Auran. C.Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the housing overlay option. The motion failed on a 3-4 vote (Cern. Brownrigg, Keighran, Keel and Boju6s dissenting). Chair Boju6s then made a motion to approve the plan without the housing component. The motion was seconded by C.Keighran. Chair Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the plan without the housing component. The motion passed on a 4-3 vote(Cers. Osterling,Vistica,and Auran dissenting). Staff noted this item would go forward to City Council in March or April after the Airport Land Use Commission and C/CAG have reviewed the plan. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVI W STUDY ITEMS 7. 261 BALBOA AVE E,LOT A AND LO ZONED R-1- a. 1261 BALBO AVENUE,LOT A.- LICATION FOR DESIGN VIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY S GLE FAMILY DWEL G 1261 BALBOA AV UE,LOT B-APPLIC TION FOR DESIGN REVIE SPECIAL ERMIT FOR AN AT CHED GARAGE FO ANEW TWO-STORY SIN E FAMILY D ELLING c. APP CATION FOR LOTS IT (RANDY GRAN TRG ARCHITECTS, PLICANT AND AR ITECT;CHRISTINE G, PROPERTY OWNS 82 NOTICED)PROJ CT PLANNER: RUBE P Monroe briefly presente he project description. ommission asked CA erson if they could look at th of by the creek as being 85 buildable at 5,100 SF base allowable FAR on at rather than the entire 6,00 F lot. CA Anderson state at 85%buildable area c be used as a guideline. ere were no further question of staff. Chair Boju6s ened the public comment. Stine Munding,prop owner, 1261 Balboa A enue,noted that she is buildi two houses, she will live the smaller creek side a and will sell the othe ouse to support her retireme . The existing house is one edroom,one bathroom;b ught from original own She moved in 1984. The age is falling down and h se is not in shape to reir. New homes will b improvement to the neigh orhood. Oak tree on prope is diseased, spend a to of money to balance th tree,but branches have broke off and fallen on the car,n ay to save the tree. Co ission asked if there other family members that 'll be living there, owner st ed that she will be the o one living there. Com ission asked how far out the anches reach from the oak ee at the rear,owner stat that tree sits in creek, t s over garage, PG&E come and cuts chunks out of the ee, so it is unbalanced. Randy Grang , 05 Park Road, project arc 'tect, noted house on the so h side, lot A, is a style in the teens, examples a found in Burlingame and an Mateo, has wide soffets,wide trim, grouped win ws, wood water table. T big one story section at the ont has been placed under a Magnolia tree,tried wo around what was there. he creek side lot, lot B is long skinny house,has be setback as far from the �-- creek as possible, all of th iving area rooms look out n the creek, it has an attac d garage to keep the creek side of the lot open. The house does have four bedr ms for one woman,but w ted to consider re- 13 RECEIVED C/CAG CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS -' LJ u OF SAN MATEO COUNTY "oCiWA&,i2Eo.o",'u-- -IGFBurlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Ha1JMoon Bay • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • Millbrae (3144/IN iC�(1' • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County • South San Francisco • Woodside DISTRIBUTION: March 17, 2004 �� ty Council please respond �ity Manager City Attorney n No Response Required u_ Finance The Honorable Rosalie O'Mahony, MayorRECEIVED D`r. wn cc Works I City of Burlingame Human Resources City Hall 5-1 Primrose Road i Police Chief Burlingame, CA 94010MAR 2 3 2004 1 Fire Chief 11 On Next Agenda Parks & Rec I Librarian CITY OF B U R L I N G A M E PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR Dear Mayor O'Mahony: PLANNING DEPT. RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK RE: C/CAG Board Action on a Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) Consistency Review of a Referral From the City of Burlingame, Re: Draft Bay&opt Specific Plan Update December 2003 At its Regular Meeting on March 11, 2004, the C/CAG Board, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission, considered the airport land use plan consistency of two versions of the above-referenced draft plan, as requested by the City of Burlingame (see attachment). For the purposes of review and evaluation, the two versions of the plan are identified as follows: Option 1 : Draft Specific Plan (No Housing Option) and Option 2: Alternate Specific Plan (Housing Option). The C/CAG Board action on each option is described below. Option 1: Draft Specific Plan (No Housing Option) The C/CAG Board, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission, determined that the City of Burlingame Draft Bayfront Specific Plan December 2003 (Option 1) is consistent with the applicable airport/land use compatibility criteria for San Francisco International Airport, as contained in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan December 1996, as amended, based on the following conditions: 1 . Add a reference, re: compliance with the airport/land use compatibility criteria for San Francisco International Airport in the text of the Introduction chapter that includes the following language: "Government Code Section 65302.3 requires that a local agency general plan and/or specific plan be consistent with the applicable airport/land use compatibility criteria in the relevant adopted airport land use plan. The goals, development policies and community standards contained herein are consistent with the relevant airport/land use compatibility criteria contained in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan December 1996 as amended, for San Francisco International Airport." 2. Expand the text of the Noise section of Chapter VI to address single-event noise levels from aircraft departures on Runways 19 and Runways 10 at San Francisco International Airport. Based on that information, the revised text should indicate noise-sensitive land uses should be discouraged or prohibited where single-event noise levels in the planning area are 65 dBA or higher. 555 CouNTr CENTER 5n' FLOOR, REDwooD CrrY, CA 94063 PnoNE: 650.599-1420 FAx: 650.361.8227 Letter to The Hon.Rosalie O'Mahony,Mayor,City of Burlingame,RE:C/CAG Board Action on a Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan(CLUP)Consistency Review of a Referral From the City of Burlingame,Re: Draft Bayfront Specific Plan Update December 2003 March 17,2004 Page 2 Option 1: Draft Specific Plan(No Housing Option)-continued 3. Expand the text in Chapter VI.to indicate the specific plan area is located within the airport influence area(AIA)boundary for San Francisco International Airport and that all real estate transactions in the planning area are subject to the real estate disclosure requirements of Chapter 496,Statutes of 2002 (formerly known as AB 2776(Simitian)),effective January 1,2004. Option 2: Alternate Specific Plan(Housing Option) The C/CAG Board,acting as the Airport Land Use Commission,determined that the City of Burlingame Draft Bayfront Specific Plan December 2003 (Option 2)is consistent with the applicable airport/land use compatibility criteria for San Francisco International Airport,as contained in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan December 1996 as amended,based on the following conditions: 1. Add a reference,re: compliance with the airport/land use compatibility criteria for San Francisco International Airport in the text of the Introduction chapter that includes the following language: "Government Code Section 65302.3 requires that a local agency general plan and/or specific plan be consistent with the applicable airportlland use compatibility criteria in the relevant adopted airport land use plan. The goals,development policies and community standards ` contained herein are consistent with the relevant airport/land use compatibility criteria contained in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan December 1996 as amended,for San Francisco International Airport." 2. Expand the text of the Noise section to address single-event noise levels from aircraft departures on Runways 19 and Runways 10 at San Francisco International Airport. Based on that information,the revised text should indicate that even though the proposed housing sites are located outside of the current and proposed 65 dB CNEL aircraft noise contour for San Francisco Intemational Airport,all noise- sensitive land uses,including the proposed housing units,should be acoustically treated to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dBA,based on single-event noise levels from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport. 3. Expand the text in Chapter VI.to indicate the specific plan area is located within the airport influence area(AIA)boundary for San Francisco Intemational Airport and that all real estate transactions in the planning area are subject to the real estate disclosure requirements of Chapter 496,Statutes of 2002 (formerly known as AB 2776(Simitian)),effective January 1,2004. As you know,the C/CAG Board historically has had some serious concerns about developing new housing and other noise-sensitive land uses on the Bay side of U.S.Highway 101,in the vicinity of San Francisco International Airport. The following information was included in the C/CAG Agenda Report on this item,dated February 26,2004 and briefly noted at the March 11,2004 CCAG meeting: 555 COUCnY CRniR 5'"FLooR,REDWooD Cny,CA 94063 FrroNE:650.599-1420 FAx:650.361.8227 Letter to The Hon. Rosalie O'Mahony, Mayor, City of Burlingame, RE: C/CAG Board Action on a Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) Consistency Review of a Referral From the City of Burlingame, Re: Draft Bayfront Specific Plan Update December 2003 March 17, 2004 Page 3 "It is significant to note that historically, new residential development on the Bayside of U. S. Highway 101, in the vicinity of San Francisco International Airport, has been discouraged and even opposed by the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board) and the Airport in the past, due to the incompatibility of residential development with airport operations, especially with aircraft noise impacts. This position by the Airport Land Use Commission (C/CAG Board) and the Airport has helped create a buffer of compatible land uses around the airport on the Bay side of U.S. Highway 101, between Brisbane and Burlingame." As part of its action on Option 2, the C/CAG Board approved the following language for inclusion in this letter. "Although the potential aircraft single-event noise impact at the three proposed housing sites could be mitigated to be consistent with the existing noise compatibility criteria for San Francisco International Airport, it appears contradictory to allow up to 800 dwelling units in a potentially high aircraft noise environment and then require those dwelling units to be acoustically treated to mitigate the noise impact to an acceptable level. Furthermore, approval of the 800 dwelling units on the Bayside of U. S. Highway 101 would be contrary to the Airport Land Use Commission's (C/CAG) historical position on housing development on the Bayside of the freeway, would create a new noise consistency where one does not exist now, and could set a precedent for other cities to following, regarding housing east of the freeway." I hope this input is useful to the Burlingame City Council, as part of its review of both versions of the proposed draft specific plan update. Thanks to the City of Burlingame for participating in the state-mandated airport/land use compatibility review process. Sincerely, ,l ,/C -L E�- 0 - �-h Deborah E.G. Wilder, Chair Attachment cc: CCAG Board Members Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner, City of Burlingame Nixon Lam, SFO Planning ccagactienletburlspecificph.doc 555 Cotnarr CBn-ER 57H FLooitREDWooD Cnw, CA 94063 PHONE: 650.599-1420 FAx: 650.361.8227 1•tLiNANfE eat • rarw .a The City of Burlingame CHTY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790 February 3, 2004 Dave Carbone, Senior Planner C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee 555 County Center, 5t' Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Re: ALUC Consistency Finding for the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan Dear Mr. Carbone, On December 16, 2003, the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan was sent to your office for review by the Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). As you know, there are Vo options under consideration, the Bayfront Specific Plan and the Alternative with Housing, which includes �- housing as an option on selected sites. On January 26, 2004, the Planning Commission, on a 4-3 vote, made a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan (with no housing). Because the vote was close and in order to keep all options open to the Council, both the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan and the Alternative with Housing will be brought to the City Council for final consideration. In order to get clear direction from both ALUC and C/CAG, please ask that two separate consistency determinations be made, one for the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission, and one for the Alternative with Housing. This way, the Council will be able to get a clear picture of the impact on airport operations for each option and can use that information to make a decision. I appreciate your assistance in bringing the plan options forward for ALUC and C/CAG review. If you have any other questions about the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan and its processing, please call me at (650) 558-7253. Sincerely, C Maureen Brooks Senior Planner City of Burlingame Item # 6 Negative Declaration and Amendment to the General Plan Action Calendar to Update the Bayfront Specific Plan Meeting Date: 1/26/04 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan, hold a public hearing and take action to recommend the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amendment to the General Plan to update the Bayfront Specific Plan. The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to the City Council. The reasons for the Commission's action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Draft Bayfront Specific Plan should be clearly stated for the record. Background: Based on direction from the City Council, in May 2002, Planning Department staff has worked with the public, the Bayfront Working Group and a Planning Commission subcommittee to prepare an update to the Bayfront Specific Plan in the City's General Plan. The purpose of a Specific Plan is to provide refined direction, more detailed than the General Plan, for future development of and improvements in an area. The planning area for this project includes all of the area within Burlingame east of U.S. 101 from the Burlingame border with Millbrae at El Portal Creek to the border with San Mateo County near Coyote Point Park (see attached map). The existing Bayfront Specific Plan was adopted in 1981 . The land use choices in the plan were developed based on the premise that the land uses in this area would provide a strong economic base for the City; the land use densities were based on the traffic carrying capacity of the key intersections which serve the area . The update of the plan was developed using these two premises as a starting point. Since May of 2002, three public workshops have been held, as well as seven meetings of the Bayfront Working Group, a joint study meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council, and two Planning Commission study meetings have been held as part of developing this proposed plan. The Bayfront Specific Plan was developed `,,.ncorporating the input of Working Group members, Burlingame residents attending the public workshops, and comments from the Planning Commission during the study sessions, as well as information contained in the Background Data Report, an assemblage of technical reports which describe the existing conditions within the Planning Area. The next step in the adoption process is to hold public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Final action, to approve the Negative Declaration and adopt a resolution amending the General Plan and adopting the Bayfront Specific Plan, is taken by the City Council. Summary: Attached for your review is the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan document dated December, 2003. The plan is divided into seven sections. This plan is an update to the Bayfront Specific Area Plan adopted in 1981 , and builds upon the concepts established in the 1981 plan. Following is a brief description of the purpose of each section. 1 . Introduction: The plan introduction section outlines how the plan came to be and describes the area in the regional context. It also defines the purpose of the plan and contains a vision statement for the Planning Area. 2. Goals and Policies: This section provides the policy framework on which the sections on Land Use, Traffic and Circulation, Design Guidelines and Community Standards are based. The goals and policies are intended to capture the overall vision for the Planning Area and to provide a link to the more detailed aspects of the plan. In the future, when the plan is being implemented, the policies become a reference used to `' determine whether projects proposed are consistent with the vision of the Plan and its implementation. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Amendment to the General Plan to update the Bayfront Specific Plan 3. Land Use Plan: This section identifies the land uses and their densities appropriate for each of the five subareas within the Planning Area. There are two subareas in the Northern Bayfront Area, and three subareas in the Anza Area. This section describes the land use by type and location within each of the subareas,as well as specifying the density of development using either the number of rooms per acre(hotel) or floor area ratio (commercial and industrial). Key land use themes include maintaining the industrial character of the Inner Bayshore Area, while allowing for limited retail opportunities to serve the area's employees; addition of a retail node in the Shoreline Area to create a focal point for this area with frontage on the San Francisco Bay; maintain and improve the existing recreational opportunities within the Anza Extension subarea; and add the opportunity for extended stay hotels in the Anza and Anza Point areas,as well as recreation-related retail uses in the Beach and Lang Road areas. 4. Traffic and Circulation: This section describes the trip generating characteristics of the land uses proposed at build-out densities in the plan,and describes the roadway changes proposed to improve circulation in the area. The densities of the land uses proposed are predicated on the trip-generating characteristics of those uses,particularly during the evening peak hour when the area's roadways are most congested. The Traffic Analyzer is a tool developed for implementation of the plan which can track each project's impact on the critical intersections within the Planning Area. 5. Design Guidelines: The Design Guidelines Section will become a key implementation tool used at a staff level when development projects are submitted for review. The design standards developed are specific to the goals and policies of each subarea. For example, there are different standards for properties with bay frontage as compared to those for the Inner Bayshore Area,which has a more office/industrial character. 6. Development Framework and Community Standards: This section provides a description of the existing environmental conditions and constraints to development that affect the area. It also describes the infrastructure that is in place to serve current and future development in the Planning Area. The information and illustrations in this section provide measurable "Community Standards" for evaluating how potential constraints such as noise,airport safety,biological resources,and public facilities will be addressed by future development. These community standards also establish a baseline for environmental review of future projects. 7. Plan Implementation: The Implementation Section offers a description of the steps needed to implement the plan. Some of the implementation measures will be in the form of zoning code changes to bring the zoning for the Planning Area into conformance with the land use designations and standards of the plan.The Plan also provides a basis for the update of the Bayfront Development Fee,which has provided funding for necessary roadway improvements to keep traffic impacts on the area's intersections at an acceptable level of service. This development fee requires a developer to pay a proportional share,based on the trips the future project will generate, towards the roadway and streetscape improvements needed for the area-wide circulation system to function acceptably. The list of improvements to be funded through the updated Bayfront Development fee are listed in the Traffic and Circulation Section of the plan. Airport Land Use Committee Review: An amendment to the General Plan which changes land use in an area within an airport's influence area must be reviewed by the City/County Association of Government's (C/CAG's) Airport Land Use Committee(ALUC)and by the C/CAG Board to determine the Specific Plan's consistency with the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). The ALUC will be making a recommendation to the C/CAG Board on the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan at its February, 2004 meeting. ALUC and C/CAG Board action is required prior to the Council's action on the plan. -2- Mitigated Negative Declaration and Amendment to the General Plan to update the Bayfront Specific Plan Dlanning Commission Study of the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan: On September 18 and October 28,2003,the -,—2lanning Commission held special study sessions to review the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan. Commissioners reviewed the plan by sections,and made comments on and revisions to the text of the Draft Specific Plan document. These changes have been incorporated into the Draft Plan dated December 2003. At these meetings, there was also a lively discussion regarding the land use component of the plan, regarding whether or not multi-family residential housing should be allowed in the Anza and Anza Point Areas of the plan(see attached). At the conclusion of the two study sessions, the Planning Commission gave direction to staff to move forward with the plan as drafted, with no housing; and directed staff to prepare an alternative with housing as an overlay in certain areas for analysis purposes (see attached "Alternative with Housing, Errata Pages, dated December, 2003). For this alternative overlay, it was assumed that up to 800 units could be built in the Bayfront Area,with the two vacant or underused sites in the Anza Point Area identified as potential sites for housing,as well as the long-term airport parking lot in the Anza Area. Residential density for these sites were established at 30 units per acre. The design guidelines and environmental limitations were assumed to apply in the same way they would to any use. The residential component would be an overlay to the Waterfront Commercial land use designation,and could be provided as a stand-alone or mixed use project. Mitigated Negative Declaration: An initial study was prepared for the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan. The initial study looked at potential impacts to the environment associated with the adoption of the Bayfront Specific Plan update. The plan establishes Community Standards based on the area's environmental constraints which have been included in the negative declaration as mitigation measures. These standards will be used to evaluate future projects to ensure that the project will not cause adverse impacts on the environment, or be unduly exposed to adverse nvironmental conditions. Based on the Planning Commission's direction, the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project includes analysis of the Alternative which includes housing. Based on the findings of the initial study, it has been determined that the proposed update of the Specific Plan can be covered by a mitigated negative declaration since the initial study determined that any significant adverse impacts could be mitigated by application of the community standards and any identified mitigation measures. All future projects developed within the Specific Plan would require separate environmental review and CEQA compliance. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the California State Clearinghouse for review as required by CEQA. The State review period closed on January 8,2004. No state agencies submitted comments by that date. C/CAG submitted a letter noting that future projects which generate 100 or more peak hour trips will be required to meet the new C/CAG land use policies and implementation guidelines. This requirement is noted in the plan and will be implemented at the time any future project is submitted. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner Attachments: Map of the Bayfront Specific Plan Area Draft Bayfront Specific Plan dated December, 2003 Alternative with Housing Errata Pages dated December, 2003 Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Commission Minutes, Study Sessions 9/18/03 and 10/28/03 Bayfront Specific Plan Supplementary Fiscal Analysis prepared by Bay Area Economics dated 10/21/03 S:IBAYFRONT SAPIPC&CC MeetingslPC StaffReport 1.26.04.doc -3- BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN All General Land Use Map horeline �s See Figures III-2 through III-6 ko A for Subarea Land Uses Legend z� Inner Bayshore Office and Warehouse as ® Shoreline � Waterfront Commercial Anza Extension Public Facilities - Park ® Anza Area Waterfront Commercial Anza Point Waterfront Commercial CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL STUDY SESSION City Hall, Conference Room A 501 Primrose, Burlingame, CA Tuesday, October 28, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojues called the October 28, 2003, special study session of the Planning Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojues, Brownrigg (left meeting at 8:30 p.m.), Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: none Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. IV. CONTINUED STUDY SESSION ON THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN CP Monroe presented a brief overview of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan update process to date, noting that at the last meeting the Commission had reviewed the document and suggested changes to the policies and land use section, and directed that we revisit the land use issues at this session. The Commission had also directed that the economic consultant, Bay Area Economics, prepare a report comparing the proposed Draft Plan to an alternative with housing ased on phases of build-out over a 20 year period. A. Review of Supplementary Fiscal Analysis dated October 21, 2003 prepared by Bay Area Economics Simon Alejandrino, Bay Area Economics, reviewed the material in his memorandum dated October 21 , 2003, regarding the Fiscal Analysis for the Bayfront Plan. He went over the assumptions used for the timing of development of the different uses in the two scenarios studied, the Preliminary Draft Plan and Alternative A which includes 800 housing units. He noted that the life of the plan was assumed to be 20 years, although the plan is open ended regarding its ending. Phase I would consist of years 1 through 5 after the adoption of the plan, Phase II represents years 6 through 10, and Phase III would be years 11 through 20 (assuming build-out in 20 years). With the Preliminary Draft Plan, based on current market conditions, which shows little or no demand for offices and hotels, it is projected that no development would occur in Phase I. It is expected that 667 extended stay hotel rooms would come on board in Phase II, while the remaining 2100 hotel rooms and the planned 534,400 SF of office development would occur in Phase III. In contrast, Alternative A, which includes the potential for 800 multifamily units, would see 470 multifamily units built in Phase I, with the remaining 330 units and 500 hotel rooms built in Phase II. The remaining 1600 hotel rooms and the planned 74,100 SF of office development would occur in Phase III. With both Alternatives, it is projected that the movie theater proj ected within the retail activity node proposed in the Shoreline Area would come on board in Phase II, and the remaining regional serving retail would be split between Phase II and Phase III. Mr. Alejandro noted that in determining market demand for the theater, he had made calls to two theater developers; one of them felt there would be a potential market in this area for a small six-screen theater geared toward independent films, and it is expected that the supporting retail would come along with a theater or similar entertainment use. He also noted that there is current demand for multi-family residential, specifically for condominium (for-sale) units rather than rental units, in the $400,000 to $600,000 price range. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Session Minutes October 28, 2003 Commissioners asked what the assumptions were used regarding Gross Domestic Product(GDP) and interest rates;would it make a difference in the assumptions if interest rates were to appreciate. Mr.Alejandrino noted that all dollars were assumed to be current value. He did not look at potential changes to interest rates. If interest rates were to go up,the demand for housing would decrease but it wouldn't be completely washed away because of pent up demand. Commissioners noted that with extended stay hotels,it is assumed that 7%of the stays would be longer than 29 days and those longer stays would not generate transient occupancy tax(TOT),and asked if this was factored in to the projections; also will some clients from existing hotels go to extended stay hotels resulting in an overall loss. He noted that yes,the 7%of the rooms that would not generate TOT were factored in,but did not look at the impact on existing hotels,however,the demand analysis shows that there is a current demand for 600 hotel rooms in the area over and above the existing rooms. Commissioners asked why there was a different assumption regarding the nature of the hotel rooms,with extended stay in one and not in the other. SP Brooks noted that in the Draft Plan,the Anza Point area is the only area where extended stay hotels are proposed. With Alternative A, the extended stay hotel sites would be developed with multifamily housing. Commissioners asked what value is assumed for the multifamily development. Mr.Alejandrino noted that based on analysis of similar projects in this area,the value was set at about$450,000 per unit,and also noted that the market demand is for "entry" level homes in the $400,000 to $600,000 range. Simon Alejandrino summarized the key findings of the analysis, noting that both alternatives generate a net positive revenue impact on the City's general fund. At build out, the Draft Plan would generate a larger fiscal surplus, but the absorption occurs more slowly because of the current slow conditions in the hotel and office markets. Alternative A,with 800 multifamily housing units,would generate positive impacts sooner,and would generate a small net fiscal surplus in the near term. In the long term, both options would result in a positive impact on the City's General Fund with the Draft Plan leading to greater net revenues because of higher property taxes from new office space and the TOT from more lodging rooms. Commissioners asked how the costs to the City associated with new housing versus new office and hotel development was calculated. Mr. Alejandrino noted that in calculating costs to the city, a formula is used based on the average cost per resident to provide services. An employee is assumed to cost one-half as much as a resident. Therefore, in Alternative A,where residents are added in Phase I and II, the costs are higher. In Phase III, since no new residents are added,just employees,the costs would remain the same for the two alternatives. It was noted that the opportunity cost for waiting for development to occur is the loss of property tax appreciation which comes with development. B. Review of the Land Use Section of the Preliminary Draft Bayfront Specific Area Plan CP Monroe reviewed the Land Use Chapter of the Draft Plan, noting it is divided into five sections,denoting five unique areas with different characteristics and different land uses and design guidelines for each. The Inner Bayshore Area is primarily seen as an industrial area with office uses, and this plan proposes to add a retail component to serve employees in this area. The Shoreline Area contains Waterfront Commercial uses,such as hotels, offices and restaurants, and would also contain a focal point retail node. The Anza Extension Area consists of the Bayside Park and the Upper Deck driving range and soccer fields,as well as the City's wastewater treatment plant. The change in the Anza Area from the existing plan is to increase the density of hotels to 85 rooms per acre to allow for some expansion and improvement to the existing hotels. Land uses in this area would also include office and restaurant uses. The Draft Plan proposes flexibility to allow interim uses in this area, such as long-term airport parking, as long as the interim use does not generate more traffic than the ultimate build out of the plan for a particular site. It was noted that the Anza Point area is a unique waterfront location and,with two vacant and/or underused site,has the greatest potential for development. The Draft Plan proposes offices,hotels including extended stay hotels,restaurants and commercial recreational uses in most of the area,with offices, industrial uses and recreation-related retail in the area along Beach and Lang Roads. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Session Minutes October 28, 2003 Commission discussion of the Land Use Chapter and Economic Analysis: Testimony from representatives of the hotel industry was given at earlier meetings,there was concern expressed that we may lose part of our hotel potential because South San Francisco and San Mateo have started to develop mini-centers of hotels. Mr. Alejandrino responded noting that the demand analysis shows that even with these trends, there would be a demand in Burlingame for 1200 to 1500 hotel rooms by 2017 and noted that the Draft Plan does not have a projected horizon. Commissioners noted that there maybe certain product types that are missing,some of them may not see the added density as an incentive because of their specific size and product type,in some cases and areas of the bayfront it may be difficult to find a large enough site without combining parcels. Commissioners expressed surprise that housing doesn't cost the city money,asked if it is because of the location, would a comparable project also result in positive cash flow elsewhere in Burlingame, and would it make a difference if it were an age restricted project for Seniors. Simon Alejandrino noted that he had looked at the per capita cost to provide services city-wide and applied that to this area,so the revenue benefits would be the same in other parts of Burlingame. The positive cash flow is primarily the result of the higher property taxes based on the value of the more expensive units. Seniors tend to spend less,so there would be less sales tax generated by a senior oriented project;however,that type of project would also generate employees which would also generate sales tax revenue. Commission discussion: think it would be a mistake if we didn't allow ourselves to think about housing, the amenities are there,would like to see the Bayfront develop to its fullest potential and incorporate this area as a part of Burlingame as a neighborhood, don't see other uses that would accomplish that,there has been a lot of talk about the financial impact of housing, glad to see that it results in a positive cash flow, don't see the financial impact as the only factor; the Bayfront area is more valuable than it was 20 to 25 years ago when the original plan was written,if the plan stays the same we will get the same,would rather see a stronger link to the west side of town, in the current thinking on zoning there are hard boundaries, would like to see a mixed use approach, would like to see that carried through with housing as a part of it; concur with the inclusion of housing, we are looking at another 20 years, should have as many opportunities as possible out there for entrepreneurs to come in and make proposals,we can review each projects as it comes in,see how it fits in,need to be flexible and not be short-sighted; agree that we should leave the door open for housing. Commissioner discussion continued: disagree,the issue of updating the plan came up when a developer came in with a plan,developer thought he had a good idea,we invested all this time to see if his plan would work,don't think housing is a good idea here,we have a better area for housing in the North end of Burlingame,that area is close to public transportation and the hospital,the medical offices will be moved closer to the hospital and that land can be used for housing,it would be more effective and more affordable,condominiums on El Camino go for$500,000 to$700,000,some up to$900,000,on the Bayfront they will go for up to$1 million,may be a good site,but it is not the best use for the community needs,want to look at what hotels need and destination points for visitors, it would be an isolated stamp of residential and there would be no continuity with the west side of the freeway,housing won't bring people over,what we have has worked well,don't think housing is the answer, agree that it is a beautiful site,but housing would not meet our General Plan goals. Continued discussion: not a proponent of housing, would like to ask the proponents, if the economy were different and we were in an up cycle, would your position be the same; it's a classic dilemma, do we want the market to drive planning and land use or have planning policies shape the market; have to realize that if we allow the possibility of housing,housing will go in,it will be set in stone,need to think if that's what is best for the City long term; there is nothing compelling in the financial numbers to cause the City to deviate from the current policy; while housing shows a positive fiscal result, it is not measurable or material enough to deviate from current policy which has been positive in the past and will be in the future; it is a false assumption that a neighborhood can be created, want the area to be connected, have faith that the market will come up with 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Session Minutes October 28, 2003 creative uses for that area that will generate revenue;housing is a band-aid,not how to heal long-term financial need for the City. Commissioners continued: not convinced that the current plan will continue to generate revenue, even with incentives,will not see more when we have reached capacity,hotel assumption is 1200 to 1500 rooms over 15 years;remain concerned with housing in this area, so decided to call on the property owner of the vacant Anza Point site, he stated that in his view if housing were created, 20%would be affordable in perpetuity which is more than would be created with our current policy; that would be 150 units in perpetuity, don't know how it would be administered,may not be feasible,but if it is feasible,it would have an impact on the City's housing need and would serve the entire community; it's all about trade-offs, housing would be available for teachers, public servants; concerned that if we don't change the plan we will have fallow land for a very long time;but don't know if affordable housing is feasible,don't want to decide until that question is answered. Would like to respond, think inherent in the comments is that the tail is wagging the dog, am a big proponent of affordable housing but to take a specific parcel and for that reason change its use is a mistake,think the City can compel the land use. The carrying costs of land are significant, as a result the owner would be working hard to find an appropriate use if housing were not allowed. Discussion continued: On a larger scale, what is driving the decision, because of the carrying costs, the developer will come up with a creative solution consistent with City policy; question the hotel assumptions as well, when market returns, they may go to adjacent communities, to achieve 2200 rooms is optimistic; want flexibility in choice when a proposal comes forward, should be able to say let's take a look at it;need to realize that if we allow housing,we will get housing proposal the next day; if it is not allowed we can be open to what comes next; see housing as a good use in the area regardless of this site, think it will vitalize the area. CA Anderson and CP Monroe explained that in order to move the Draft Plan forward to public hearing and action, staff needs direction on what to include in the land use plan so that the environmental document can be prepared. One option is to prepare an EIR with an alternative that includes housing;however, any significant impacts identified so far can be mitigated by the community standards and design guidelines, so a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be the appropriate document. Instead of choosing one or the other alternatives,could add housing as an option on specific sites in addition to the other uses proposed, and prepare the Mitigated Negative Declaration on that basis; and if housing is later excluded,the document would still have covered the impacts of other uses. Commissioners gave direction to staff to include housing in the Anza and Anza Point areas for analysis purposes,with an assumption that up to 800 units could be built,the identified sites with potential for housing are the two vacant or underused sites in the Anza Point Area and the long-term airport parking lot in the Anza Area,density would be assumed at 30 units per acre. Staff was directed to prepare the environmental document and make the necessary modifications to the plan text. V. FROM THE FLOOR Chair Bojues asked if anyone wanted to speak from the floor. Mike Spinelli, 1301 Mills Avenue, Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue, Skip Green, 800 Airport Boulevard, Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, Ken Housley, 330 Primrose Road, Suite 614, commented on the plan,noting that the proposed airport expansion project will probably come back at some point, and one of the runways will be near the Bayfront Area, be sure to include that in the plan impact studies; appreciate the efforts made by the working - group and Planning Commission in developing the plan and sticking with the process; hotel occupancy rate is now less than 70 percent, if we are making assumptions need to realize that what we're talking about would be as much as a couple of new Hyatt hotels, need to do an analysis; nobody has mentioned a convention center 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Session Minutes October 28, 2003 which would change hotel room demand in this area, spent 3 years on a task force regarding housing in San Mateo, housing should be by transit, not on the Bayfront where there is no transit service; there was a restaurant site in the Bayfront area that nobody figured out how to develop, someone may come along with an idea to put a hotel with residential condos on top, it would be short-sighted not to leave the door open for such a proposal and the Planning Commission and Council can decide what fits; thought the discussion should be on the broader issues, as the focus gets narrower it gets hard to determine what is right or not right,would like to see a policy which promotes a destination location in the Bayfront area, could have retail that serves that destination and promotes a visitor shopping experience; like to compliment the participants for making the transition from the discussions at the first meetings to where we are today, if you look favorably on housing in the Anza and Anza Point Areas, it would not preclude it from happening in the North Burlingame area. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojues adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary S:\ IINUTES\PROTECTE\2003UninutesI0.28-SPECIALMTG.doe 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Burlingame Fire Station No. 34, Training Room 799 California Drive, Burlingame, CA Thursday, September, 18, 2003 Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Osterling called the September 18, 2003, special study session of the Planning Commission to order at 6:32 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran (left meeting at 7:45 p.m.), Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Bojues Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. IV. STUDY SESSION ON THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN CP Monroe presented a brief overview of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan update process, noting that it is an update to the existing Bayfront Specific Area Plan which has been in place since 1981 . She also noted that this was a study session to discuss the preliminary draft of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan update. At the joint presentation of the -)Ian on August 18, 2003, staff was directed to prepare an analysis of having housing in the Bayfront Area. She `-noted that the analysis was completed and was included as a part of the packet materials for tonight's meeting. The purpose of tonight's meeting was to give the Commission an opportunity to do a close review of the content and assumptions underlying the preliminary draft of the plan. CP Monroe suggested that the commission review the document section by section beginning with the goals and policies, and discuss each in detail. Once the Commission discussion concluded, there would be an opportunity for public comments from the floor. CP Monroe noted the there have been four public workshops including the Joint Study Session with the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Bayfront Plan Working Group. In addition, the Working Group has met six times with staff to review the input received at the workshops and to fine tune the concepts and language of the plan. She noted that the next step in the process after the Commission's study sessions will be to hold a public hearing before the Planning Commission and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Council would also hold a study session and would then hold a public hearing to consider and act on the plan. Once the plan is adopted, the Planning Commission Bayfront Plan Subcommittee will work with staff on any necessary zoning code amendments. Staff will then implement an updated Bayfront Development fee and the new community standards and design guidelines will be used in the review of all proposed projects. The Commission then began a review of the Goals and Policies chapter of the plan. Commissioners made the following comments/suggestions for revision: • Policy A-1 : change "office-warehouse commercial employment center" to "corporate campus, biotech and commercial employment center " to reflect a broader diversity of use for the area in 2003; delete the statement that the area is "separate from"; the rest of the City; include "hotels " in the description of uses to encourage. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 18,2003 • Add Policy A-5: Encourage land uses which provide a connection between the east and west sides of U.S. 101. • Amend Goal B: Protect and enhance the unique qualities of Burlingame's shoreline environment. • Amend Policy B-2 - change "continue to value" to "enhance" the role of Burlingame's bayfront and shoreline, clarify that the definition of shoreline includes all areas affected by tidal waters. • Policy B-4: include "enhance"in addition to protect and preserve. • Goal C: change "San Francisco Bay and its local estuaries" to "San Francisco Bay shoreline environment";use consistent language regarding the shoreline throughout goals and policies,make sure it is clear that the goals and policies apply to all areas affected by tidal waters. • Amend Policy C-1: Design criteria for development shall take best advantage of proximity to,recreational use of, and public access to the San Francisco Bay shoreline environment. • Add Policy C-5: Encourage safe pedestrian and bicycle access on the public right-of-way within the Bayfront Area and access to provide convenient east-west connections across U.S. 101. • Add Policy C-6: Work with adjacent public agencies to improve pedestrian bicycle access at least from the north and south of the area to the recreational opportunities in the Bayfront area, additional pedestrian bicycle access at a midpoint is also highly desirable. • Combine Policies D-1 and D-2: Policy D-1: Actively encourage land uses such as destination hotels, restaurants and employee-supporting retail uses which will provide a revenue base that will offer long- term economic support for improving service levels, as well as revitalizing and maintaining essential municipal services throughout the city. • Add new Policy D-2: Promote new uses which enhance the Bayfront Area as a destination for visitors and residents in order to support the local hotels, adjacent businesses and the economy. • Policy D-2: Relates to the discussions on residential land uses - will be revisited at next meeting. --� • Add Policy D-6: Promote diversification of the lodging base by encouraging extended stay and destination hotels in certain subareas. • Amend Policy E-4 by adding: When considering realignment or new alignment of roadways,encourage arterial roadways to be located away from the bay edge. • Add Policy E-10: Development should occur within the capacity of the city's water and sewer infrastructure and within Burlingame's water allocation from the San Francisco Public Utility System's Hetch Hetch Water System. • Amend Policy F-4 to add " . . . the Bayshore Highway should be enhanced with consistent landscaping to extend the "tree city" image of Burlingame." • Add Policy F-5: In order to achieve the aesthetic goals of the plan and implement the Bayfront Design Guidelines, extend the requirement for commercial design review to include all properties within the Bayfront Area. • Add Policy F-6: Develop a sense of place by creating a unifying gateway treatment at entrances and throughout the area. • Amend Policy G-5: Recognize that the Anza Point Area offers a unique opportunityfor Burlingame given its location and development potential. Create a structure of streets, walks and open space to organize a mixed use district of development that takes advantage of the area's unique opportunity and its proximity to Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay frontage. • Add Policy G-6: Develop common design elements which unify the Subareas,particularly within the public right of way. The Commission then looked at the Land Use chapter of the plan and made the following comments: -� • In the description for each subarea, add a statement that links to the design guidelines for that area. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 18,2003 • In the Anza Point Subarea, add a statement: This area offers a unique opportunity for Burlingame given its location adjacent to the Bay and Sanchez Channel, with the unusual development opportunity provided by size of the two prominent underused sites in the area. • Also add the following to the Anza Point area land use discussion: The development of this area will require realignment of Airport Boulevard and the possible creation of a new local street system. In designing the new street alignments, emphasis should be given to a design which keeps the roadways away from the Bay edges. This is less important for Sanchez Channel. • In the Anza Point land use discussion refer to the height restrictions in the Design Guidelines. • On the land use map for the Anza Point Area: Because of environmental constraints,especially wind,hotel density should be 65 rooms per acre. Given the site constraints and height restrictions due to wind impacts, we should not give the impression that more can be built than would actually be possible. In the Beach/Lang Road areas it is not clear what is meant by"Recreation-related Retail". The intent is not to encourage gyms but to promote those recreation retail uses such as sailboard makers, deli and sandwich places,boat sales, which support the recreation users at the nearby facilities in Coyote Point Park and on the Bay Trail. The Commissioners had a question regarding the traffic and circulation chapter, noting that the table in the Plan differs from the table in the September 8,2003,memo. Table IV-1 in the plan shows lower percentages of capacity consumed than the Table on Page 7 in the September 8, 2003 memo. Staff noted that Table N-1 in the plan document reflected intersection counts done in 2002,which were lower than counts taken by the traffic consultants in 1999 for the same intersections. The consultant was concerned that the 2002 lower numbers reflected the regional economic downturn and,to account for this possibility,the existing traffic volumes were factored up from 10 to 20 percent, based on the approximate decrease in traffic since the 1999 traffic counts. The 2002 numbers were also revised to include traffic from approved projects under construction. The Table on Page 7 of the September 8,2003 memo reflects this revised calculation, and the Table IV-1 in the Draft Plan document will be revised accordingly. Regarding the design guidelines,the Commissioners noted that the"Grand Boulevard"concept shown for Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard includes an 8-10 foot wide sidewalk, a parking lane on each side and four travel lanes;this represents too much hardscape and paved area,can this design be revised. CP Monroe noted that there is no parking now on either Airport Boulevard or Bayshore Highway,the design could be revised to show bike lanes, as well as a center median with turn pockets. It was also noted that the conceptual design sketch for Anza Point shown on Page V-27 should indicate the height limits as reflected in the drawing on the previous page. CP Monroe and SP Brooks gave an overview of the Community Standards and Plan Implementation chapters, and there were no comments. However,it was noted by a Commissioner that the choice of community wind standards was up to the City to choose, e.g. could focus just on velocity,not turbulence or tolerate a higher level of each,etc. The Commissioners then reviewed the information presented in the"Analysis of Housing Alternative"memo dated September 8, 2003. Commissioners asked how the alternatives evaluated were determined. It was noted that in analyzing the traffic and economic impacts of the two alternatives(Alternative and Housing Alternative),staff chose ten sites with the greatest development potential and,using the land use proposals and densities set forth for each of these sites in each alternative, came up with a"best guess" description of the development potential for the whole area using that alternative. It was noted that the same assumptions were used for properties outside the Anza Point Area in each of the alternatives. The differences shown in the analysis came from the development on the two vacant/underused sites in the Anza Point Area. In the Land Use Plan proposed as the plan is now drafted, the assumption was that these two sites would develop with a combination of office and hotel uses,while in the Housing 1lternative, these two sites would both be developed with multiple family residential uses,at a density of 30 units "'per acre. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 18,2003 Commissioners noted that the economic analysis was a"static"analysis,in that both alternatives were compared to the existing plan based on full build out of the plan area. It was noted because development by use is cyclical,that the different land use scenarios would develop at different rates and generate revenues and costs at different rates as well. The revenue/cost issues might look different because the market for housing might result in development in a shorter time frame, while the hotel and office markets may take 10 to 20 years to pick back up. Commissioners asked if staff could contact the economist that prepared the analysis,and see if he could provide some kind of simple analysis which shows the cost/benefit information for the alternatives over time. CP also suggested that she would see if the economist could come to the next Planning Commission study session on the Bayfront Plan. Continued commissioner discussion: • If you do housing,it might help tie the two sides of town together,shouldn't make decisions solely based on the financial implications; • should focus on a destination magnet on the Bayfront,typical hotel development has spread to other areas outside Burlingame, need a unique destination or use on the Anza Point site; • the plan should address the hotel industry of the future, look at different types of hotel such as extended stay or resort hotels; • close to build out now,should look at hotels as a secondary use,consider uses which would enhance the use of existing hotels; • housing would not create that dynamic destination enhancing effect with hotels,would be neutral; • do not agree that you could create a viable residential "neighborhood" in the Anza Point area; • there would be a "nimby" affect with residential use, new residents may be concerned with traffic generating destination uses that come in after; —� • should look at providing incentives for "corporate campus" kind of companies, such as different development requirements for combined lots. V. FROM THE FLOOR Vice-Chair Osterling asked if anyone wanted to speak from the floor. Mark Hudak,210 Park Road,requested that there be better public notice for the next study meeting, everyone that signed up for notices should be contacted, noted that his clients have crunched the numbers, would like to have the assumptions made public as soon as possible, noted that he represents developers, they are sensitive to the market, the single most important thing regarding the Anza Point area is to leave the options as open as possible so developers can bring to you a project that could work on that site,everything will be a conditional use so City will always have control,will bring a project to be proud of, if density is reduced,will not have the freedom to move with the market. The Commission then discussed the next steps in the plan review process,and decided to hold another study session on Tuesday, October 28, 2003, from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. in Conference Room A. Staff will bring to that meeting redlined corrections to the plan document and additional information from the economist. Public notice will be expanded but public input will follow guidelines of a Planning Commission study session. VI. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary Miniutes09.18-SPECIAL MTG 4 b ae Memorandum To: Meg Monroe Maureen Brooks City of Burlingame Planning Department From: Simon Alejandrino Bay Area Economics Re: Bayfront Specific Plan Supplementary Fiscal Analysis Date: October 21,2003 Following the presentation of BAE's Bayfront Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis, the Burlingame Planning Commission requested additional information regarding the methodology and assumptions behind the study. In addition, the Planning Commission inquired how the real estate market might affect the buildout of the Bayfront Specific Plan, and what implications this absorption schedule would have for the Plan's fiscal impacts. The Commission particularly wanted to understand how the development of housing, if it occurred prior to other uses included in the Plan, would impact the City's General Fund. In response to the Commission's questions, this Supplementary Analysis builds upon the original Bayfront Specific Plan Fiscal Analysis and compares the fiscal impacts of the Preliminary Draft Bayfront Specific Plan and Alternative A over time. Due to the short timeframe of the study, and direction from the Commission to not undertake a full "dynamic analysis," the Supplementary Analysis provides a broad preliminary view of the Plan's market absorption and the resulting effects on the City's General Fund. Executive Summary Methodology As shown in Tables I and 1 A, BAE assumed buildout of all land uses would occur over three phases, totaling a period of 20 years. Phase I includes Years I through 5 of the Specific Plan buildout, Phase Il includes Years 6 through 10,and Phase III extends from Years 11 to 20. Assumptions regarding the absorption of the different components of the Specific Plan were based on market overviews of residential,office,retail,and hotel uses (summarized below). For the Preliminary Draft Plan,BAE assumed no new development would occur in Phase I,and a portion of the regional-serving retail project,the movie theater,and the extended- stay hotel rooms would be developed in Phase II. Due to the poor lodging and office markets in San Mateo County, however, BAE assumed most new development would take place in Phase III. Headquarters 510,549.7310 2560 9th Sheet,Sui[e 71 t tax 510.549.7028 Berkeley,CA 94710 Dae?@bae'l.com 1 bayareaeconomks.com For Alternative A, BAE assumed the development of multifamily housing would occur during Phases I and I1, due to strong demand for new housing on the Peninsula. BAE also assumed that a portion of the regional-serving retail,the theater,and a quarter of new hotel rooms would be developed in Phase 11. The balance of planned uses, including all office space, additional hotel rooms and retail space, is assumed to be absorbed in Phase III. Findings Table 2 contains a summary of the Supplementary Fiscal Impact Analysis findings. The analysis indicates that due to slow market absorption of many uses included in the Specific Plan, the City would not begin to see a significant increase in General Fund revenue for the first five years of the Plan's buildout. This finding holds true for both the Preliminary Draft Plan and Alternative A. Major revenue increases would mainly begin in conjunction with the development and occupation of new hotel rooms,which is linked, in turn,with improvements in the regional and national economy. Nevertheless, during Phase I of Alternative A, the construction of multifamily housing does lead to a positive net annual fiscal impact, albeit a relatively small one ($77,800). Fiscal revenues associated with housing development in the Bayfront exceed costs at a ratio of approximately 1.17 to one. In Phase II, the Preliminary Draft Plan and Alternative A show comparable net fiscal impacts of$1.5 million and $1.3 million, respectively. However, the Preliminary Draft Plan has a much higher revenue-to-cost ratio due to the relatively low service population (i.e., number of employees in the area demanding services) during this Phase of development. In Phase 11I, the Preliminary Draft Plan generates approximately $1.2 million more net annual revenues than Alternative A. However,it is important to note that the Preliminary Draft Plan shows a lower revenue-to-cost ratio in Phase III than Alternative A. This trend occurs because the increasing number of employees generated by new office space, in particular,leads to higher demand for City services. In sum, the analysis suggests that both Alternatives generate positive fiscal benefits for the City General Fund. The Preliminary Draft Plan does, ultimately, lead to greater net revenues thanks to higher property taxes from new office space and the TOT from more lodging rooms. However, due to the more rapid absorption of housing and poor markets for office and hotel uses, Alternative A generates revenue for the City General Fund sooner than the Preliminary Draft Plan. Market Overview This section summarizes the findings of the Bayfront Specific Plan Existing Conditions Report and Market Overview,submitted to the Planning Department in August 2002. It 2 describes the market support for various land uses that could be included in the Bayfront Specific Plan, and serves as a basis for the absorption assumptions used in the Supplementary Fiscal Impact Analysis. Multifamily Housing Market Overview Based on demographic trends,the BAE housing demand analysis,and conversations with real estate professionals,strong market support exists for for-sale multifamily housing in the Bayfront. The market shows less support for rental housing, as indicated by falling rents and relatively high vacancies. From an economic perspective, rental projects are more difficult to "pencil out" than ownership projects, and are particularly sensitive to low rents, high vacancies, and high land prices. Consequently, development of a rental project appears unfeasible in the near future. The Bayfront does have a number of site disadvantages that would impact the development of multifamily housing. First, the area lacks any residential-serving retail. Residents would need to cross US 101 to reach grocery stores in the Burlingame Shopping Plaza and off Burlingame Avenue. Secondly, noise from SFO flights could have a negative effect on residential development. Double-paned windows and other noise-dampening technologies might be necessary to reduce these impacts. Nevertheless, the pent-up demand for ownership housing on the Peninsula would likely overcome these site limitations. The Bayfront's views also represent a highly attractive amenity that would speed project absorption. Other condominium projects in the Bay Area have succeeded in spite of their relative isolation. Examples include Brickyard Landing in Point Richmond and Redwood Shores in Redwood City. A small convenience store or delicatessen within or nearby the residential project would help compensate for the lack of retail. Office Market Overview Current market data and BAE's office demand analysis indicate that the Bayfront can expect slow absorption and demand for office space through 2010, due to current vacancies and a large number of projects under development in the market area. In addition, developers will likely encounter difficulty in securing financing in this challenging market. Due to the ongoing economic downturn, the Bay Area office market continues to suffer from falling lease rates and rising vacancies. BT Commercial reports that between the first quarters of 2002 and 2003, regional office vacancies rose from 17.8 to 21.0 percent. Between 2002 and 2003 (year-to-date) average asking rates fell from $2.30 to $2.14 per square foot. The San Mateo County office market has the highest vacancies in the region,mainly due to the addition of 800,000 square feet of space since 2002. For the second quarter of 2003, BT Commercial reports a 27.8 percent vacancy rate in San Mateo County,up from 22.2 percent in the prior year. Between 2002 and 2003 (year-to-date), average asking rates fell from$2.34 to$2.18. 3 Burlingame's office market remains stronger than the County as a whole,but still suffers from increasing vacancies. In the second quarter of 2003,the Burlingame submarket had a 16.1 percent vacancy rate,up from 12.5 from last year. Local-Serving Retail Market Overview Demographic data and the demand analysis suggest minimal market support for additional local-serving retail in the Bayfront, even if all projected household growth in Burlingame through 2010 occurred in the study area. Although Burlingame food stores do show a net injection of taxable sales, suggesting that an additional food store would not have a significant adverse impact on existing outlets,population growth in the market area generates little demand for additional retail space. Additionally, the Bayfront's separation from the rest of the city decreases the feasibility of a major local-serving retail project in the area. Depending on the amount of residential and new office development that occurs in the Bayfront, individual stores may be feasible on a small scale. A small convenience store or a minor strip with services targeted to hotel guests and office workers,for example,could occur in the Bayfront. BAE did not perform a market overview of regional-serving retail as part of its analysis. Proposed regional—serving uses in the Bayfront Plan include a movie theater and approximately 63,000 square feet of retail space. This Supplementary Analysis adopts a somewhat conservative view regarding the absorption of this space, and assumes it will be built out in phases over a 20 year span. Additional market analysis would be necessary,however,to project the support for regional-serving retail in the Bayfront. Hotel Market Analysis Market area hotels have suffered heavily in the lagging economy. Between May 2001 and May 2002, they experienced a drop in occupancy from 66.3 to 59.5 percent. The City of Burlingame's TOT records shows that Burlingame contains 3,571 hotel rooms, and that occupancy decreased from 63.7 to 54.5 percent over the same period. In general, an occupancy rate of 65 to 68 percent is considered the break-even point for an investment-grade lodging establishment. Therefore, these occupancy rates indicate that market area hotels are,on the average,operating well below the break-even point. Historical trends, current market data, and BAE's demand analysis indicate that while demand for additional lodging rooms in the market will eventually return, the recovery will be gradual. Assuming Burlingame will continue to capture its historic share of future growth, market support exists for an additional 430 to 750 lodging rooms over the next ten years. This demand represents two to four new hotel projects at 200 rooms per hotel. By 2017, market support is projected to exist for 910 to 1,260 new rooms, or four to six new projects. Despite the relatively slow growth in demand and the market's currently weak condition, hotel developers recognize that the Bayfront maintains a locational advantage and the -� 4 area has historically been a strong market. Therefore, developers will aggressively compete for market share within specific niches, and try to place all their brands in the area, despite the presence of competitors. As such, the City can still expect developer interest in sites on the Bayfront, particularly along the eastern edge, which commands views of the Bay. To avoid the risk of overbuilding lodging rooms,the City should adopt a cautious stance towards new hotels, and insist on clear evidence that market support exists for a new project. The one hotel market niche that remains underserved is the extended-stay segment. The Six Continents, USFS, and Extended Stay America corporations all have extended-stay brands that remain unrepresented in the market area. A number of moderately-priced independent brands, such as Candlewood Suites, Villager Lodges, and InnSuites Hotels also do not have locations in the market area. Moderately-priced extended-stay hotels developed recently in response to the historically strong performance of upper-end properties. As a relatively new product, limited data exist on these establishments. In general, however, extended-stay hotels have higher occupancies than standard overnight hotels. According to Smith Travel Research, extended-stay hotel chains had an average occupancy of 70.6 percent in 2001, compared to the 60.1 percent average for the U.S. lodging industry as a whole. Calls to Extended Stay America corporate offices found that 80 percent of guests pay on a weekly basis, and 20 percent pay nightly. Of all guests, only five to seven percent remain over 29 days, indicating that only a small portion of TOT is lost. State law prohibits the charging of TOT for stays exceeding 29 days. Methodology This Supplementary Analysis builds on the model used in the Bayfront Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis, completed in March 2003. The original model simply estimates the Specific Plan's annual net fiscal impact upon buildout. This Supplementary Analysis goes one step further, and examines how absorption of various land uses would impact the General Fund over time. With the exception of property and property transfer taxes (discussed below), the Supplementary Analysis adheres to the revenue and cost estimation methodologies used in the original model. For more detailed information regarding these methodologies please refer to the March 2003 Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis memorandum. Revenue On the revenue side,the Supplementary Fiscal Impact Model estimates the net additional revenue generated through sales tax, property tax, business license tax, franchise fees, and transit occupancy tax(TOT). This analysis uses a number of different techniques to estimate increased revenues. Generally, the Model applies current per employee, household, or service population 5 revenues to projected growth to estimate future revenue. Other projections are more specialized, such as those for sales tax, property tax, and TOT. The Supplementary Analysis estimates all revenues on a current dollar basis, excluding the effects of inflation. For the Supplementary Analysis, a more simple and conservative methodology was used to estimate property tax revenue than in the original Fiscal Impact Analysis. The Supplementary Analysis applies the potential assessed values for new uses to the net amount of new development in the Bayfront (i.e., new space less demolished space). In contrast, the original Fiscal Impact Analysis estimates the potential assessed values for new uses,then subtracts the currently assessed values of demolition sites to determine the net change in assessed values. The Supplementary Analysis methodology is more easily applied because it does not require a series of detailed assumptions regarding which existing uses are demolished and when. Instead, it simply applies potential new assessed values to the net change in development. This approach is more conservative because, in effect, it assumes that existing uses are valued at the same rate as new uses. In fact, existing uses would be assessed at a lower value,and therefore lead to greater net property tax revenue. As another change from the original Fiscal Impact Analysis, property transfer taxes generated by the Specific Plan were not estimated. Projection of property transfer tax revenue would be highly challenging, given the numerous parcels involved in the Specific Plan, the uncertain absorption and buildout schedule, and the demolition of existing uses. Furthermore, these taxes are a minor revenue item and would have no material effect on the analysis. For example, the original Bayfront Fiscal Impact Analysis estimated annual transfer tax revenue would range from $15,160 to $30,770 at buildout of the Specific Plan. Costs On the cost side,the Fiscal Impact Model estimates the net costs to the City generated by additional demand for police and fire services, and community facilities (e.g., library, community recreation centers, etc.). Additional demand for public works services and the associated costs are not calculated in this analysis, since the Bayfront Specific Plan does not call for new roads, curbs, or signaled intersections. Maintenance of these items would typically constitute the bulk of any new public works costs. For simplicity,the Fiscal Impact Model relies on variations of the average cost method to estimate several of the increased public service costs. Generally,these methods involve the calculation of cost multipliers by dividing current expenditures by existing service units (e.g., current recreation program expenditures divided by existing service population equals average cost per capita). To project the increase in costs, the resulting cost multiplier is then applied to an estimate of the increased service population attributed to the proposed project. 6 This approach is highly conservative. For example,instead of analyzing the exact wages and administrative costs associated with a the addition of a limited number of new police officers, the cost analysis uses the total Police Department Expenditures as the basis for the marginal cost of employing new officers. A similar approach is used in the cost analysis for Fire Services. As with the revenue calculations, all costs are provided on a current dollar basis,and do not include inflationary increases over time. Absorption Assumptions As shown in Tables 1 and I A, absorption of all land uses was assumed to occur over three phases,totaling a buildout period of 20 years. Phase I includes Years 1 through 5 of the Specific Plan buildout, Phase II includes Years 6 through 10, and Phase III extends from Years 11 to 20. The following describes BAE's absorption assumptions regarding the main uses in the Preliminary Draft Plan and Alternative A: Preliminary Draft Plan ■ The 534,400 square feet of office space, due to significant existing vacancies in San Mateo County,only achieves buildout in Phase III. ■ The 667 extended-stay lodging rooms achieves buildout in Phase II, due to the lack of hotels in this niche within the Burlingame market area. The remaining 2,100 rooms occur in Phase IIl. ■ The development of 62,500 square feet of regional-serving retail is evenly split between Phases 1I and III. The Phase II portion of the project is assumed to occur in conjunction with the theater development described below. ■ The six-screen, 16,500 square foot movie theater is assumed to occur in Phase II. This assumption stems from an interview BAE conducted with a major theater developer as part of the original Bayfront Fiscal Impact Analysis. The developer indicated potential support for a small art-house theater in the Burlingame area, given the lack of competing venues in this niche. This opinion suggests buildout could occur in Years 6 through 10 of the Specific Plan. Alternative A • The 74,100 square feet of office space, again as a result of excess supply in San Mateo County,only achieves buildout in Phase III. ■ Approximately one quarter, or 500 of the 2,100 planned hotel rooms are constructed in Phase II. The balance occurs in Phase III. 7 ■ Assumptions regarding the absorption of regional-serving retail and movie- theater remain the same as in the Preliminary Draft Plan. ■ The 800 multifamily units, due to the strong demand for housing on the Peninsula, are absorbed in the first two phases, with 470 developed in Phase I, and 330 developed in Phase 11. Findings Table 2 contains a summary of the Supplementary Fiscal Impact Analysis findings. Revenue-to-cost ratios are provided for each alternative as a means of comparing the City's expenditures and the resulting fiscal benefits. Preliminary Draft Plan The analysis assumes no new development would occur in the Bayfront under Phase 1. As a result,no new revenues or costs would impact the City's General Fund. At the end of Phase 11, the Preliminary Draft Plan would generate approximately $1.6 million in annual revenues to the General Fund, due largely to the development of 667 extended-stay hotel rooms and the resulting TOT. Phase 11 would also lead to approximately $131,000 in annual costs. This results in a net positive fiscal impact of $1.5 million,and a revenue-to-cost-ratio of 12.44. Development during Phase III would generate approximately $5.9 million in annual revenue. Again, TOT comprises most of this figure. Phase III would also generate almost $891,300 in annual costs, leading to a net fiscal impact of$5.0 million, and a revenue-to-cost ratio of 6.60. Alternative A At the end of Phase 1, development under Alternative A would generate approximately $534,500 in annual revenue to the City General Fund, largely from additional resident- driven taxable sales and property taxes from new homes. At the same time, Phase I would generate approximately $456,600 in annual costs. This leads to annual surplus of $77,800,and a revenue-to-cost ratio of 1.17. Since multifamily units are the only use that occurs in Phase 1,this finding indicates that the development of multifamily housing in the Bayfront prior to other uses would not create a negative impact on the City's General Fund. Development during Phase 11 of Alternative A would generate $1.7 million in additional revenue, most of which is attributable $1.1 million in new TOT funds from the 500 additional hotel rooms. Phase 11 also generates$407,000 in annual costs, leading to a net fiscal surplus of$1.3 million,and a revenue to cost ratio of 4.13. 8 Phase III development in the Bayfront would generate$4.2 million in annual revenue for the City General Fund, again largely thanks to significant TOT funds. Phase III development also creates$414,300 in annual costs. This leads to a net annual surplus of $3.8 million,and a revenue to cost ratio of 10.13. Conclusions The Supplementary Fiscal Impact Analysis indicates that due to slow market absorption of many uses included in the Specific Plan,the City would not begin to see a significant increase in General Fund revenue for the first five years of the Plan's buildout. This finding holds true for both the Preliminary Draft Plan and Alternative A. Major revenue increases would mainly begin in conjunction with the development and occupation of new hotel rooms,which is linked,in turn,with improvements in the regional and national economy. Nevertheless, during Phase I of Alternative A, the construction of multifamily housing does lead to a positive net annual fiscal impact, albeit a relatively small one ($77,800). Fiscal revenues associated with housing development in the Bayfront exceed costs at a ratio of approximately 1.17 to one. In Phase II, the Preliminary Draft Plan and Alternative A show comparable net fiscal impacts of$1.5 million and $1.3 million, respectively. However, the Preliminary Draft Plan has a much higher revenue-to-cost ratio due to the relatively low service population (i.e., number of employees in the area demanding services) during this Phase of development. In Phase III, the Preliminary Draft Plan generates approximately $1.2 million more net annual revenues than Alternative A. However, the Preliminary Draft Plan does show a lower revenue-to-cost ratio in Phase III than Alternative A. This trend occurs because the increasing number of employees generated by newoffice space, in particular, leads to higher demand for City services. In sum, the analysis suggests that both AIternatives generate positive fiscal benefits for the City General Fund. The Preliminary Draft Plan does, ultimately, lead to greater net revenues thanks to higher property taxes from new office space and the TOT from more lodging rooms. However, due to the rapid absorption of housing and poor markets for office and hotel uses, Alternative A generates revenue for the City General Fund sooner than the Preliminary Draft Plan. 9 Table 1:Preliminary Draft Bayfront Specific Plan Buildout Schedule Net New Space Phase 1 Phase 11 Phase III Land Use 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years Total Office 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 534,050 sq.ft. 534,050 Manufacturing 0 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 10,000 Hotel 0 rooms 667 rooms 2,102 rooms 2,769 Restaurant 0 sq.ft. (9,000)sq.ft. 13,400 sq.ft. 4,400 Retail 0 sq.ft. 31,250 sq.ft. 31,250 sq.ft. 62,500 Movie Theater 0 sq.ft. 16,500 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 16,500 Auto RentaVParking 0 sq.ft. (708,286)sq.ft. (709,156)sq.ft. (1,417,442) Gas Station 0 sq.ft. (20,000)sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. (20,000) Vacant 0 acres (0.4)acres (28)acres (29) Multifamily Residential 0 units 0 units 0 units 0 Net New Employees Phase 1 Phase II Phase III Land Use 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years Total Office 0 0 1,907 1,907 Manufacturing 0 20 0 20 Hotel 0 667 2,102 2,769 Restaurant 0 (90) 134 44 Retail 0 63 63 125 Movie Theater 0 23 0 23 Auto Rental/Parking 0 (71) (71) (142) Gas Station 0 (4) 0 (4) Vacant 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential 0 0 0 0 Total 0 607 4,135 4,742 Net New Residents Phase I Phase II Phase III 15 years 6-10 years 11-20 years Total Persons(a) 0 0 0 0 Net New Service Population Phase I Phase If Phase III 15 years 6.10 years 11-20 years Total Service Population(b) 0 304 2,067 2,371 Notes: (a)Assumes 2.23 persons per HH.Average of 2000 and 2005 figures from ABAG Projections 2002. (b)Service Population=Residents+1/2 Employees. Source:Association of Bay Area Governments,Projections 2002;BAE,2003. Table 1A: Bayfront Specific Plan Alternative A Buildout Schedule Net New Space Phase I Phase 11 Phase 111 Land Use 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years Total Office 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 74,050 sq it 74,050 Manufacturing 0 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 10,000 Hotel 0 rooms 500 rooms 1,602 rooms 2,102 Restaurant 0 sqA. (9,000)sq.ft. 4,900 sq.ft. (4,100) Retail 0 sq.ft. 31,250 sq.ft. 31,250 sq.ft. 62,500 Movie Theater 0 sq.ft. 16,500 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 16,500 Auto Rental/Parking 0 sq.ft. (859,874)sq.ft. (557,568) sq.ft. (1,417,442) Gas Station 0 sq.ft. (20,000) sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. (20,000) Vacant (16) acres (13) acres 0 acres (29) Multifarmly Residential 475 units 328 units 0 units 803 Net New Employees Phase I Phase II Phase 111 Land Use 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years Total Office 0 0 264 264 Manufacturing 0 20 0 20 Hotel 0 500 1,602 2,102 Restaurant 0 (90) 49 (41) Retail 0 63 63 125 Movie Theater 0 23 0 23 Auto Rental/Parking 0 (86) (56) (142) Gas Station 0 (4) 0 (4) Vacant 0 0 0 0 Multifamily Residential 0 0 0 0 Total 0 425 1,922 2,347 Net New Residents Phase I Phase II Phase III 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years Total Persons(a) 1,059 731 0 1,791 Net New Service Population Phase I Phase II Phase In 1-5years 6-10 years 11-20 years Total Service Population(b) 1,059 944 961. 2,964 Notes: (a)Assumes 2.23 persons per HH. Average of 2000 and 2005 figures from A13AG Pmjec0ons 2002. (b)Service Population=Residents+112 Employees. Source:Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2002;BAE,2003. Table 2: Fiscal Impact Summary Phase 1 Phase 11 Phase III PRELIMINARY DRAFT PLAN 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years P EN > Gh_ Sales Tax $0 $27,534 $124,681 Property Tax $0 $153,738 $795,373 Business License Tax $0 $15,608 $106,278 Franchise Fee $0 $1,851 $12,605 Transit Occupancy Tax $0 $1,429,614 $4,844,430 MVIL Fees $0 $0 $0 Total Projected New Revenue $0 $1,628,346 $5,883,367 P JINN, S7S• C1 _: Police Service Costs $0 $43,191 $294,088 Fire Service Costs $0 $47,687 $324,699 Community Facilities Costs (a) $0 $40,021 $272,501 Public Works Costs (b) $0 $0 $0 Total Projected New Costs (c) $0 $130,899 $891,288 NET FISCAL IMPACT TO CITY $0 $1,497,447 $4,992,078 REVENUE TO COST RATIO 0.00 12.44 6.60 Phase I Phase II Phase III ALTERNATIVE A 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years VE f! :E Sales Tax $123,060 $112,511 $54,362 Property Tax $378,338 $379,555 $396,368 Business License Tax $0 $10,927 $49,406 Franchise Fee $15,076 $11,706 $5,860 Transit Occupancy Tax $0 $1,152,338 $3,692,092 MVIL Fees $17,986 $12,420 $0 Total Projected New Revenue $534,459 $1,679,456 $4,198,087 Police Service Costs $150,675 $134,280 $136,714 Fire Service Costs $166,358 $148,257 $150,944 Community Facilities Costs (a) $139,615 $124,424 $126,678 Public Works Costs (b) $0 $0 $0 Total Projected New Costs (c) $456,648 $406,962 $414,336 NET FISCAL IMPACT TO CITY $77,812 $1,272,495 $3,783,751 REVENUE TO COST RATIO 1.17 4.13 10.13 Notes: (a) Includes Library, Recreation, and Parks. (b) No new public works costs are anticipated for either land use alternative, as no new roads or signaled intersections are planned. (c) Revenue and cost figures are for each Phase, and are not cumulative. All figures shown in current dollars. Source: BAE, 2003. CITYo� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN Planning Commission Public Hearing to consider PUBLIC HEARING approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA NOTICE PLAN update. The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, January 26, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,; California. . . i Mailed: January 16,2004 i (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME N A copy of the applic ay be reviewed prior to the meeting a lap ent 1 Primrose Road, Burlingame,Cal' If you chal ge t u ma be limited to raising onl os ss ues ed a e blic hearing, described i t c r d to the city at or prior t C A L t F © Ik N t A Property o ers hi o r i >t onsi or forming their tenants ab t tno 1 mformati0 ple se call (650) 558-7250. iank V. :10! . awl Margaret M O� City Planner y� PU ICE (Please refer to other side) CITY 04N CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURuti�AME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 b. TEL: (650) 558-7250 PUBLIC HEARING: BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN City Council Public Hearing to consider PUBLIC HEARING approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area NOTICE Plan update. The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following Public Hearing on Monday, April 5, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: March 26, 2004 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic 3u ay be reviewed prior to the meeting a la g� D p ent 1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cal' I If you chal ge t u ma be limited to raising onl os ssues ed a e iblic hearing, described i t 'cNG.AelkjWr ,-dsw to the city at or prior t C A L z F o R 4 t o Property o ers v r 1 onsibi. ori forming their tenants a t thi no mformatio plef se call (650) 558-7250. ank u. Margaret 0 City Planner .p No �p � PU ICE (Please refer to other side) 1 BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN ON General Land Use Map horeline GS See Figures III-2 through III-6 for Subarea Land Uses vator v Legend fi za r Inner Bayshore Office and Warehouse o�a0-19 _ ® Shoreline Waterfront Commercial ® � �, ,��MMW Anza Extension Public Facilities - Park ® Anza Area Waterfront Commercial Anza Point Waterfront Commercial BURL® CITY OF BURLINGAME MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION File No. ND-531 P, Update of the Bayfront Specific Plan The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on December 8, 2003, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) With the Mitigation Measures proposed, it will not have a significant effect on the environment (XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Project Description: The project consists of the update of the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan. The original plan was adopted by the Burlingame City Council in 1981 and has provided a framework for development which has occurred since that time. The plan was originally developed based on a traffic model which resulted in land uses and densities based on the intersection capacities and traffic generating characteristics of the proposed uses. As proposed in the original plan, the circulation system would continue to operate well within its design capacity when the Bayfront Planning Area reached build out. The proposed specific plan update was developed using this same land use concept. The update proposes similar land uses to the 1981 plan, with a few modifications to reflect current economic trends and the values of the community. The plan also puts a cap on the density of development based on the update of the traffic model. In addition, the updated plan sets out the traffic improvements needed to keep the circulation system operating at an acceptable level of service after build-out. The goals of the 1981 Bayfront Specific Plan were to provide an area which would contribute to the City's economic and revenue base as well as provide community recreational opportunities because of its location adjacent to San Francisco Bay. These same goals are the basis of the Specific Plan update. The plan includes a layered land use for the Specific Plan update. The base layer, the Draft Plan, would build entirely on the successes of the land uses in the 1981 Bayfront Specific Plan, with Waterfront Commercial Uses, including offices, hotels, restaurants and limited retail components, as well as continuing to allow Light Industrial Uses in certain areas. Another layer, Alternative A, would also allow for multiple family residential uses in addition to the Waterfront Commercial uses on selected sites in the Anza and Anza Point sub-areas (southerly end of the Bayfront Planning Area). The residential uses would be limited to a maximum of 800 dwelling units on a total of three identified sites (see attached maps of Anza and Anza Point Area Land Uses). The environmental analysis will consider both layers. Scope of Environmental Document: The analysis in this environmental document is done on a program level. The Specific Plan will set performance standards and objectives which can be applied to future projects on a site-specific basis. These performance standards will be the basis for mitigation measures in environmental analysis of future site-specific projects. This document also provides basic data about the �-- existing environment in the area which can be used as a baseline for environmental analysis of future development projects. Mitigated Negative Declaration Bayfront Specific Plan Update Page 2 Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed project is an update to the existing Bayfront Specific Plan. Land Use Densities in the update, as in the original plan, are based on the intersection capacity of the road system which serves this area. The plan also establishes Design Guidelines and Community Standards which will assure that future projects will not cause adverse impacts on the environment,nor will they be exposed to adverse environmental conditions. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings,it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. City Planner Sign ture f Proces ing Official Title Date The determination becomes final after action at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission, unless the commission's action is appealed to the City Council. Date posted: &(2A k Q, Zed Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on y 52003. Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No ANN MUSW, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY-ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame,Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: Area east of U.S. 101 to the San Francisco Bay, in the City of Burlingame; project is located between the Millbrae City Boundary at El Portal Creek and Coyote Point Park in unincorporated San Mateo County, California 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Burlingame General Plan and Current Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan—Waterfront Commercial and Office Manufacturing 7. Zoning: C-4 and O-M 8. Description of the Project: The project consists of the update of the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan. The original plan was adopted by the Burlingame City Council in 1981 and has provided a framework for development which has occurred since that time. The plan was originally developed based on a traffic model which resulted in land uses and densities based on the intersection capacities and traffic generating characteristics of the proposed uses. As proposed in the original plan,the circulation system would continue to operate well within its design capacity when the Bayfront Planning Area reached build out. The proposed specific plan update was developed using this same land use concept. The update proposes similar land uses to the 1981 plan, with a few modifications to reflect current economic trends and the values of the community. The plan also puts a cap on the density of development based on the update of the traffic model. In addition, the updated plan sets out the traffic improvements needed to keep the circulation system operating at an acceptable level of service after build-out. The goals of the 1981 Bayfront Specific Plan were to provide an area which would contribute to the City's economic and revenue base as well as provide community recreational opportunities because of its location adjacent to San Francisco Bay. These same goals are the basis of the Specific Plan update. The plan includes a layered land use for the Specific Plan update. The base layer, the Draft Plan, would build entirely on the successes of the land uses in the 1981 Bayfront Specific Plan, with Waterfront Commercial Uses, including offices, hotels,restaurants and limited retail components, as well as continuing to allow Light Industrial Uses in certain areas. Another layer,Alternative A,would also allow for multiple family residential uses in addition to the Waterfront Commercial uses on selected sites in the Anza and Anza Point sub-areas (southerly end of the Bayfront Planning Area). The residential uses would be limited to a maximum of 800 dwelling units on a total of three identified sites(see attached maps of Anza and Anza Point Area Land Uses). The environmental analysis will consider both layers. Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan 9. Scope of Environmental Document: The analysis in this environmental document is done on a program level. The Specific Plan will set performance standards and objectives which can be applied to future projects on a site-specific basis. These performance standards will be the basis for mitigation measures in environmental analysis of future site-specific projects. This document also provides basic data about the existing environment in the area which can be used as a baseline for environmental analysis of future development projects. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Existing uses within the boundaries of the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan consist of the following: Hotels, Offices,Office/Warehouse and Manufacturing,Auto Rental and Storage,Long-term Airport Parking,Restaurants, Public Facilities and Gas Stations. There are several vacant properties within the planning area, and some properties which may see a change in use sometime in the future. The update of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan is proposed to provide a framework for the future development of these properties. The City of Millbrae and the San Francisco International Airport lie north of the Bayfront Planning Area. On the west side of US 101,there is an existing industrial area and existing residential areas within the City of Burlingame. Coyote Point Park Recreational Area in unincorporated San Mateo County is located south of the planning area. The planning area is adjacent to the San Francisco Bay on its eastern and southern boundary. 1 L. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC)review is required for any land use changes within the boundaries of the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan. -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Si ificant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Hydrology&Water X Noise Agricultural Resources Quality Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance X Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X— I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact@ or A potentially significant unless mitigated@ impact on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Margare Mo oe, City Planner date -3- Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Issues and Supporting Information Sourcessonrees Potentially Potentially U.Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,4 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, 1,2,4 X local coastal program or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1,19 X natural community conservation plan? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,6 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing 3 X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the 3 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 6,7,8 X effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the 6,7,9 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6,7,9 X iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 6,8,9 X iv)Landslides? 6,8 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,6,8 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 1,6,8 X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of 6,8,9 X the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 1,6 X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1 X -4- Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact t Issues Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing 1115 X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1,6,9 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 1,6,9 X runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems 1,9 X or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,9 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped 9,15 X on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 9,15 X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of 1,9 X the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,16 X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,16 X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 1,16 X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,16 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,16 X people? -5- Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to 1,14 X the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 19,18 X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,17 X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. 2,9 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 9 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,9 X g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting 1,9 X alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,19 X b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,19 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defried by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, 1,19 X etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,19 X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1 X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1 X Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? -6- Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact �— Issues Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,6 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, 1 X specific plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,9 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 9,10,1 X involving the release of hazardous materials into the 2 environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 1,9 X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 20 X Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a 1,17 X safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or 1 X working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 1,12 X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands 1,12 X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess 1 X of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 1,9 X groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 1 X the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? -7- Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,9 X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where 17 X such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would 1 X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,12 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,10 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 1,10 X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the 1110 X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 1,10 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 1,10 X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,10 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 1,10 X related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X -8- Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not X limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 1,9 X of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,9 X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,9 X historical resource as defined in'15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,9 X archaeological resource pursuant to'15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,9 X resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside 1,9 X of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood 1,9 X and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,9 X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or Farmland of 1 X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 1 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of 1 X Farmland,to non-agricultural use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X -9- Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Potentially Potentially Less Than No Sources i\ Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, 1 X but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? 1 X -10- Initial Study Checklist Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan,Burlingame,California, 1985, 1984 and 2002 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame,Municipal Code, Title 25-Zoning,Burlingame,California,2003 edition. 3 Housing Element, City of Burlingame,Burlingame,California,2002. 4 Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan,adopted by the Burlingame City Council on May 4, 1981. 5 2000 Census 6 Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, 1971. 7 E.Brabb,E.Pampeyan,and M.Bonilla,Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County,San Mateo County,California, 1972. 8 Perkins,Jeanne,Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking,U.S.G.S.Map MF,San Mateo County:California, 1987. 9 Association of Bay Area Governments. March 2003. Burlingame Dam Failure Inundation Map. Website. http://quake.abag.ca.gov/damfailure/dfpickc.huffl. 10 Burlingame Municipal Code. Chapter 11.06. Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance. 11 California Department of Conservation,Division of Land Resource Protection. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Maps available for download at:hU:HAww.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fLiM/map products/download gi data.htm 12 Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area,adopted by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission on January 21, 1982. 13 Burlingame Land Use Traffic Analyzer Impact Update for the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan,April 2003 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. September 16, 1981. Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel Number 065019 0001 C. 15 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES,Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans,December, 1995 16 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan,San Francisco International Airport,December, 1994 17 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997 18 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance,San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California,State Department of Fish and Game 19 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List,April 1998 20 Environmental Science Associates,October 2002."Noise Constraints—Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan" 21 Environmental Science Associates,October 2002. "Wind Effects Considerations—Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan" 22 Environmental Collaborative. September 13,2002. "Biological Constraints Analysis for the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan." -11- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan LAND USE AND PLANNING SUMMARY Setting: The project consists of the update of the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan,which provides guidance for future development within the project area on the east side of U.S. 101. The existing land uses in the planning area include: Hotels, Offices, Office/Warehouse and Manufacturing,Auto Rental and Storage, Long-term Airport Parking,Restaurants,Public Facilities and Gas Stations. Discussion: The existing Bayfront Specific Plan designates the planning area for a layering of office manufacturing and waterfront commercial uses, and specifies certain land uses and densities on specific parcels. Drat Plan: The proposed Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan update would continue to designate the same areas for Waterfront Commercial and Office Manufacturing uses. The plan update proposes to include two new uses in limited areas within the planning area boundaries. The update would allow retail nodes on designated parcels within the Shoreline area, and proposes to add extended stay hotels in the Anza and Anza Point Areas. The mix of uses proposed for the area,both in the existing Specific Plan and the proposed update,were based on two fundamental criteria: that the area provide an economic base for the City of Burlingame, and that the land uses proposed would not overtax the carrying capacity of the local roadway system. The proposed Specific Plan update will provide density limitations and design guidance for future development on the remaining vacant parcels in the area as well as any reuse of sites which are currently developed. The Specific Plan update would continue to allow light manufacturing,waterfront commercial uses in an area which is substantially developed with similar uses. There are currently no residential uses in this area. As a result, the project would not physically divide an established community. With Housing Layered on Selected Sites: This alternative is similar to the Draft Specific Plan,but would allow the option for multiple-family residential uses on three sites within the Anza and Anza Point Areas. This would be a departure from the current policy which prohibits housing in the Bayfront Area. The proposed residential uses would be limited to three specific sites. These sites are near the southern end of the Bayfront Area and do not have some of the physical constraints that impact the rest of the area; they are not within the noise impact area of the San Francisco International Airport for sensitive land uses, and would have some access to the other residential and retail support areas west of US 101 via the Peninsula Avenue Interchange. The option allowing limited residential uses on particular sites would introduce housing into an area where there is no housing now. Therefore, this would not physically divide an established community. Other land use plans: The only other agency with jurisdiction over the future projects that has an applicable land use plan is the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee(ALUC). Any changes to a specific plan which affect property within the environs of an airport must be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Committee for a determination of consistency with the relevant provisions in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan prior to the city's approval of the Specific Plan update. No other agencies with jurisdiction over the project have land use plans,policies or regulations that would be -12- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan affected by the proposed project. Properties with bay frontage are subject to review by the San Francisco `— Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC) for compliance with public access requirements. BCDC also has project level design review authority over any structure built wihtin its jurisdiction boundary along the bay. BCDC and the City of Burlingame have adopted guidelines establishing standards for providing access to the bay in the Burlingame Bayfront Planning Area. These guidelines will remain in effect and have been incorporated into the plan with the update of the Specific Plan. Since there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans governing the project site,the project could not conflict with any such plans. �. BURLINGAME BAYFRONT `- SPECIFIC AREA PLAN General Land Use Map 5> horeline See Figures III-2 through 111-6 for Subarea Land Uses Legend . l Via; Inner Bayshore Office and Warehouse Shoreline :,`��'��� a�? T r•,. Waterfront CommercialW ' Anza Extensions Public Facilities-Park ® Anza Area Waterfront Commercial Anza Point Waterfront Commercial Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Generalized Land Use Map Conclusion: Because both options of the plan update will continue to provide guidance for new development and does not propose any substantial changes to permitted land uses, and because the additional option with housing layered on selected sites limits the new use to specific areas with specific densities and with less potential for conflicts,the proposed plan update will have no adverse impact on the �-- area's land use. -13- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan POPULATION AND HOUSING SUMMARY Setting: The Bayfront Planning Area does not now include any residential areas, and therefore the Specific Plan update would not eliminate any existing housing. The planning area is separated from the existing residential portions of Burlingame by U.S. 101. Housing could be considered an acceptable use on certain parcels within the Anza and Anza Point Areas. Discussion: Drat Plan: The Draft Plan for the proposed update to the Bayfront Specific Plan does not propose any new homes, or new roads and infrastructure which would serve any residential areas. Under this scenario, no existing housing or people would be displaced by the proposed Bayfront Specific Plan Update, and no replacement housing would need to be constructed elsewhere. The City's adopted Housing Element, updated and certified by the State in 2002, identifies several locations east of U.S. 101 where additional housing can be constructed to meet the future housing needs of the community. With Housing Layered on Selected Sites): Although this area is not needed to meet the City's housing needs allocation and State mandate as identified by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), there is a pent up demand for housing,particularly affordable housing for low and moderate income residents. If housing is built in this area, it will be required to meet the City's requirement to include affordable units. Therefore, this option will help provide housing for all income levels within the City of Burlingame. Conclusion: The project would not result in substantial increases in housing demand by displacing houses or residents or by creating a substantial increase in employment over what was previously planned and built. Designating some sites in the Anza and Anza Point Areas with a housing overlay could provide additional opportunities for affordable housing in Burlingame. GEOLOGIC SUMMARY Setting: The Bayfront Planning Area is within the geomorphic province of the Coast Ranges, in eastern San Mateo County. The area is located on a broad alluvial plain. The region is characterized by the seismically active San Andreas fault system. The San Andreas fault is located about four miles west of the area. The planning area was originally marshland and tidal area which was filled in the 1950's and 1960's. The fill is between 0 and 13 feet deep and is underlain by weak, compressible marine clay known as Bay Mud,which is in turn underlain by at least 85 feet of interbedded stiff to very stiff sandy gravelly clay and medium dense to very dense clayey gravel. Discussion: Since geologic conditions and construction requirements for the Draft Plan and With Housing Layered on Selected Sites would be the same, with construction standards for housing required to meet the same building regulations for seismic safety as other uses, the analysis for both options would be the same. The Bayfront Planning Area is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo fault zone, and no known faults exist within the area. As a result,the Specific Plan Update and subsequent development would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects because of the rupture of a known fault. -14- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan In the San Francisco Bay Area, exposure of people and structures to seismic events such as groundshaking �- and ground failure (including slope instability, liquefaction, settlement, soil expansion, etc.) is unavoidable. Therefore, the State of California has established construction standards and design criteria to safeguard life and property which would be affected by earthquakes in such areas. The planning area is in California Building Code(CBC) Seismic Zone 4, as is about 45 percent of the State, and therefore is required to meet the most stringent CBC construction standards. Any development within the Bayfront Planning Area would be required to comply with current Seismic Zone 4 construction standards and seismic design criteria adopted in the 2001 or subsequent CBCs. Adherence to these provisions for any development project would minimize the risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic events to the maximum extent technically feasible at this time. The potential for exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving groundshaking or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant. The United States Geologic Survey's Map showing liquefaction potential of San Mateo County, California indicates the potential for liquefaction throughout the area is generally low to moderate, with locally high areas near active and abandoned stream channels. Overall there is a 1 to 10 per cent probability of liquefiable sediment in these areas based on the average for the area. Because any development in the area would be required to comply with current Seismic Zone 4 construction standards and seismic design criteria adopted in the 2001 CBC, future development within the planning area would not expose structures or access routes to substantial adverse effects caused by seismic-related ground failure. Active faults within the Bay Area have predominantly horizontal movement and are not expected to generate siginificant water waves in the San Francisico Bay and,therefore, the potential for site flooding from a seiche is minimal. The Burlingame Seismic Safety Element shows that the site is within the tsunami inundation zone for San Francisco Bay and, therefore,under the worst conditions a tsunami may cause damage within the planning area. However,because of Burlingame's position on the southwest shore of the San Francisco Bay, this area is effectively shielded from major ocean waves. Secondary waves may cause limited inundation of the lower baylands. All future development along the Bay shoreline will be required to have a first floor elevation of 10' above mean sea level (MSL), and it is required that there be no occupied areas below elevation 10'MSL. The project is not expected to result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil,because the planning area is relatively flat, and any development will cover the land with buildings,pavement and landscaped areas. Conformance with the CBC and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit (described under the Hydrology and Water Quality Section)would ensure that substantial erosion would not occur as a result of the proposed Bayfront Specific Plan update. Sewers are available to the area and would be used for wastewater disposal. As a result, there is no potential impact of development because of the capability of the soil to support septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. Soil support for the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not applicable to this project. Mitigation: In order to reduce impacts related to the geology, earthquake hazards, flooding and erosion,the following community standards should be applied to all new development: -15- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan • buildings shall be placed on pile supported foundations with flexible utility connections. • hard or impervious surfaces shall be placed on a flexible base. • any new facilities shall be constructed and installed according to the standards of the City of Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at the time a building permit is issued. • the first floor for any proposed building shall be built at an elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level (+10'MSL),with no occupied areas below elevation 10'MSL to address the possibility of flooding. • for properties adjacent to the bay shoreline,the site shall be evaluated to determine if slope stabilization or other erosion control measures should be done to prevent future erosion of the bay edge. • In order to ensure that the public access areas adjacent to the bay edge are not subject to tidal flooding,the height of the shoreline protection structure shall be at least+8 feet MSL or as determined necessary to deter tidal flooding by the City Engineer. Conclusion: The proposed Bayfront Specific Plan update would not result in impacts because of fault rupture or seismically-related ground failure. Conformance with the mitigation measures and community standards listed above,including CBC requirements for any future development,would reduce potential effects from seismic-related ground failure,including slope instability,liquefaction,lateral spreading, seismically induced settlement,and soil expansion. Confonnance with the CBC and the required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for future development projects would also ensure that substantial erosion would not occur from development consistent with the update of the Bayfront Specific Plan. There would not be any impacts because of wastewater disposal through the soil,since wastewater generated from any future project would be disposed of through the sewer system. Thus,geologic impacts would be less than significant. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SUMMARY Setting: The planning area is located in an urbanized infill area,which is substantially developed with hotels,offices,restaurants and light industrial uses. There are four creeks which pass through the area, carrying run-off from the hills to the west to San Francisco Bay: El Portal Creek,Easton Creek,Mills Creek and Sanchez Creek. There are also two lagoons with outlets into San Francisco Bay within the Anza Area,the Burlingame Lagoon and the Anza Lagoon. Portions of the planning area adjacent to the area creeks and lagoons are located in the 100-year flood plain,according to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. Other portions,primarily at the northern and southern boundaries of the planning area,are within the 500-year flood zone boundary. The remaining areas,including Bayside Park and the Upper Deck,are in Flood Zone C,areas of minimal flooding.Areas close to the creeks that are within the 100- year flood plain would be subject to municipal code requirements for construction within a flood zone. Any development proposal in the planning area would be subject to the state-mandated water conservation program. A complete Irrigation Water Management Plan is required with landscape and irrigation plans at time of any permit application. Discussion: Since the area hydrology and potential impacts to water quality for the Draft Plan and With Housing Layered on Selected Sites would be the same,since construction and grading standards for housing are the same as other uses,the analysis for both options would be the same. The discussion of flood hazards below evaluates the different potential impacts of a housing layer. -16- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan �. All development projects exceeding an acre in size will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, as required by the federal Clean Water Act. This permit is intended to ensure that any discharges to surface waters both during construction and after completion do not result in water quality degradation. Construction activities, because of the related erosion and sedimentation impacts, pose significant concerns to water quality protection. The Regional Water Quality Control Board would issue the NPDES permit for any development project to ensure that the project, including its construction, would not result in pollution of surface waters. Any development project would be subject to compliance with the permit conditions set forth by the NPDES permit and would thus not be expected to violate water quality standards or discharge requirements. The planning area does not include any wells or other facilities that could affect groundwater. Water for the project would be supplied by the City of Burlingame through City water mains from entitlements from the San Francisco Water Department through the Hetch Hetchy water system. As a result, no impact to groundwater supplies or recharge is anticipated from the update of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Future construction activities would be subject to Chapters 18 and A33 of the CBC (see the Geology and Soils Section). Chapters 18 and A33 of the CBC deal with excavations, foundations, retaining walls, and grading, including (but not limited to) requirements for seismically resistant design, foundation investigations, stable cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control. In addition, any NPDES permit required as discussed above would include the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce construction-period erosion. Thus, conformance with the CBC and the NPDES permit would ensure that substantial erosion would not result from any future development proposal. The implementation of Best Management Practices contained in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would account for potential construction activities in wet weather conditions and seek to minimize potential erosion and sediment control. The Specific Plan update proposal does not envision that any of the creeks which run through the project would be altered. It is possible that, during any future project construction, polluted runoff would flow into City drainage facilities or into the San Francisco Bay. The mitigation measure described below would ensure that substantial polluted runoff does not occur from any future development. With the implementation of the measure below, impacts related to polluted runoff would be less than significant. Flood Hazard: Drat Plan: Because this version of the plan does not include any designated areas for housing, the project would not place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area. Because portions of the area are within a 100-year flood zone, future development on sites within these designated areas would have to meet City standards for construction within a flood zone, as outlined in Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.22. With Housing Layered on Selected Sites: The three sites selected as potential housing sites are within Flood Zone B as designated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Zone B is outside of the 100 year Flood Hazard Area -17- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan and is not considered a Special Flood Hazard Area. Therefore,this option would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. However,these sites are adjacent to the Burlingame Lagoon,the Bayfront Channel and/or the San Francisco Bay. In order to insure that the first floors of any housing on these sites is above flood level,all habitable areas including the first floor elevation will be required to be at elevation+10'above mean sea level(MSL). In addition,the levees on the bay,lagoon or channel edges will need to be raised to+10'MSL to provide protection for these sites. The proposed Specific Plan update would not directly expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The dam failure inundation map for the area created by the Association of Bay Area Governments shows that the planning area is not in a dam failure inundation zone. The planning area is substantially developed with commercial and industrial uses,and the area is primarily flat. Given the environmental setting and the need for any future development to comply with the CBC as described in Checklist Item F,Geology and Soils,the proposed plan update would not result in or be exposed to significant impacts from mudflow. Mitigation: • For any future development proposal on sites one acre in size or greater,the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)to prevent polluted runoff from flowing into public drainage facilities during construction of the proposed facilities. The SWPPP -� shall include Best Management Practices(BMPs)that include schedules of activities,prohibitions of practices,maintenance procedures,and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution in storm water runoff during construction. The S WPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Burlingame and other appropriate agencies,such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board,prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. • For projects less than one acre in size,the project applicant shall be required to submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuing a building permit for the project. • To prevent fertilizer from entering the Bay directly,landscaping and berm areas planted and maintained adjacent to the Bay Trail shall drain away from the Bay. Conclusion: Future development within the planning area would be subject to NPDES permit review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and/or the City of Burlingame and would be expected to comply with permit conditions regarding surface water pollution prevention. With mitigation recommended above,the project would have less-than-significant impacts on hydrology and water quality issues. -18- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan AIR QUALITY SUMMARY: Setting: The Bayfront planning area is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), a State agency charged with implementing State and Federal air quality standards in the San Francisco Bay Area. Discussion: Since the traffic generating impacts of the Draft Plan and Alternative A are similar, and since housing would not create any objectionable odors and would have the same construction-related dust issues, the air quality analysis for both options would be the same. The update of the Bayfront Specific Plan does not foresee any development which would produce objectionable odors or result in alteration in air movement, moisture, temperature or change in local or regional climate. Since any development which would result from the proposed plan update would be limited in density based on the traffic generating impacts of each use and thus generate traffic in the same proportions as development with the existing plan, the adoption of the plan update would not result in a significant impact on traffic. Therefore, any changes in emissions generated by traffic within the planning area also would not be considered to be significant. Future construction activities would be subject to the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for construction dust and equipment emissions. Conclusion: Since adoption of the Specific Plan update will not result in a substantial increase in area traffic, and future construction activities will be subject to BAAQMD regulations, there will be no significant impact on air quality. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION SUMMARY: Setting: Regional access to the planning area is provided by U.S. 101, which is directly west of the area. There are four interchanges that provide access to the area: Millbrae Avenue, Broadway, Anza Boulevard (northbound only), and the Peninsula/Poplar (northbound only) interchanges to the south. Two major arterials provide access through the area, Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard. Anza Boulevard provides access between Airport Boulevard and U.S. 101. The new Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station in Millbrae is located within one mile of the northern boundary of the planning area. San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) operates one bus route along Bayshore Highway in the northern Bayfront area, which provides service between the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo and the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco. Discussion: Although the traffic generating characteristics for the two plan options are similar, the traffic patterns for residential development is different than for commercial uses, in that the residential peak hour traffic is generally traveling in the opposite direction from the office, commercial and warehouse traffic. Therefore, the traffic discussion below will consist of a general overview, followed by specific analysis for the two different land use layering approaches. Baseline Conditions: There are limited access points to the Bayfront Planning Area. Therefore it is important to keep the main access intersections operating at an acceptable level of service. Intersection operations are -19- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan described by standards known as "level of service" (LOS),which is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed,travel time,delay,and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined, ranging from LOS A, representing the best operating conditions, and to LOS F, where demand exceeds capacity and there is excessive delay. As a part of the plan update process,Fehr and Peers Associates,Traffic Consultants,prepared the Land Use-Transportation Impact Analyzer for the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan, April 2003. This report first provides an update on existing conditions in the area. The data collected shows that under baseline conditions(existing conditions plus any approved development under construction at the time the plan was prepared)the critical intersections are operating at the following levels of service: Table IV-1 Intersection Levels of Service Baseline Conditions Percent of Peak LOS C Level of Intersection Hour Capacity Service Consumed Bayshore Highway/Millbrae Avenue AM 43% A PM 59% A Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101 SB Off-Ramp AM 143% F PM 135% F Bayshore Highway/US 101 NB Ramps AM 69% A PM 66% A Bayshore Highway/Airport Boulevard AM 65% A PM 80% B Airport Boulevard/Anza Boulevard AM 46% A PM 52% A Airport Boulevard/Coyote Point Drive* AM 33% A PM 58% A Peninsula Avenue/N.Humboldt Street AM 84% B PM 91% B Source: Fehr and Peers Associates,Inc.Analyzer Update,April,2003 All of the intersections,except the Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101 SB Off-ramp,are now operating at LOS A or LOS B,representing a smooth flow of traffic with little or no delays. The Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101 southbound off-ramp is now operating beyond its design capacity at a level of service(LOS)F during both the AM and Pm peak hours. It should be noted that the levels of service for intersections at or near the Broadway interchange will continue to function at this level until the Broadway Interchange is reconstructed. The Broadway interchange is one of the oldest interchanges on U.S. 101, and does not conform to current interchange standards. There are plans underway to reconstruct Broadway as a full"urban interchange",with Broadway straightened to align directly with Airport Boulevard at its intersection with Bayshore Highway; and with the on and off-ramps connecting to Broadway with "T" intersections which will be signaled. This project is under study by Caltrans, but it has not yet been funded. It will be a high priority project when funding for regional projects becomes available. There are also proposals to change the operation of Caltrain at the Broadway station(such as relocation of the station platform and/or fewer trains stopping at the station) which will result in less down-time for the Caltrain gates at Broadway. When these two proposals are implemented,the traffic circulation at the interchange will improve. However,because of the short distance between intersections and the location of the Caltrain tracks,it may not be possible to bring the intersections and off-ramps on or near the interchange to a level of service C. -20- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan The Traffic Analyzer prepared by Fehr and Peers analyzed the impacts of the land use adjustments proposed by the plan update on the capacity of the above-noted intersections. This analysis looked at buildout of the proposed Specific Area Plan with the land uses and densities proposed with separate analysis for the two options. Drat Plan: At buildout of this option, all but two of the intersections will continue to operate at a level of service C or better, representing acceptable levels of service. One intersection, the Peninsula Avenue/North Humboldt Street intersection,will go from an existing LOS C (94%of intersection capacity consumed)to a LOS D, with 104%of the intersection capacity consumed. The Fehr and Peers study indicates that the operations at that intersection would be just over the threshold for LOS C, and no improvements at this location are proposed at this time. In addition,the Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101 southbound off-ramp will continue to operate at LOS F as it does with current conditions. Compared to buildout under the existing Bayfront Plan,there would be a slight increase in traffic volumes and p.m. peak hour trips. This increase is primarily attributable to the proposed retail node in the Shoreline Area and the change in type of hotel from destination to extended stay in the Anza and Anza Point Areas. The extended stay hotel is expected to have a larger portion of its trips occurring during the AM and PM peak hours than traditional hotels. While for planning purposes,we have chosen to use a level of service C as the baseline standard, intersection operation at a level of service D is generally considered to be a less than significant impact for CEQA purposes. In addition, while the intersection at Broadway and Rollins Road will continue to operate at LOS F, the build out of the planning area will not further degrade the LOS at this intersection. Therefore, it has been determined that the projected increase in traffic over what would occur under the existing land use designations with implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would be less than significant. With Housing Layered on Selected Sites: At buildout of the alternative with selected housing sites, all but one of the critical intersections would operate at a Level of Service C or better. In this scenario,the Peninsula Avenue/North Humboldt Street intersection will stay at LOS C (existing conditions=94%of intersection capacity consumed;proposed land use alternative=96%of capacity consumed. The one intersection that will be at LOS F is the Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101 southbound off-ramp,which now operates at LOS F. As noted above, the Rollins Road/Broadway/US 101 southbound off-ramp is now operating at LOS F, and will continue to operate at LOS F with implementation of either option of the plan, as well as if the existing plan were to stay in place. Because development will not further degrade operations at this intersection and there are regional plans underway to improve operating conditions at this interchange, no mitigation is proposed with this project. Traffic from residential development will occur during the peak hour. Within the planning area,these trips will be in the opposite direction as the traffic from employees of businesses in the area, and will not impact local street operations. However,there may be an impact on the regional transportation network, since many of the residential trips will occur during the peak hours. -21- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan r` Community Standards and Traffic Mitigation: In order to maintain the Levels of Service anticipated by the Analyzer Update,Fehr and Peers that improvements be made to roadways in the area. Currentyl, the City imposes a Bayfront Development Fee on all new development in the planning area. It is proposed as a part of the plan that these fees would be revised so that future development would contribute a fair share to the construction of additional improvements within the planning area identified as needed. The improvements proposed would be needed for all development. Airport Traffic and Alternative Transportation Modes: Although the planning area is proximate to San Francisco International Airport,because of the airport's size,the proposed project would not lead to a significant increase in air traffic trips. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. The existing SamTrans bus route down Bayshore Highway will continue to operate to serve the northern end of the planning area. PM Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Draft Plan and-With,HousingLa ered on Selected Sites Percent of Level of Percent of Level of Percent of Level of Intersection Peak LOS C Service LOS C Service LOS C Service Hour Capacity Capacity Capacity Consumed Consumed Consumed Bayshore Highway/Millbrae PM 59% A 62% A 62% A Avenue —1 Rollins Road/Broadway/US PM 135% F 157% F 155% F 101 SB Off-Ramp Bayshore Highway/US 101 PM 66% A 97% C 96% C NB Ramps Bayshore Highway/Airport PM 80% B 92% C 89% C Boulevard Airport Boulevard/Anza PM 52% A 82% B 77% B Boulevard Airport Boulevard/Coyote PM 58% A 98% C 94% C Point Drive* Peninsula Avenue/N. PM 91% C 104% D 96% C Humboldt Street Mitigation: In order to ensure that the roadways continue to operate at acceptable levels of service,the Bayfront Development fee shall be updated so that any new development will be required to pay its fair share contribution towards completion of the following improvements: Airport Boulevard Curve Realignment—Airport Boulevard has sharp curves (90°) at two locations along its southern portion in the Anza Point Area. As traffic volumes increase, these sharp curves will prove to be both capacity constraints and safety hazards. Therefore, it is recommended that these curves be smoothed out to comfortably handle traffic along Airport Boulevard at the roadway's design speed. A curve on this type of roadway with a 30 miles per hour(mph) design speed should have a radius of 300 feet. The recommended alignment for the easternmost of the two curves is shown in Appendix E of the Traffic Analyzer. -22- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Airport Boulevard Median Reconstruction/Site Access Plan—Currently, along Airport Boulevard between Lang Road and Anza Boulevard, the median is intermittent with frequent breaks. This median area will likely need to be reconstructed to allow for specific project access to Airport Boulevard. Therefore, it is recommended that a comprehensive plan be developed to strategically position the median breaks at appropriate locations along Airport Boulevard to accommodate future projects. It is recommended that this median access be planned,rather than designed and constructed on a project-by- project basis,to ensure that project access locations are efficiently located with respect to each other and to Airport Boulevard. Airport Boulevard Bridge Widening(Sanchez Channel)—Airport Boulevard transitions from four lanes to three lanes (one southbound lane and two northbound lanes)just north of the Burlingame Lagoon bridge crossing, and continues with this configuration south of the lagoon. Although the capacity of the roadway is expected to be adequate,providing a second lane in each direction allows traffic to turn into and out of development sites without impeding through traffic and providing safe pedestrian separation. Therefore, it is recommended that this roadway and bridge be widened to accommodate a four-lane cross section,with full pedestrian access to the adjacent Bay trail. Transition Between New Broadway Interchange and Airport Boulevard—Airport Boulevard,between its current intersections with the Bayshore Highway and Anza Boulevard, is a two-lane facility. In the future,the Broadway interchange with US 101 will be reconfigured and straightened to align directly with Airport Boulevard at Bayshore Highway. Broadway is a four-lane facility. Therefore, in order to connect with the straightened Broadway, it is recommended that Airport Boulevard be widened to four lanes between the Bayshore Highway and Anza Boulevard. This widening,in conjunction with the bridge widening described above,will create a continuous, four-lane Airport Boulevard from its beginning at the Bayshore Highway to Beach Road,where Airport Boulevard transitions to a two-lane facility in San Mateo County. Airport Boulevard Bicycle Lanes—It is recommended that continuous bicycle lanes be installed along Airport Boulevard to provide continuous bicycle access through the Anza area. Bayshore Highway Median Reconstruction—Bayshore Highway is now a four-lane roadway with median areas in some locations and continuous shared two-way left-turn lanes in other areas. Similar to the recommended access plan for Airport Boulevard, an improvement plan is recommended for Bayshore Highway,to determine the appropriate locations of median breaks to safely serve existing and future development. As part of that plan, the existing signals will need to be upgraded to provide for signal interconnect and coordination. Where possible,the plan should provide opportunities for landscaping and lighting within the median. Local Roadway Signalization required with the Realignment of Broadway Interchange—The reconstruction of the Broadway interchange will change the alignment of the connecting roadways to "T" or full intersections where they connect with the Broadway overpass. New signals will be required at these intersections. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis and the proposed mitigation measure,the update of the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan,with all layers of development, is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on traffic and circulation. -23- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SUMMARY Setting: The project site is located in an urbanized area,and much of the site is already developed with offices,hotels and light industrial uses. The project area is located along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, which offers some areas of habitat for migrating birds. Bayside Park and the Upper Deck are heavily landscaped,and there are some areas of salt marsh along the edges of the Burlingame and Anza Lagoons. The discussion regarding Biological Resources will cover both all layers of land use,since potential impacts and mitigation measures would apply in the same way. Discussion: In October 2002,a"Biological Constraints Analysis for the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan"was prepared by Environmental Collaborative. This analysis looked at the Bayfront Planning Area's biological setting and notes that most of the planning area has been developed with urban uses or has been modified by past filling of the shoreline of San Francisco Bay,eliminating natural community types and habitat for special-status species. There are salt and brackish water marshes occurring at the west end of Sanchez Creek adjacent to Burlingame Lagoon,and along the shoreline of the two lagoons in the area. The study also notes that wildlife species in an urban area tend to be adapted to the urban habitat. One possible raptor nest was identified in the large blue gum eucalyptus trees in Bayside Park along the Airport Boulevard frontage. No changes are proposed at Bayside Park as a part of this plan. However,the future widening of Airport Boulevard will result in removal of some of the Eucalyptus trees along the frontage. New trees will be planted within the park boundaries to replace these trees. In order to avoid disturbing the raptor nest in the eucalyptus trees,removal of the trees and construction of the road improvements will not be done during the nesting season. - The report notes that there are no occurrences of sensitive natural community types within the Bayfront Planning Area. However,the brackish water and north coastal salt marsh complex at the west end of Burlingame Lagoon at the outlet of Sanchez Creek and the small area of marsh at the mouth of Mills Creek should be considered sensitive natural communities and significant marsh resources. These two locations are on property owned by the City of Burlingame. The plan update does not propose any changes to these two areas and they will remain in their natural state. The study identified that there is a remote possibility that seasonal freshwater marsh wetlands could occur on the two large vacant parcels identified in the Anza and Anza Point Areas. Further detailed surveys would be necessary to determine whether any wetland indicators are present,and if so,to verify whether the Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over those features. This analysis would need to be done before any development were to occur on those two sites. Any future development proposal will be subject to the city's"Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance,"Chapter 11.06 of the Municipal Code,which defines a protected tree and requires a permit for their removal. Mitigation: The biological survey concluded that the following should be included as community standards in the plan and are also proposed as mitigation measures for the adoption of the plan: ■ Because it provides important habitat for wildlife and may be used by special-status species such as California clapper rail and saltmarsh common yellowthroat,among others,the 20-acre marshland at the west end of Burlingame Lagoon where Sanchez Creek passes under US 101 shall be preserved. -24- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan ■ Any disturbance or modification to the existing marshlands throughout the study area should be avoided, given their limited extent and importance to wildlife. ■ Efforts should be made to restore and expand brackish and salt marsh in suitable areas. ■ Any disturbance to potential jurisdictional waters, including the drainage channels and shoreline of the bay and lagoons would require authorization from the Corps and could require consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. ■ The current use of blue gum eucalyptus in Bayside Park for nesting by raptors or communal roosting by herons and egrets should be taken into account in any future planning for the park or adjacent roadways. ■ Because there is the potential that the two vacant parcels in the Anza and Anza Point Areas may have seasonal freshwater marsh wetlands, further detailed surveys shall be required prior to development to determine whether jurisdictional wetlands occur on these parcels. Conclusion: Based on the fact that there are no threatened or endangered species identified within the planning area, and based on the mitigation measures above which will protect the existing marshland habitat and the raptor nesting area, the proposed plan update will not have an adverse impact on biological resources. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES SUMMARY Setting: There are no known mineral resources in the Bayfront planning area. Discussion: There are no known mineral resources located in the planning area, and the area is not delineated as locally-important mineral resource on any land use plan. Conclusion: The proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources. HAZARDS SUMMARY Setting: The Draft Plan proposes to identify land use designations for properties in the planning area, and will establish policies for future development of the area. At the time of development, as is the case with the current plan, any development project would be reviewed to determine if there are hazardous materials on the site, and if there would be hazardous materials used in association with the future use of the site. There are some properties within the planning area which are on the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List and/or the San Mateo County Health Services Agency Fuel Leak List for a leaking underground fuel tank. Most of these sites have completed the required clean up and have been issued a certification of closure. The County Health Department and/or the State Water Resources Control Board are charged with the responsibility of overseeing the active cases. At the time of development, all properties will be reviewed with the appropriate agency to determine the status of the clean up efforts and to determine potential impacts and mitigation measures for future development. Public Health and Safety — Electric and Magnetic Fields: There is a Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) transmission line corridor which runs in an easement between Beach and Lang Roads in the Anza Point Area, and in Burlingame Lagoon through the Anza Extension and Anza Point Areas. There are three towers which hold six overhead power lines. There are five 115kV lines and one 60 kV -25- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan line. PG&E plans to upgrade the 60 kV line to a 115kV line for the length of the San Mateo-Martin corridor,which runs from the San Mateo substation in San Mateo and the Martin substation in Brisbane, just south of the San Francisco City and County border. A mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by PG&E for this project. The closest transmission line running through the Burlingame Lagoon is about 110 feet from one of the sites eligible for a residential overlay,the long-term airport parking facility at 615 Airport Boulevard,and about 350 feet from another site eligible for a residential overlay, the former drive-in theater site at 309 Airport Boulevard. The initial study prepared for the San Mateo- Martin project discusses the impacts of electric and magnetic fields from the line conversion project. It notes that calculations were done for the magnetic fields using a computer program with estimated peak loads based on PG&E's 2004 projections. The report notes that the magnetic fields levels emitted by the circuits would decrease as a result of the project because PG&E would apply"optimal phasing"in reconductoring the 60kV circuit which would achieve better load balancing. The initial study notes that at a distance 100 feet east of the new circuit,magnetic fields before the project are 9.4 milliGauss(mG) during peak load conditions,and would be 7.8 mG with implementation of the project. The report notes that health effect from EMF emissions have not been determined. However,studies with magnetic fields of 3 to 4 milliGauss(mG)have led scientists to classify magnetic fields as a possible carcinogen. Although there are no standards established for exposure,efforts should be made to reduce exposure because although current studies are inconclusive,there is still ongoing study on this subject. Therefore,EMF exposure and proximity of the power lines should be taken into account prior to consideration of any residential project on either of the sites noted above. Airport Safety: The project is located within an airport land use plan because of the planning area's proximity to San Francisco International Airport,which is less than one-half mile away. The project could have air traffic safety impacts if the height of any buildings could result in interference with air traffic. The project could also have air traffic safety impacts if the proposed new structures create a significant amount of glare. The Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)is responsible for determining whether the project would result in a safety hazard for air traffic. The San Mateo Airport Land Use Committee(ALUC)also needs to review and determine if the proposed plan is consistent with the County's Airport Land Use Plan for San Francisco International Airport. The Draft Plan contains a map of the height restrictions within the planning area,and includes Community Standards which any proposed development project would have to meet. The community standard for Airport Safety is listed below as mitigation for potential airport safety impacts. The planning area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore would have no impact on safety because of such a location. Adoption of the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan would not impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project is located in a developed urban infill area and is not adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. As a result,the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires. 1 -26- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Mitigation: In order to ensure compliance with the FAA height and safety standards, the following `- community standards shall apply to any new development in the planning area: • Any new development shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the height limits shown in the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan , per Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (see Figures VI-10 and VI-11). • Any new development shall comply with the FAA standards for safety regarding flashing lights, reflective material, uses which attract a large concentration of birds, and uses which would generate electrical interference affecting aircraft communications or aircraft instrumentation. Conclusion: With implementation of the above community standards at the time of future development, the proposed update of the Bayfront Specific Plan will not result in an increased risk of hazard, nor will it expose people to hazardous conditions. NOISE SUMMARY Setting: The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan area is located north of US 101 and south to southeast of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Two square miles of the City of Burlingame are located in San Francisco Bay, and planes landing on Runways 28L and 28R (the most frequently used runways) fly over this area on a regular basis. Portions of the area are exposed to sounds originating from sources on or at these facilities (motor vehicles and aircraft). The area is also exposed to sounds that originate from other activities within the area (i.e., motor vehicles on arterial roadways, maintenance/construction activities, and other day to day activities). This evaluation describes the potential for and the possible extent of exterior and interior sound levels, above known criteria, that are associated with motor vehicles on US 101 and aircraft at SFO. The discussion does not address the cumulative or contributing effects of other sound sources within the area. For the purpose of the evaluation, the Bayfront Specific Plan area has been divided into two areas: the Bayfront Area, consisting of the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline sub-areas, located northwest of Broadway (exposed to highway and airport-related sounds) and the Anza Area, consisting of the Anza, Anza Extension and Anza Point sub-areas, southeast of Broadway (exposed to highway-related sounds only). Sound Level Descriptors: The sound level metrics used in this evaluation to describe noise are defined in the following: ■ Decibel (dB) — a descriptor of sound pressure levels. For this evaluation, the dB are evaluated on the A-weighted scale (dBA). This scale closely approximates the range of frequencies a human ear can hear. ■ Equivalent Level (Leq) - A Leq is a steady-state sound level that contains the same amount of acoustic energy as an actual time-varying sound level. For this evaluation, Leq's are also evaluated on the A-weighted scale (LAeq) and represent a one-hour period (LAeglh). ■ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) - The CNEL is the annual average (on an energy basis) noise level measured in A-weighted sound pressure level for a twenty-four (24) hour period with different weighting factors for the noise levels occurring during the day, evening, and ... nighttime periods. ■ Lmax — The highest sound pressure level over a given time period. -27- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Discussion: The Bayfront Area is impacted by noise from San Francisco International Airport and U.S. 101. Figure 1 shows the noise contours for existing conditions. A very small portion of the northern Bayfront area is now impacted by airport noise of 65 CNEL or greater. Freeway noise affects an area about 500 feet wide adjacent to the freeway along the plan area boundaries with noise levels up to 65 dbA. Methodologies And Criteria for Noise Projections Traffic Noise: Traffic noise was evaluated using the Federal Highway Administration's(FHWA's) Traffic Noise Model(TNM). The TNM is the required model for the prediction of highway traffic noise as of January 1, 2003. Traffic data used in the TNM for US 101 represent forecast volumes for the future year 2020. The data were obtained from Caltrans Office of Transportation Planning or derived from data obtained from the Caltrans website. The traffic data used in the analysis are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The input used in the traffic noise evaluation assumes worst-case traffic noise conditions including the use of peak-hour traffic volumes and posted speeds. Table 1 Future Year 2020 Traffic Data—US 101 US 101 AM/ Total Volume NB SB Roadway Segment PM NB SB Cars MT HT Cars MT HT Millbrae Avenue to Broadway AM 10,416 8,278 10,020 226 170 7963 169 146 PM 10,980 9,027 10,563 238 179 8684 184 159 Broadway to Peninsula AM 13,393 9,970 12,884 291 218 9591 203 176 Avenue PM 14,312 1 9,693 13,768 1 311 1 233 9325 197 171 -� NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound Postspeed=65 miles-per-hour Table 2 Truck Percentages Control Station Number of Axles at Post Mile 2 3 4 5+ 16.58 (Broadway) 53.60% 11.60% 5.40% 29.40% 17.95 (Millbrae Avenue 57.10% 10.90% 6.60% 25.40% Note: assumes%trucks in year 2020 is the same as in the base year(2001). Reference: 1998 Annual Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System The assessment of traffic noise levels was based on guidelines in the California Department of Transportation's(Caltrans) Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol(October 1998). The Protocol contains the policies used by Caltrans to identify traffic noise impacts associated with new highway construction and reconstruction projects. Based on Caltrans policies, a traffic noise impact occurs when traffic noise levels with a proposed project are predicted to approach,meet,or exceed the Federal Highway Administration's(FHWA's)Noise Abatement Criteria(NAC). The FHWA's NAC are presented in Table 3. Caltrans defines the word "approach"to be within 1 dBA of FHWA's NAC. -28- k �l t v ✓e ,'M� �,'. �' ,� €a. '�` t b ¢'�' �� ;a 1 • • • F a 4coF�- SAN FRANCISCO BAY iix m a � �s �i' �yY4'4 !�"s F .3: rg. ia:,;'a�Ay lri�sr� ;, �i �'�'yy pk, kc. tP� 'A � q'- .f�'; "`•._:` �ri ,.aQ l :r' 9 .�" F 'R' I-Apv. � 141, �/ �f x .1 ..r P Y^ q r'� b 9 � a v � qtr• � �.� ♦.,I, " '�, , ♦h 'vra `4 r;, w�¢� iti�ra }� !S ay 1, r f aF!s 7Vit, �4. w""� �i `•--�c� , 'I w� v_ w' :i�:r f^'D �u 1'S i"',,, r a y '�'7� x.y "g p ti.� �' e�., /}"'�•°f sof, ��f AI"o+i.,a�l`i�f ��4 8�'/ :��;S'd�� �w'.�'�� ., r ��. c�ar+a�a '� i � ,��F�., ��.�"..� `��� t,.'��,C;. y,�4,"a� .�. y..OA /,♦`, o.�a a 4� �-,. `n �,.,:. � *,.;+ ._ ..,.•rc..'_ ..._.a ,:a-_ �..... { n s 6 i3....� _ .,ie;,, r ♦•..'Zi l.,'V'1 / •, ,:��'�/�'a�rA.,�! 'ya ����`y.�i/ x �i�"w*. b a .. F`..,; '^ "' . .: ar:`ar"'�rt��i. ter...� �, �, P'.- - .'-. •. .e� pP�d�&d. �� IAa;,.lw� ,���a.9'pf,�r� °��'f, s�✓. e O��,��'q�. '"°,:, '�'tg��. '^�j _„� •mow;,, '� t ids � � �� � l,��,,�,����+ �,✓�.�4: `bJ� i'fe.�r�.�'��R�.^®..��sI£�;/�� Y y a h�;�1� ''e�S. f� � '''`i '�e�o,'�f�dN :p _'� �'„ a,ax:: 4 ..,'m"��.,,,x�' -�`.� ra�+�""'.,��y: ,i�, dy, ��r.�`��•4*Pyab'�.+-/�°m 4."� .,..it./."' ,��� ,� ,�. p..(�r m'�?w„ ,^trsi�4.'g si�tnr �:,,.�,,, w.�•� �s.BA:� :;�� :. x: �', _ "' 6t+ l e. / a �/ ,�y 't. a • �c .o ai�� ^•i s,»'�. ,::���1{ 951�Yi�IM161 j�ilt6 � r �� /`i fF ..t p.Jtt. fl ,a<�'� V;r k d �1�_;�.,oi��Ir'�'� ls,elf�, �„C`'1�..9'x ".�O /� �� '�,f' ,.«.. •raw,r. .�"� i9Rik6e�9 gtf ik .�f e' ra r ♦ Ify .y.it e;,�P a� i .f re 4 S*dn + ,may.,.. ✓ r _ .p^,/e.,,,.e r��. fk:,.� .. �a��yt, A,�'+.+�.r;:�Jr/�.-��.f�0,. ':�lt�"��/��f''�:8��,'�. � ` ��. .'•r-��ir}a..oRaa� a4a'�, .���. gp !I p�� �f���,�r .t�';A � ieiii"' 9.�d..3S..�, a Via'=°`t <.,i,/�.ti«r� y/� ..0� �«r�,�e:�}. •..{.e.�,,r e�/,��g.,>0�°� �m���;�;�8..�P� !.+ ..1� . � +. ro t .n�°je' 'sA f d.p;r 1�g r�Y ��,.9�i :3� „s'c F .�°� 4 y'r r�: +.•..'t ;SM r�.., q.„ °:.�.�<.d °.a,o r dy,{� !F•-lii� �;�..�, .,t ♦ ��.`�� .��s a� .F,"��d5o..a ti�ynf `'�6�s s i�`�a�s��>,. �.��, �Z, ����� ® � ���. ` ,<; ♦ �,3 'r',' �`'r'+s..q *�.a,� gyp,, oF,�<.ti/, 1t �.' t ..• �..o "+��'2�,r��:,t�4,+; X �'.>�",�,s +d°�.e�,c� asp .'ti31��4�18�+a���yy .�i, l.. ,�:. � . ',v .�ilf�i,Iii:.'"et.ydv, �;!-�,'."ag. ® ..4:`�p��,d..a f� �Y�°�°.�•'r�l f��.t�.t ��.a�,, �: "''<%��'!.�. ° '�s;iS / d.°ms!Ii`� I,F w f� �sr�n �aI��SY �i lk?aR*;r",��4, t� r' �. ®g;�l�Js''� Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Table 3 Ac ivity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria AC —FHWA Activity Category Description LAe 1 h A Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary 57 significance and serve an important public need and where (Exterior) the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B Picnic areas,recreation areas,playgrounds, active sport 67 areas,parks,residences,motels,hotels, schools, churches, (Exterior) libraries and hospitals. C Developed lands,properties or activities not included in 72 Categories A or B above. Exterior) D Undeveloped lands. N/A E Residences,motels,hotels,public meeting rooms, schools, 52 churches, libraries,hospitals and auditoriums. (Interior) Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23,Part 772(April 1, 2001) Aircraft Noise: The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan area northwest of Broadway(Bayfront Area) experiences noise generated from aircraft operations at SFO—see Figures 1 for existing noise contours reflecting current airport operations. Future Aircraft noise was evaluated using two methodologies. The first involved a review of information published in SFO's recent Airfield Development Planning Study (Airfield Development Planning, March 2002). The study presents the results of SFO's efforts to prepare _ detailed analyses of the environmental/other factors associated with a potential alternative runway system at the Airport. The Alternatives analyzed in the study are as follows: • No Build: Three No-Build scenarios were evaluated in the study. These alternatives evaluate the existing runway configuration under various operational conditions. Such conditions include the use of technological improvements, constrained operations and the use of larger aircraft to accommodate for capacity loss. • Alternative A-3: Alternative A3, includes a new runway northeast of the existing runway l OL/28R with a separation of 4,300 feet. A variation to this alternative considered the new runway l OL/28R separated by 3,400 feet as described in TERPS discussion, a runway separation of less than 4,300 feet at SFO carries significant safety concerns. • Alternative BX: In addition to the parallel runway to the northeast, Alternative BX considers the reconfiguration of the 1/19 runway pair. These runways are extended to the north to accomplish two goals: reduce its departure arrival dependency with runway 10/28 pair, and reduce noise exposure to communities south of State Route 101. Runway 1OL/28R is extended to provide an alternative long haul departure runway to Runway IOC/28C. • Alternative BX-2: As a variation to Alternative BX,Alternative BX-2 retains the departure thresholds for runways I L and 1 R, however, it expands both runways to offer alternative departure long and short haul departure runways. Alternative BX-2 was developed at the request of the EPA, BCDC, and the Airlines serving SFO. -30- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan • Alternative BX-Refined: This alternative, in addition to a parallel runway to Runway IOL/28R, as �- described for Alternative A3, includes a new parallel runway east of existing Runway 1R/19L. • Alternative F-2: Similar to Alternative BX-R, this alternative includes a parallel runway to IOL/28R and a new parallel runway to the existing runway 1L/19R. However, the new north south runway is to the northeast of Runway 1L/19R The results of the study indicated that a composite 65 CNEL contour(representing the outer boundary of the various 65 CNEL contours for the Alternatives described above) in the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan area would cross southeast of Cowan Road(see Figures 2). Single event noise analysis in the study indicated that the area in the vicinity of the San Francisco Airport Marriott Hotel, (1800 Bayshore Highway)would receive aircraft events greater than 70dB. The second methodology seeks to further address the City of Burlingame's concerns over back blast(low frequency)noise resulting from aircraft departing SFO. Potential back blast noise was identified using the Integrated Noise Model (INM)version 6.0c. The INM is one of two models approved by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) for use in identifying aircraft noise. In order to identify long term contributions of aircraft back blast noise to the Burlington Bayfront area, the 2020 fleet mix of aircraft contained in the SFO Airfield Development Planning Study was reviewed. The Boeing 767-300 was identified as being representative of the heavy fleet of aircraft operating at SFO. Lmax contour levels (measured in dBA) for the 767-300 aircraft at full engine power for 10 seconds departing Runway 1R were generated. These Lmax contours are shown on Figure 2. For comparative purposes, Table 4 identifies typical dBA levels for various activities encountered in daily life. Table 4 Typical Decibel dBA Values Encountered in Daily Life and Industr Activity dBA Soft whispers at 5 feet 34 Window air conditioner 55 Conversational speech 60 Household department of large store 62 Busy restaurant 65 Vacuum cleaner in private residence at 10 feet 69 Ringing alarm clock at 2 feet 80 Printing press plant 86 Heavy city traffic 92 Air grinder 95 Home lawn mower 98 Air hammer 107 When distances are not specified, sound levels are the value at the typical location of the machine operator. Source: Aviation Noise Effects Report No. FAA-EE-85-2 -31- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan 65CNEL�♦ BS dBA80dBA 65 CNEL ,t 85 dBA , ' ♦ � � p. ♦ 75 dBA 80 dBA Marriott ♦ i '65 CNEL'� 75 dBA 70 dBA o� 70 dBA PLANNING AREA 65 dBA BOUNDARY 65dBAi HyattRegency Year 2020 LAeglh 65 dBA e>� o � i000 FM Legend ------ 65 CNEL Contours(composite contour representing the outer boundary of the contours for the 6 alternative runway configurations under study by SFO(Airfield Development Planning Study,March 2002) Lmax Contours(measured in dBA)from single event Boeing 767-300 aircraft at full engine power for 10 seconds departing Runway 1R(representative of heavy fleet of aircraft operating at SFO as identified in SFO Airfield Development planning study) 65 Laelhr from Freeway Noise(based on 2020 traffic conditions Planning Area Boundary Bayfront Area Noise Constraints Noise Levels: Inner Bayshore and Shoreline Areas (Northwest of Broadway). The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan area northwest of Broadway experiences noise generated from aircraft operations at SFO and from traffic along US 101. Traffic noise, expressed in LAeglh and aircraft noise, expressed in CNEL and Lmax in the area are shown on Exhibit 3. In 2020, the 65 LAeq 1 h contour extends approximately 500 feet from the edge of US 101. The composite 65 CNEL crosses the study area just southeast of Cowan Road. Back blast (low frequency)noise exposure on the area ranges from 75 dBA in the northwest section to 65dBA in the south east section. This area is generally composed of a mix of commercial and light industrial uses. Anza, Anza Extension and Anza Point (Southeast of Broadway). The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan area southeast of Broadway experiences noise generated from traffic along US 101. In 2020, the 65 LAeglh contour extends approximately 550 feet from the north edge of US 101. The area southwest of Broadway consists of a mix of recreational and commercial land uses. As shown on Exhibit 4, the area - within the 65 LAeglh contour is primarily water and commercial land. Two parks (Bayside Park and Robert E. Wooley Park) and a sports complex (Burlingame Golf Center, with baseball and soccer fields) are located just outside the noise contour. -32- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan �. There would be no noise impact from proximity to a private airstrip because the project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Community Standards: Based on the above analysis of the existing noise environment and the potential for future noise impacts, the plan document includes community standards for noise-sensitive land uses as described in the mitigation measures listed below. Mitigation: In order to minimize the impact of roadway and airport noise on future development projects within the Bayfront Planning Area, the following community standards have been incorporated as plan requirements: • Exterior Noise: The FAA identifies noise sensitive lands (i.e. residences, schools,parks, churches, etc.)within the 65 CNEL contour to be incompatible with aircraft noise. Land uses that are compatible within the 65 CNEL generally include commercial and industrial uses. Development of the above-noted and other sensitive uses should be discouraged within the adopted 65 CNEL Noise Contour for San Francisco International Airport, including the areas affected by the proposed future runway expansion project and U.S. 101. • Interior Noise: Noise attenuating construction techniques shall be used for noise sensitive uses to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable standards (45 dBA). • Land uses in the planning area shall not increase noise levels at the property line by more than 5dBA and in proximity to residential uses by more than 3 dBA. Conclusion: With implementation of the above community standards at the time of future development, the proposed update of the Bayfront Specific Plan will not result in an increase in existing noise levels, nor will it expose people to noise in excess of established standards. PUBLIC SERVICES SUMMARY Setting: The planning area is served by a full range of public services to support the existing office, industrial,hotel and recreation uses in the area. Currently, there are no residential uses in the Bayfront Planning Area. As a result,there are no fire stations or police substations in the area. Because there are no residential uses,there are also no public schools or libraries which would typically be required to support residential development. Commercial buildings including hotels are required to build in sophisticated fire protection systems. Following is a summary of public services which now serve the planning area. Fire Services: The Burlingame Fire Department is responsible for providing fire protection services to the Bayfront area as well as to the rest of Burlingame. The Burlingame Fire Department is rated as a Class 3 Fire Department by the Insurance Services Office. Class 1 represents the best public protection, and Class 10 indicates no recognized fire protection. The rating is based on the Department's fire alarm dispatch system,the number of engine companies, adequate water pressure, as well as the Fire Department's training program, response times and equipment maintenance. The closest fire station to the planning area is City Fire Station No. 36, located at 1399 Rollins Road. Access to the area from this station is by way of -33- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan either the Broadway overpass or the Millbrae Avenue overpass, depending on the location of the call for service. Burlingame has entered into Instant Aid Agreements with the Fire Departments of the surrounding jurisdictions. This means that the closest available unit would respond to a call for service, regardless of jurisdiction. The average response time to the planning area is ranges from four to six minutes. All new construction within the planning area will be required to install a fire sprinkler system and other built-in fire protection devices and services required by the California Fire Code, 2000 Edition. Police Service: The City of Burlingame Police Department is responsible for police services in the Bayfront area. The Burlingame Patrol Division is staffed by 30 police officers, five sergeants, and one commander. The planning area is regularly covered by one patrol,which consists of one officer per shift 24 hours a day. Traffic Enforcement on US 101, a State highway, is provided by the California Highway Patrol. Library Services: The Burlingame Public Library, located at 480 Primrose Road, is the closest public library to the planning area. The Burlingame Public Library is a part of the Peninsula Library System, which serves the eastern portions of San Mateo County from South San Francisco to Menlo Park. The Burlingame Library serves Burlingame and Hillsborough residents, as well as any resident of the library system. Parks and Recreation: The Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department operates three community park facilities in the planning area, Bayside Park, the Bayside Park Lower Deck both at 1125 Airport Boulevard, and the Bayside Park Golf and Soccer Centers at 250 Anza Boulevard. These facilities .� provide both active and passive park facilities,including lighted fields for soccer,youth baseball, and softball, a lighted golf driving range, a dog exercise park, and trails for walkers runners and cyclists. The trail system connects to the regional Bay Trail system which circumnavigates San Francisco Bay and will extend along the bay water frontage throughout Burliname as a part of the plan. There are several locations along the waterfront where the City maintains small pocket park areas. In addition, there is a county operated park,Fisherman's Park and a privately maintained public park, Wooley Park. Shoreline access: Many of the properties within the planning area are adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. All properties within 100 feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline are within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC)jurisdiction. Subject to tidal action, the lagoons, channels and wetlands within the planning area are all considered to be part of the Bay shoreline. BCDC's guidelines with Burlingame require that when any development occurs on property adjacent to the Bay,public access and construction of a trail and other amenities are required to be provided at the time of development. Such improvements are installed and maintained by the property owner for public use. The configuration and facilities provided are determined through the BCDC permit approval process. The Bay Trail will eventually extend along all the water frontages in the planning area. At this time, a large portion of the Bay Trail has been constructed along the bay. All of the segments of the trail on City owned land have been completed. There are a few gaps which have not yet been developed on State-owned and private property. The map below shows the bay trail and the areas along the bay where the trail has not yet been constructed. --� -34- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Map i ort Boulevard Legend r ZZ Existing Bay Trail ® - -___ Proposed Bay Trail/Existing Gape ---- Existing Bicycle Routes/Proposed Bike Lanes BROADWAY INTERCHANGE New Alignment Proposed Proposed Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge * Proposed Bridge Crossing Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Map Schools: The planning area is within the service area of the Burlingame Elementary School District and the San Mateo Union High School District. Although there are no residential uses within the planning area, both districts have included this area within their enrollment boundaries. The Anza, Anza Extension and Anza Point Areas are within the Washington Elementary School attendance boundary, and within the Burlingame High School attendance boundary. The Inner Bayshore and Shoreline Areas to the north are within the Lincoln Elementary School and the Mills High School attendance boundaries. The entire planning area is within the attendance boundaries of Burlingame Intermediate School. Discussion: Drat Plan: With the Draft Plan, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provision of the public services described above, since this is an urbanized area with existing public facilities in place. The land use designations will continue to place limits on intensity of development. Therefore, development in conformance with the proposed land use designation should not impact these services. As discussed in the Population and Housing Section above,the Draft Plan does not propose residential uses, so it will not result in substantial increases in population or housing within Burlingame. Since substantial increases in the residential population of the city are not expected,the proposed project would not create a need for additional fire protection,police protection, schools, or parks,nor would the any future office,hotel,restaurants or retail generate the need for these services. These services are already available for the existing development in the area. -35- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan With Housinz Layered on Selected Sites: With the housing overlay on selected sites, there would be a potential increase in housing units,with a maximum of 800 new units in the Anza and Anza Point areas. Following is an analysis of the impacts on services of these additional housing units. • Fire: Since Burlingame has entered into Instant Aid agreements with the Fire Departments of the adjacent jurisdictions, fire service would come from the closest available station regardless of jurisdiction. New apartment and condominium construction would be required to install fire sprinkler systems. • Police: The Police Department indicates that it now has one officer per shift to cover all areas east of U.S. 101. It is expected that if there were residential development in the area, there would be an increase in calls for service. In response to that,the department may not increase its patrol of the area,but there would be less time for the officers to do patrol work that is not related to calls for service, such as preventative patrol in the business and industrial areas east of U.S. 101. • Library: There are no library services provided in the Bayfront area. New residents would receive library services at the Main Library located at 480 Primrose Road, on the west side of U.S. 101. • Parks and Recreation: There are a number of park facilities in the Bayfront area which would be available to serve residential development(see discussion above for a listing of the park facilities). The future residential areas on sites with bay or tributary frontage would be required to install segments of the Bay Trail and provide ongoing maintenance of the trail, as well as keep the trail '1 segments open to the public, and to provide public trail access parking. • Schools: The Anza and Anza Point portions of the planning area are in the service area of the Burlingame Elementary School District and the San Mateo Union High School District. Students from any new residential areas would attend schools in these districts. The District Superintendent for Burlingame Elementary School District indicates that any housing in this area would be served by Washington Elementary and McKinley Elementary School based on available space in each school. He notes that there would be a disadvantage to students because they would be living on one side of the freeway and going to school on the other side, and students would have to be transported by car to school. No school bus service is provided by the district. He notes that there is room in the two schools combined for growth by about 150 additional students over current enrollment. Using data from the 2000 Census for multiple family residential areas in Burlingame, it is estimated that apartment or condominium development would generate a student population at the rate of 15%per unit. (Three students for every 20 dwelling units). Assuming development of up to 800 residential units in the Anza and Anza Point Subareas, there would be about 120 school age children living in the new units. Therefore, there is adequate capacity in the elementary school system at this time to accommodate the new students. The San Mateo Union High School District has an open enrollment policy, and students are assigned to the various high schools in the district based on capacity. There are seven high schools which serve the district: Aragon,Burlingame, Capuchino, Hillsdale,Mills, Peninsula and San Mateo High Schools. -36- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Conclusion: With the Draft Plan, there would be no significant impact on public services, since the �-- facilities and patrol routes are in place to serve this area. With With Housing Layered on Selected Sites, there would be an impact on the school system,because there would be an increase in students at the schools which serve this area, consuming about 80%of the currently available capacity. However, since the District indicates that there is adequate capacity in the existing school system to serve this development,the impact is not considered to be significant. It should be noted that the school district does not provide transportation to the schools, and they are not within walking distance. Therefore,most students will have to be transported by car to school. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SUMMARY Setting: Sewage from the planning area is treated at the Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant, and storm water drainage for the area is provided by the City of Burlingame's underground storm water drainage system. The planning area is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water is provided to the planning area through a City distribution system which transports water which comes from the San Francisco Water Department's Hetch Hetchy System. The current waste services provider for the area is Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), which hauls the garbage it collects to the Ox Mountain Landfill near Half Moon Bay. Wastewater Collection: Burlingame's sanitary sewer system consists of approximately 88 miles of gravity sewers, nine siphons, eight pump stations, and 15,800 feet of force mains. The City of Burlingame owns, operates and maintains the local sanitary sewer collection facilities within the City. In the planning area, sewer mains range in size from 6 inches to 30 inches in diameter. There are four pump stations which serve this area. The sewer system was built as the area developed beginning in the 1950's in the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline Areas and continuing into the 1960's and 1970's as the Anza, Anza Extension and Anza Point Areas developed. Sewage presently generated in the southern portion of the Anza and Anza Point Areas is pumped west of US 101 then north under the freeway to the Wastewater Treatment Facility The Public Works Department is embarking on a program to replace sewer pipes in the older areas of the city. The sewer mains in the Bayfront/Anza area have not been identified as needing replacement in the foreseeable future. The Public Works Department will be conducting studies on the condition of the force main serving the Bayfront Planning Area as well as the pump stations east of US 101 which also serve the planning area. These studies are scheduled to take place between 2004 and 2006. Any rehabilitation needs identified by these studies would be implemented after completion of the current pipe rehabilitation program now in progress in the older parts of the city west of US 101. When development causes sewage volumes which exceed existing collection capacity it is the responsibility of the developer to upgrade the capacity of the existing system to meet the demand generated by the project. When mains are replaced in the planning area in the future, the Public Works Department will use a standard 8-inch main for most of the feeder mains. This means that any existing 6-inch mains within the planning area would be replaced with 8-inch mains. This increase in size is not being done to increase capacity,but is needed to increase the hydraulic efficiency of the system. The present system is adequate to transport wastewater generated by planned development. -37- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Wastewater Treatment: Wastewater generated within the City is treated at the Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant(WWTP)which is located in the Anza Extension portion of the planning area. The Burlingame WWTP underwent a number of upgrades as recently as 1994. These improvements include construction of a new headworks building and equipment,two new primary clarifiers, conversion of the chlorine feed system to sodium hypochlorite, and installation of a tertiary treatment or reclaimed water system, effluent pumping station, cogeneration system,plant process Logic Control monitoring system, and gravity belt thickener. Additional upgrades to the plant and treatment process are now underway. These include replacement of the existing sludge dewatering building, update the aeration system, update electrical components within the existing control room,replace a drain pump and pipeline between the two primary clarifier tanks, modifications to an existing flare stack, and minor interior modifications to the headworks portion of the facility. The upgrade project also includes construction of new minor facilities including a new drain pump station, electrical building and truck unloading building. These upgrades are intended to keep the facility operating at its existing capacity of 5.5 million gallons per day(mgd). The Burlingame WWTP has an average dry weather design capacity of 5.5 mgd. Current average dry weather flows are estimated to range from approximately 3.5 mgd to 4.0 mgd. During wet weather,the Burlingame WWTP must accept more flows, because of wet ground conditions that produce an infiltration of groundwater into the sanitary sewer collection system. The WWTP has a maximum peak wet weather capacity of 25.0 mgd for the plant as a whole,with a maximum secondary treatment capacity of 13.0 mgd. -� The treated effluent from Burlingame's wastewater treatment plant is transported by intertie pipeline by way of Millbrae and San Bruno to South San Francisco where the water is treated and released. The regional outfall into San Francisco Bay is located off Point San Bruno near the City of South San Francisco. Burlingame's capacity rights to the outfall system are for a peak flow of 16 mgd. The intertie pipeline and regional outfall were constructed in 1976 and are in good condition. The City of Burlingame provides waste water treatment for its residents and those in the unincorporated Burlingame Hills area as well as parts of neighboring Hillsborough. Domestic Water Service: The City of Burlingame provides water service to properties within its boundaries as well as to the unincorporated Burlingame Hills area adjacent to the west. The Burlingame Hills area is a residential area of 420 dwelling units which is entirely built out. The City's sole source of potable water is the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission(SFPUC)Hetch Hetchy system,which also supplies water to the City and County of San Francisco and other cities along the Peninsula. In the planning area,water mains range in size from 6 inches to 12 inches in diameter,with two 16-inch mains which connect the Bayfront area under the US 101 freeway and ultimately to the main Hetch Hetchy water line which runs through Burlingame in or near the El Camino Real right-of-way. In November of 2000, the City of Burlingame adopted an Urban Water Management Plan compliant with State requirements. The plan looks at the City's water needs and anticipated supplies to accommodate current needs and future growth. -38- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan The Urban Water Management Plan uses the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)population �- projections to anticipate the future water supply needs for the City of Burlingame and the unincorporated Burlingame Hills. ABAG had projected that the population for Burlingame by 2020 will be 34,300 people. The 2000 Census indicates that the current population of Burlingame is 28,158 people. Therefore, the ABAG projection anticipates an increase in population of about 6000 people by 2020. The City of Burlingame now uses about 4.8 million gallons of water per day(mgd). By 2010, the Urban Water Management Plan projects that Burlingame will use about 5 mgd (a 4%increase). Burlingame has a guaranteed allotment of 5.24 mgd from the total supply of the SFPUC system (300 mgd). Burlingame has started using recycled water for non-potable uses such as landscape irrigation at its Waste Water Treatment Plant, and will be building a parallel water distribution system to use recycled water (tertiary treated wastewater processed at the city's wastewater treatment plant) for irrigation at some of the City's parks and other municipally owned landscaped areas in the Bayfront Planning Area. Larger commercial developments approved in the planning area are required to extend water lines for non- potable irrigation water to support their required landscaping. The Burlingame Municipal code requires that any new landscape installation shall include water conservation measures, and this is implemented by the Public Works Department. Implementation of these measures will help the City stay within its allocation from SFPUC in the future. Storm Drains: Storm water collection within the planning area is provided through a system of storm drains that feed into the creeks which run from the face of the coastal range through the area and empty into the San Francisco Bay. Those sites which have bay frontage drain directly into the bay. According to the Citywide Storm Drain Master Plan Study prepared in 2000, the existing capacity of the storm drain system serving the planning area appears to be adequate for a 10-year event. The report recommends that regular inspections and ongoing repairs be made to the concrete channels which line the creeks and that the pump facilities be regularly tested and maintained. There is also an ongoing program to prevent the creek channels from building up silt as they enter the San Francisco Bay. The Public Works Department is undertaking several projects to improve the capacity of the storm drain systems that will ultimately meet the needs of a 30-year storm event. Because the city's stormwater system empties into the San Francisco Bay, it is subject to the requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1972 which prohibits the discharge of stormwater into United States waters unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES). To meet its mandate from the State,the City of Burlingame has joined with the other cities in San Mateo County,to obtain a regional discharge permit from the State Water Quality Control Board(SWQCB) for stormwater water discharge. In order to reduce non-point pollution sources, each construction project is required to implement"best management practices"on job sites to minimize erosion, stop contaminated run-off and control construction site pollution. NPDES requirements also encourage post construction measures in site planning including swales, detention ponds and other design elements that can be incorporated into project design to reduce storm water run-off and bay contamination. Gas and Electricity Service: Gas and electricity service is provided to the planning area by Pacific Gas and Electric Company(PG&E). The existing electricity supply system consists of overhead and underground facilities. There are six regional electrical transmission lines which traverse in easements the Anza,Anza Point and Anza Extension Areas east of US 101 through the Burlingame Lagoon. Five of -39- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan these are 115 kV lines,and one is a 60 kV line. These lines then cross US 101 in the vicinity of Broadway and continue north through the Rollins Road industrial area in a 60'wide easement/drainage channel west of US 101. PG&E has plans to convert the one 60 kV line to a 115 kV line. Roadway Condition: The roadway system for the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline Areas was built in the 1950's and 60's,and includes Bayshore Highway,a major arterial,and Cowan Road,Mitten Road, Malcolm Road,Stanton Road,Hinckley Road,Mahler Road and Burlway Road,which are all local streets. Bayshore Highway,the primary arterial in the north end of the area was rebuilt in 2001. The roads in the Anza,Anza Extension and Anza Point Areas were built in the 1960's and include Airport Boulevard,a major arterial,and Anza Boulevard,Bayview Place,Beach Road and Lang Road,which are local streets. Airport Boulevard between the Broadway overpass at US 101 and Anza Boulevard was reconstructed and widened in 1990. The southernmost section of Airport Boulevard from Fisherman's Park to Lang Road was reconstructed in 1998. Landscape and public access improvements were done as a part of that reconstruction project. The remaining portions of the roadways have been resurfaced periodically as a part of the Public Works Department's ongoing maintenance program. All of the roadways have current maintenance and none of the roadways in the planning area have been identified for repair or replacement in the near future. Discussion: Drat Plan: The utility systems in this area were installed with the intent to provide service to the planning area at build out. The land use changes with the draft plan will not significantly change the types —� or intensity of development throughout the planning area. Studies show projected traffic volumes at build out of the proposed plan are about the same as with the current plan. There are density restrictions proposed with the Draft Plan which are in some cases more restrictive than the existing plan. Therefore,it is not expected that build out of the plan area will have a significant impact on the utilities which serve this area. With Housing Layered on Selected Sites: With housing layered on selected sites,the proposed 800 additional housing units would result in an increase in demand for water and sewer service. At the time of development the Public Works Department would look at the demand for the proposal based on the number of dwelling units,and if larger lines are needed,the applicant would be required to upgrade the distribution system serving the planning area. Based on the 2000 Water Management Plan,the City s allocation from the Hetch Hetchy system should cover the demand from the additional housing units. However,it should be noted that recent State legislation requires that for any residential project proposing more than 500 dwelling units,a water assessment needs to be prepared to verify that there is a sufficient water supply to meet project and cumulative demand in normal,single and multi-dry years for a period of 20 years. Mitigation: The following community standard is included in the implementation section of the plan and would apply to any development which meets the criteria below. • Any residential project proposing more than 500 dwelling units;retail project with more than 500,000 SF of floor space;commercial office building with more than 250,000 SF of floor area; industrial project with more than 650,000 SF of floor area;or any other project which would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than a 500 dwelling unit project is subject to -40- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan the requirements of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 . These senate bills require a water �.- assessment be prepared to verify that a sufficient water supply is available to meet project and cumulative demand in normal, single and multi-dry years for 20 years. Conclusion: With the mitigation measure proposed, the proposed update to the Bayfront Specific Plan is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the ability to provide utility services to this area. AESTHETICS Setting: The project area is located adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, which offers a scenic setting. There are also views of the Coast Range looking west from the planning area. There are several public open space areas which provide scenic vistas as well as recreational opportunities. The Draft Plan includes objectives to preserve the views of the bay from public areas, as well as to take advantage of the views in siting a new development to be responsive to accomplishing the visual and scenic goals. The plan contains design guidelines to implement these objectives specific to each subarea. Discussion: The discussion of aesthetics will cover both the Draft Plan and with inclusion of housing. The design guidelines for development, which regulate the mass, bulk, height and open space of any new development, would apply to a residential project in the same way as they would to a commercial project. The Design Guidelines section of the plan was created to assure that future development is in harmony with the natural character and qualities of the area. The design guidelines have been developed to recognize the different attributes of the five subareas within the planning area: The Inner Bayshore, Shoreline, Anza, Anza Extension and Anza Point Areas. For those areas with bay frontage, the guidelines provide for building orientation that allows for view corridors to the Bay, landscaping and shoreline pedestrian access. In those areas away from the bay and with a more industrial character, the design guidelines focus on shorter buildings and a more urban street frontage and creating visual connections between areas with bay frontage and those without bay frontage. The proposed update of the Bayfront Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, because the guidelines proposed by the plan will provide a framework for new development which includes standards requiring that view corridors be provided on all properties with bay frontage. This will maintain views of the bay through properties from the public streets in the area, and visual connections at the ends of strees in land locked areas. The project would not have a substantial adverse impact on scenic resources. The most significant scenic resources in the planning area are the public recreation areas, the bay trail and the San Francisco Bay. The Bayfront Specific Plan will facilitate completion of the bay trail, and will thus enhance this scenic resource and provide an enhanced opportunity for the public to enjoy this scenic resource. The plan does not propose any changes to the existing public recreation facilities in the area. Any new development will be evaluated to determine its light and glare impacts, and potential impacts to day or nighttime views. It is not expected that any of the uses allowed in the plan area would have substantial lighting which would cause such an impact. All new and existing development must comply with the City's exterior illumination ordinance and focus light on site. -41- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Conclusion: Because the plan outlines design guidelines which will preserve and enhance the scenic vistas in the area,the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on scenic resources or aesthetics. CULTURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY Setting: The Bayfront Planning Area is already largely developed. The planning area was originally marshland and tidal area and fill was brought into the area in the 1950's and 1960's. No known cultural resources are located in this area. Although unlikely since the area was primarily marshland and tidal area,there is the possibility that unidentified subsurface cultural resources could be present in the area. Discussion: No known cultural resources are located in this area,and most of the area is fill and has been graded and developed. There may be unidentified subsurface cultural resources such as shell mounds present,which could be disturbed during future grading and construction. Mitigation: If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction of any future projects within the planning area,all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures,as determined by a qualified cultural resources consultant,can be implemented. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points,mortars,and pestles;and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris,heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls;structures and remains with square nails;and refuse deposits,often in old wells and privies. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422(archaeological sites)and/or DPR 523(historic properties)or similar forms. Conclusion: No known historical or surface cultural resources exist in the planning area,and therefore none would be affected by future development within the Bayfront Planning Area. To prevent impacts to subsurface resources,the mitigation measure above would be required of the project applicant to reduce the potential for impacts to cultural resources to less than significant. RECREATION SUMMARY Setting: The Bayfront Planning Area contains several recreational facilities which serve both residents of and visitors to Burlingame. As outlined in the public services section above,there are also recreational amenities along the Bay edge consisting of a trail network provided on private property. Any new development would have to provide their portion of the bay trail as a part of the development proposal,in accordance with the guidelines established by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Discussion: Since the existing recreational facilities in the area would serve both area employees and future residents in the area as well as provide regional recreation opportunities for the community,the analysis of recreational facilities is the same for both the Draft Plan and with housing layered on selected sites. The update of the Bayfront Specific Plan describes the existing recreational facilities and outlines goals and policies for maintaining and enhancing these facilities. The only potential for impact on these recreation facilities would be indirect,from new employees and residents who choose use these local and regional recreational facilities. There are adequate recreation facilities in the area to serve both existing and proposed residents and employees. -42- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Conclusion: Based on the fact that there are recreational facilities in the area to serve both the regional and local needs, the project would not have a significant impact on recreational facilities. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Setting: The project is a substantially developed area located on the bayfront within the City of Burlingame. There are no agricultural resources located on or near the project site. Discussion: The planning area is not shown as Farmland pursuant to the 2000 data for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is also not zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. Because the project is within a developed area that does not include any Farmland, the project could not result in the conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use. Conclusion: The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources. WIND CONDITIONS Setting: The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan area is located on flat land adjacent to San Francisco Bay. The area is exposed to the strong winds driven by the Pacific Ocean marine layer that flows onshore, over the hills and down toward the Bay. Such winds frequently reach speeds in excess of 15 miles per hour (mph) and during the peak wind season, often reach speeds of 20 mph or more. The higher speed winds generally come from the northwest to the west directions. These strong winds offer both use opportunities and development constraints for the area. Some recreational activities, such as windsurfing and sailing, are powered by these strong winds. However, the winds may be incompatible with other activities occurring in this area, such as passive recreational use, outdoor activities such as walking to businesses in the area or residential activities where users may be accustomed to using outdoor areas. Also, future development of tall structures has the potential to either reduce wind speed on the bay and impact recreational users, or to increase wind speeds at grade directly adjacent to the new structures resulting in hazardous wind conditions and an undesirable street level experience. Wind Conditions: As is common in this area of the Peninsula, the highest average wind speeds occur in the mid-afternoon and the lowest in the early morning. Westerly to northwesterly winds are the most frequent and strongest winds during all seasons. The wind directions that have the greatest frequency and are also the strongest in the area are the northwest, west-northwest, west, and west-southwest winds. Wind Direction: Westerly to northwesterly winds are the most frequent and strongest winds during all seasons. The wind directions that have the greatest frequency and are also the strongest in the area are the northwest, west-northwest, west, and west-southwest winds (see Figure VI-6 showing wind directions). Analysis of the data shows that during daylight hours, about 73.3% of the wind blows from five directions as follows: -43- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan WIND DIRECTION—6:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. NW Northwest 19.0% WNW West-Northwest 27.6% W West 15.9% WSW West-Southwest 6.7% SW Southwest 4.0% All other winds 24.4% Calm conditions 2.3% Discussion: Since the wind impacts on residential uses and the impact to recreational uses on the bay from residential structures would be the same as those associated with the office and commercial uses,the following analysis applies both to the Draft Plan and with housing layered on selected sites. Wind Effects of Tall Buildings: Generally speaking,the decrease in wind speed caused by a tall and/or wide structure is most pronounced just downwind of the building. Further downwind, the effect diminishes and, at a distance of about 8 to 10 times the height of the building or obstacle,the wind would be back to its full speed. With respect to turbulence caused by a large building or other obstacle,the effects on the wind from a structure can persist for a distance up to 20 to 25 times the height of the building. Tall structures can also have an impact on the wind environment in the immediate vicinity of the structure. If a structure is much taller than the surrounding vegetation and structures, it will intercept and redirect the higher speed winds. The tall structure blocks the path of the wind and brings it down the vertical face of the building to the ground level, creating ground-level winds and turbulence which can be strong and may impact the pedestrian pathways and useable open spaces like parking lots or outdoor amenities at ground level. Recreational Users: The waters of the Bay and the regular winds combine to present superior opportunities for visitors and sightseers, as well as offering good conditions for sailing and wind surfing. Future development in the Bayfront Specific Plan has the potential to diminish the available wind in the adjacent Bay. Of particular concern is the available wind adjacent to the San Mateo County Coyote Point Recreation Area. While certain open space and park users may use the wind to fly a kite, others may find the wind to be an annoyance,because winds may hinder or prevent some park activities or make the environment unpleasantly cold. Small structures and landscaping could be used to reduce winds and facilitate wind- sensitive uses within parks and open space areas away from the water. Wind Speed and Pedestrian Comfort: The comfort of pedestrians varies under different conditions of sun exposure, temperature, clothing and wind speed. The following tables shows the effects of wind speeds on pedestrians. -44- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan `- IMPACTS OF WIND SPEED ON PEDESTRIAN COMFORT Wind Speed miles per hour Impact Up to 4 mph No noticeable effect 4 to 8 mph Wind is felt on the face 8 to 13 mph Will disturb hair,cause clothing to flap,and extend a light flag mounted on a pole 13 to 19 mph Will raise loose paper,dust and dry soil and will disarrange hair 19 to 26 mph Force of the wind will be felt on the body 26 to 34 mph Umbrellas are used with difficulty,hair is blown straight,there is difficulty in walking steadily, and wind noise is unpleasant Over 34 mph Increased difficulty with balance and gusts can blow people over Workers and Visitors: Strong winds can have a negative impact on properties developed with businesses such as offices, hotels and residences. Strong winds can hinder growth of landscaping and may cause problems with maintenance activities. In addition,when winds interact with taller buildings, strong gusts of wind and turbulence can occur particularly at ground level immediately adjacent to the structure and affect outdoor activities, uses and users. Proposals to construct tall buildings in areas subject to strong winds should be evaluated for wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions adjacent to these buildings and "livability". Wind-related Characteristics of the Bayfront Specific Plan Area `,. Shoreline and Inner Bayshore Areas (along Bayshore Highway). Although there are some taller structures in these subareas, most of the area is developed with low-rise commercial and office buildings that is more densely developed than other parts of the Bayfront Planning Area. Development along the shoreline has included Bay access and open space along the Bay which offers opportunities for employees and visitors to reach the shoreline. The westerly wind is slowed as it passes through this area overland,but it picks up speed again as it reaches the shoreline and open water. Construction of taller buildings along the Shoreline could result in the west wind slowing over water in the area,but buildings would not impact winds from other directions or over water. Anza,Anza Extension and Anza Point Areas: The Anza Area is less densely developed,but has more tall buildings and more available open space than the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore Areas. There are many opportunities for people to see and reach the shoreline at the area's parks, along the Bay Trail and from private open space. The building pattern with more open space and greater distance from San Francisco Bay proper does not slow the wind significantly as it crosses the area. Effects of Future Development on Winds at the Coyote Point Recreation Area: Although the Coyote Point Recreation Area is outside of the Bayfront Planning Area, future development in the planning area could impact activities occurring at the recreation area. Sailboarders rely on wind. The wind is important as a vehicle for sailboarders to reach the best wind surfing areas more than a mile from the shoreline at the Coyote Point Recreational Area and to return safely to shore. There is now a known near shore "wind shadow" adjacent to Airport Boulevard in the �-- Anza Point Area caused by the berm structure on which the road is built and by nearby buildings on Beach and Lang Roads. This wind shadow is viewed as an annoyance because it inhibits the launching and -45- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan landing of windsurfing boards and slows travel to the primary off-shore board sailing area. If the wind is further blocked by tall buildings,the distance of this existing wind shadow could increase. Wind direction is important to wind surfing. Strong winds from the northwest would not be affected by development in the northern Shoreline and Inner Bayshore Areas or the Anza Extension Area,but could be substantially altered by development in portions of the Anza Area, and particularly in the Anza Point Area. The winds that would be most substantially affected by development in this area are the west- southwest,west, and west-northwest winds. The west winds would be most affected (15.9%of the time); these winds would traverse the Anza and Anza Point Areas and move directly into the Bay towards the Coyote Point Recreation Area. There are no specific criteria for minimum wind speeds to support "good" wind surfing or sail boarding. Rather, it appears to be the case that the more wind,the better. Any development which results in substantial new window-shadow within the primary wind surfing areas, launching sites or travel lanes would have an impact on the use of the Coyote Point Recreation Area and the Bay as an important wind surfing area. Mitigation: In order to preserve the wind resource for recreational windsurfers and to improve the wind environment on the Bay Trail,pedestrian pathways and in useable open spaces and parking lots near large buildings, standards should be applied to evaluate changes in wind speed caused by new construction. The following standards shall be considered for all new development in the portions of the Bayfront Planning --� Area described below. All Areas: • The community standard to be achieved by wind evaluations required below shall be that the wind reduction caused by a structure shall reduce the wind speeds compared to existing conditions by no more than 10% at irreplaceable windsurfing launching and landing sites, or reduce wind speed by no more than 10%over large portions of the windsurfing transit routes or primary board sailing areas. • In the evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment,the structures shall result in an increase in wind speed and turbulence in areas adjacent to the buildings of no more than 10% compared to existing conditions. • On properties along the shoreline,types of landscaping that can materially affect wind speeds should be discouraged. • In order to have a minimal impact on wind in the nearby Bay,planting of trees along the Bay trails should be minimized in areas adjacent to recreational uses and key visual access. • Within parks and open space areas located away from the water, small structures and landscaping should be used to reduce winds and provide protected areas. Shoreline Area: • For any building 80 feet tall or more, a wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects on bay recreation. • The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these buildings. -46- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Anza Area: �. • For any building 65 feet tall or higher in any area within 400 feet of the north facing shoreline,a wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects on bay recreation. • The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these buildings. Anza Point Area: • For buildings 50 feet tall or higher,a wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects to bay recreation. • The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these buildings. • Because the area is surrounded by water on three sides,wind considerations should take precedence over bay views in placing of buildings. Buildings should be low rise and clustered to minimize the impacts on wind speed. • Development should provide some sheltered passive public open spaces visually connected to the Bay Trail. Conclusion: With the implementation of the mitigation measures listed above,future development will not have an adverse impact on existing wind conditions on the bay,nor will it create an adverse wind environment within the planning area. -47- C" 1 a•\`�'`�i yri\V 0 / ,le�eV��Oe� w i �-•i sjl e�A,�: • �4yr�/B� + • � � ; may, s�/ _ r ll j \, YY •` '` yfi•'E`� s ",3�t� V V(yIr^wrCb ,�, •.'3 r qa yq ''a`s aa�ee 'ir et p. .f '" � " � ( i..f-a /fir//,iz./f .�s• 6 Ufa .. •' .'./ rfrp "!/ °'� �°'���, r.V's\ a ` " Jae e ..:� t f f( fit Fig .S �e\;V• tea. '.tta�: �``;.: or f J•g r.a A •� / I : • / / / • / I : • / : / • I I / • 11 Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Summary of Mitigation Measures: Geology Mitigation: 1. In order to reduce impacts related to the geology, earthquake hazards, flooding and erosion,the following community standards should be applied to all new development: a. buildings shall be placed on pile supported foundations with flexible utility connections. b. hard or impervious surfaces shall be placed on a flexible base. c. any new facilities shall be constructed and installed according to the standards of the City of Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at the time a building permit is issued. d. the first floor for any proposed building shall be built at an elevation of 10 feet above mean sea level (+10'MSL),with no occupied areas below elevation 10'MSL to address the possibility of flooding. e. . for properties adjacent to the bay shoreline, the site shall be evaluated to determine if slope stabilization or other erosion control measures should be done to prevent future erosion of the bay edge. f. In order to ensure that the public access areas adjacent to the bay edge are not subject to tidal flooding, the height of the shoreline protection structure shall be at least+8 feet MSL or as determined necessary to deter tidal flooding by the City Engineer. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation: 2. For any future development proposal on sites one acre in size or greater,the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)to prevent polluted runoff from flowing into public drainage facilities during construction of the proposed facilities. The SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs)that include schedules of activities,prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution in storm water runoff during construction. The SWPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Burlingame and other appropriate agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board,prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. 3. For projects less than one acre in size,the project applicant shall be required to submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system and San Francisco Bay. The erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuing a building permit for the project. 4. To prevent fertilizer from entering the Bay directly, landscaping and berm areas planted and maintained adjacent to the Bay Trail shall drain away from the Bay. Transportation/Circulation Mitigation: 5. In order to ensure that the roadways continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, the Bayfront Development fee shall be updated so that any new development will be required to pay its fair share contribution towards completion of the following improvements: a. Airport Boulevard Curve Realignment—Airport Boulevard has sharp curves(90°) at two locations along its southern portion in the Anza Point Area. As traffic volumes increase, these -49- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan sharp curves will prove to be both capacity constraints and safety hazards. Therefore, it is r\ recommended that these curves be smoothed out to comfortably handle traffic along Airport Boulevard at the roadway's design speed. A curve on this type of roadway with a 30 miles per hour(mph) design speed should have a radius of 300 feet. The recommended alignment for the easternmost of the two curves is shown in Appendix E of the Traffic Analyzer. b. Airport Boulevard Median Reconstruction/Site Access Plan—Currently, along Airport Boulevard between Lang Road and Anza Boulevard,the median is intermittent with frequent breaks. This median area will likely need to be reconstructed to allow for specific project access to Airport Boulevard. Therefore, it is recommended that a comprehensive plan be developed to strategically position the median breaks at appropriate locations along Airport Boulevard to accommodate future projects. It is recommended that this median access be planned, rather than designed and constructed on a project-by-project basis, to ensure that project access locations are efficiently located with respect to each other and to Airport Boulevard. c. Airport Boulevard Bridge Widening(Sanchez Channel)—Airport Boulevard transitions from four lanes to three lanes (one southbound lane and two northbound lanes)just north of the Burlingame Lagoon bridge crossing, and continues with this configuration south of the lagoon. Although the capacity of the roadway is expected to be adequate,providing a second lane in each direction allows traffic to turn into and out of development sites without impeding through traffic and providing safe pedestrian separation. Therefore, it is recommended that this roadway and bridge be widened to accommodate a four-lane cross section,with full pedestrian access to the adjacent Bay trail. d. Transition Between New Broadway Interchange and Airport Boulevard—Airport Boulevard, between its current intersections with the Bayshore Highway and Anza Boulevard, is a two-lane facility. In the future, the Broadway interchange with US 101 will be reconfigured and straightened to align directly with Airport Boulevard at Bayshore Highway. Broadway is a four- lane facility. Therefore, in order to connect with the straightened Broadway, it is recommended that Airport Boulevard be widened to four lanes between the Bayshore Highway and Anza Boulevard. This widening, in conjunction with the bridge widening described above,will create a continuous, four-lane Airport Boulevard from its beginning at the Bayshore Highway to Beach Road,where Airport Boulevard transitions to a two-lane facility in San Mateo County. e. Airport Boulevard Bicycle Lanes—It is recommended that continuous bicycle lanes be installed along Airport Boulevard to provide continuous bicycle access through the Anza area. f. Bayshore Highway Median Reconstruction—Bayshore Highway is now a four-lane roadway with median areas in some locations and continuous shared two-way left-turn lanes in other areas. Similar to the recommended access plan for Airport Boulevard, an improvement plan is recommended for Bayshore Highway, to determine the appropriate locations of median breaks to safely serve existing and future development. As part of that plan,the existing signals will need to be upgraded to provide for signal interconnect and coordination. Where possible, the plan should provide opportunities for landscaping and lighting within the median. g. Local Roadway Signalization required with the Realignment of Broadway Interchange—The -50- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan reconstruction of the Broadway interchange will change the alignment of the connecting roadways to "T" or full intersections where they connect with the Broadway overpass. New signals will be required at these intersections. Biological Resources Miti atg ion: 6. The biological survey concluded that the following should be included as community standards in the plan and are also proposed as mitigation measures for the adoption of the plan: a. Because it provides important habitat for wildlife and may be used by special-status species such as California clapper rail and saltmarsh common yellowthroat, among others, the 20-acre marshland at the west end of Burlingame Lagoon where Sanchez Creek passes under US 101 shall be preserved. b. Any disturbance or modification to the existing marshlands throughout the study area should be avoided, given their limited extent and importance to wildlife. c. Efforts should be made to restore and expand brackish and salt marsh in suitable areas. d. Any disturbance to potential jurisdictional waters, including the drainage channels and shoreline of the bay and lagoons would require authorization from the Corps and could require consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. e. The current use of blue gum eucalyptus in Bayside Park for nesting by raptors or communal roosting by herons and egrets should be taken into account in any future planning for the park or adjacent roadways. f. Because there is the potential that the two vacant parcels in the Anza and Anza Point Areas may have seasonal freshwater marsh wetlands, further detailed surveys shall be required prior to development to determine whether jurisdictional wetlands occur on these parcels. Hazards Mitigation: 7. In order to ensure compliance with the FAA height and safety standards,the following community standards shall apply to any new development in the planning area: a. Any new development shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the height limits shown in the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan ,per Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 (see Figures VI-10 and VI-11). b. Any new development shall comply with the FAA standards for safety regarding flashing lights, reflective material,uses which attract a large concentration of birds, and uses which would generate electrical interference affecting aircraft communications or aircraft instrumentation. Noise Miti atg ion: 8. In order to minimize the impact of roadway and airport noise on future development projects within the Bayfront Planning Area,the following community standards have been incorporated as plan requirements: a. Exterior Noise: The FAA identifies noise sensitive lands (i.e. residences, schools,parks, churches, etc.)within the 65 CNEL contour to be incompatible with aircraft noise. Land uses that are compatible within the 65 CNEL generally include commercial and industrial uses. Development of the above-noted and other sensitive uses should be discouraged within the adopted 65 CNEL -51- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Noise Contour for San Francisco International Airport,including the areas affected by the proposed future runway expansion project and U.S.101. b. Interior Noise: Noise attenuating construction techniques shall be used for noise sensitive uses to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable standards(45 dBA). c. Land uses in the planning area shall not increase noise levels at the property line by more than 5dBA and in proximity to residential uses by more than 3 dBA. Utilities And Service Systems Mitigation: 9. The following community standard is included in the implementation section of the plan and would apply to any development which meets the criteria below. a. Any residential project proposing more than 500 dwelling units;retail project with more than 500,000 SF of floor space;commercial office building with more than 250,000 SF of floor area; industrial project with more than 650,000 SF of floor area;or any other project which would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than a 500 dwelling unit project is subject to the requirements of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221. These senate bills require a water assessment be prepared to verify that a sufficient water supply is available to meet project and cumulative demand in normal,single and multi-dry years for 20 years. Cultural Resources Mitigation: 10.If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction of any future projects within the planning area,all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures,as determined by a qualified cultural resources consultant,can be implemented. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points,mortars,and pestles;and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris,heat-affected rock,or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls;structures and remains with square nails;and refuse deposits,often in old wells and privies. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites)and/or DPR 523(historic properties)or similar forms. Wind Miti at�ion: 11.In order to preserve the wind resource for recreational windsurfers and to improve the wind environment on the Bay Trail,pedestrian pathways and in useable open spaces and parking lots near large buildings,standards should be applied to evaluate changes in wind speed caused by new construction. The following standards shall be considered for all new development in the portions of the Bayfront Planning Area described below. All Areas: a. The community standard to be achieved by wind evaluations required below shall be that the wind reduction caused by a structure shall reduce the wind speeds compared to existing conditions by no more than 10%at irreplaceable windsurfing launching and landing sites,or reduce wind speed by no more than 10%over large portions of the windsurfing transit routes or primary board sailing areas. -52- Initial Study Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan b. In the evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment, the structures shall result in an increase in wind speed and turbulence in areas adjacent to the buildings of no more than 10% compared to existing conditions. c. On properties along the shoreline, types of landscaping that can materially affect wind speeds should be discouraged. d. In order to have a minimal impact on wind in the nearby Bay, planting of trees along the Bay trails should be minimized in areas adjacent to recreational uses and key visual access. e. Within parks and open space areas located away from the water, small structures and landscaping should be used to reduce winds and provide protected areas. Shoreline Area: f. For any building 80 feet tall or more, a wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects on bay recreation. g. The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these buildings. Anza Area: h. For any building 65 feet tall or higher in any area within 400 feet of the north facing shoreline, a wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects on bay recreation. i. The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these buildings. Anza Point Area: j. For buildings 50 feet tall or higher, a wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects to bay recreation. k. The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these buildings. 1. Because the area is surrounded by water on three sides, wind considerations should take precedence over bay views in placing of buildings. Buildings should be low rise and clustered to minimize the impacts on wind speed. m. Development should provide some sheltered passive public open spaces visually connected to the Bay Trail. -53- la CITY ,& STAFF REPORT BURLINCiAME AGENDA ITEM # 8a q °e MTG. O�Nnrro .w+r¢e,0 DATE 4.05.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: MARCH 22. 2004 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE. Introduction: City Council should set the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to establish new regulations for development on emerging legal lots in the R-1 (single family) zoning district. Staff would recommend that this item be set for public hearing at your meeting on April 19, 2004. Introduction requires the following council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: For a number of months the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has, at Commission direction, been studying the issue of how the city' s present codes address emerging legal lots. These are groups of parcels which have been informally merged by past development and which, when the original structures are demolished, the original property lines become re-established. The parcels recreated in this way can be "legal" meeting the minimum lot size, street frontage etc. for their location under the current zoning regulations, or then can be "substandard". There are already development standards in the zoning code to address re-emerging substandard lots (CS 25 .28.090). However, currently the reemerging legal lots are treated as any other free standing lot. It was the Commission's observation, that under the design review criteria, development on legally sized lots emerging 2 or 3 at time can have a substantial impact on the character and even the ambience in an existing neighborhood. The proposed regulations, summarized below, are recommended to the City Council for approval by the Planning Commission (March 8, 2004). (See Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 attached) It should be noted that the Commission held a public hearing on the proposed regulations for emerging legal lots and new regulations for development on creek side lots at the same time. However the actions were separated. The regulations on emerging standard lots stand separately from those for creek side lot development. If a lot should happen to be both an emerging legal lot and a creek side lot, both sets of regulations would apply, and INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-I ZONE April S,2004 the most conservative would prevail. However, if one were to redevelop or make an addition to a house on an existing creek side lot, then the new creek side regulations, if adopted, would apply to that lot. The regulations for re-emerging standard lots were studied by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2004. (See Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 attached) The revised regulations are summarized below. Also attached to the staff report are the annotations staff prepared which explain the reasoning behind each of the changes to the code for emerging standard lots. These regulations were amended to the existing code provisions which address emerging substandard lots. The annotations also address issues raised by the Subcommittee of the Planning Commission and Planning Commission during their discussions regarding emerging legal lots. Summary Regulations to Address Emerging Legal Lots ■ Requires a conditional use permit for emerging legal lots, demolition may not occur until a conditional use permit has been issued. ■ Limits the dimensions and placement of light wells for basement areas to side and rear yards, insures that there is safe passage by light wells in the side yard. ■ Limits exterior stairs from habitable basement areas to the rear yard. ■ Residential structures and their accessory structures shall be subject to design review. ■ Tree removal permits shall be obtained, as necessary, and tree protection measures installed during construction and tree maintenance requirements follow after construction. ■ For development on two or more emerging lots the following limitations shall be adhered to: o Maximum lot coverage of 30% for 10 years, then the lot coverage may be expanded to 40% or whatever lot coverage is allowed in the code at that time; o Maximum floor area above grade shall be 80% of the total FAR allowed above grade for all the lots combined. The 80% may be divided among the lots above grade so long as no single lot has more than 100% of the total FAR allowed on that lot. o Remaining floor area for each lot, up to 100%of current code for each emerged lot, may be put in an habitable basement area, so long as the basement does not extend beyond the foundation walls of the house above, current restrictions on bathroom size and bedrooms in basements are removed. o For houses with habitable basement areas there shall be , a two car garage, no matter how many bedrooms are designed into the house. Current regulations for Substandard Emerged Lots (adopted in 1996, amended in 1998) are included below for your reference: ■ Based on lot size, the floor area ratio formula is reduced, 32%plus 750 SF, as opposed to 35%plus 1,100 SF for a standard lot. ■ There is a bonus of 350 SF for a detached garage on a substandard emerged lots; and a bonus of 400 SF for a detached garage on a standard lot. Several code sections were added to make the new regulations work these include: ■ Definitions for Exit Well and Light Well. ■ Section to define placement of Exit Wells and Light Wells on single family lots (CS 25.28.074) All of these provisions and requirements are discussed in detail in the attached Annotated Development Standards for Emerging Los. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE April 5,2004 General Plan Compliance The proposed changes to the zoning regulations will affect the areas of the city with the land use designation of low density residential (up to 8 dwelling units per acre). These new provisions to address residential development on emerging legal lots will have no effect on the density of development allowed in the areas low density residential area because the original subdivision met the General Plan density standard. Therefore there will be no general plan land use implication. In regards to the other elements of the General Plan, this revision to the zoning code will not result in an extension of area to be developed in single family houses and will not lead to the creation of more lots, since the emerged lots were created with the original subdivisions of the city in the 1920's and after, and have been under used by being merged by a single structure. The development of these lots will result in the return to the original planned density of each neighborhood. Environmental Review The provisions of this code amendment are categorical exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15332 In-fill Development Projects (a) (e), The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation; and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Regulations, Class 5, (a) minor lot line adjustments, side yard and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. ATTACHMENTS: Annotated Development Standards for Emerging Lots, Revised as Recommended by Planning Commission, March 22, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 Draft, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Establish Design Requirements for Development of Lots that were Formerly Put to Combined Use, to Define Light Wells, and to Establish Regulations Regarding Light Wells. U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR2004\IntroEmergingLegalLots 4.5.04.doc March 22,2004 Annotated Development Standards for Emerging Lots (Revised as Recommended by Planning Commission March 8,2004) In late 2003 the Planning Commission directed their Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to review the existing zoning regulations as they apply to emerging standard lots. The purpose of review was to make suggestions for revisions to the regulations so that when reused,new development on these adjacent lots would better blend into the existing development on the residential block. An emerging legal lot is a lot which was merged by development crossing previously established lot lines. These lot line emerge (return to their original status)when the structure which informally merged them is removed.If the emerged lot is consistent with the current minimum lot size in the area,it is considered to be a"legal"lot. The Planning Commission Subcommittee met with staff several times to discuss the development issues created by legal emerging lots. On the first full commission review of the Subcommittee's recommended regulations,the whole Commission noted that development on creek side lots(some of which are also emerged lots)had also become an issue,so directed the Subcommittee to meet again and add regulations for creek side development.The Subcommittee last met on February 6,2004 and recommended development standards for both emerging standard lots and for creek side lots. On March 8,2004,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended the new development standards for emerging legal lots annotated below. For the record,and to facilitate administration later,each recommended development standard is annotated to document the objective anticipated to be addressed. Creek side lot development regulations are addressed in another annotated document. Currently the zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit for the following kinds of emerging lots. CS 25.28.030(5)and(6) 5. Demolition of a residential structure or an accessory structure thereto,which structure is built over or across two or more legally subdivided lots,and the construction of a structure upon one or more of said lots. See section 25.28.090. 6. Demolition of a residential structure or any accessory structure thereto,which structure is built on a site consisting of a legally subdivided lot and a portion of another lot which when combined with an adjacent lot will result in more building sites than existing before the demolition of said structures,and the construction of a structure on one or more of said lots. Annotation: These provisions apply to standard and substandard sized lots. Therefore,the code now requires all emerging lots to have a conditional use permit prior to any construction. In addition,all new single family residential construction is subject to design review(CS 25.57.010). Development StandardsforEmerging Lots Draft.March 21,2004 Add to CS 25.28.073 Exceptions Section (4) (4) Light wells. A light well may extend up to three(3) feet into a side setback so long as the outermost edge of the light well is at least three(3)feet from any lot line. Annotation: These proposed regulations encourage a full basement of living area and allow light wells for air and ventilation only on the sides and rear of the property. Generally these light wells cannot be covered and so they create open pits in the side and rear yard. If light wells are to be allowed at the side of a building it is important that safety personnel and residents can travel safely through the side yard area. For these reasons, an exception to side setback has been added. This provision would allow light wells in the side yard no closer than 3 feet to property line and extend into the rear yard no further than 3 feet. Based on the current California Building Code exit wells must be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet Light wells (for light and air) may be 18 inches. Thus 3 feet out from the building would be a maximum distance for a light well, particularly one which included an exit ladder. Later in the ordinance exit stairs are allowed from basement areas so long as they exit only into the rear yard. Section 4. A new Section 25.28.074 is added as follows: 25.28.074 Placement of light wells and exit wells. —� (a) Light wells shall meet the following requirements: (1)Not be located in the front of a dwelling unit; and (2) In the rear of a dwelling unit, not be wider than three (3) feet nor have a cumulative length of more than twenty-five(25) feet; and (3) On a side of a dwelling unit, not extend more than three (3) feet from the dwelling unit nor have a maximum length of more than 15 feet; and (4) Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. (b)Exit wells shall meet the following requirements: (1) Be located only in the rear of a dwelling unit, not be wider than three (3) feet, and not have a cumulative length of more than twenty-five (25)feet; and (2) Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Annotation: Currently the zoning code does not address the location or dimension of light wells or exit wells. Since construction which includes habitable basement areas is becoming more popular, a section is added to the R-1 (single family)district regulations to address light wells and exit wells. Exit stairs from habitable basement areas is addressed later in the ordinance in CS 25.28.090 (c) (3). 2 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft: March 22, 2004 The current single family residential zoning requirements also establish criteria for reviewing development on emerging lots. The current code reads: 25.28.090 Multiple lots developed with a single structure. (a) This section shall apply to all lots that are required to obtain a conditional use permit pursuant to section 25.28.030 (5) or (6). Demolition of existing structures or construction of new structures upon any such lot shall not be commenced until and unless a conditional use permit, any variances and special permits required by this section and a building permit are first obtained. Annotation: This section clarifies that the standards set out in this section and in the R-1 district apply to all emerged lots whether they are standard or substandard based on the city's minimum lot size for the area. CS 25.28.090 (cont) Revised from Original to Read: (b) In considering the conditional use permit for either standard or substandard lots the commission shall evaluate in addition to the criteria for a conditional use permit: (I-) The blend of mass, scale and dominant stfuetural char-ac4efisties of the n eenstFuction with the D- street and neighborhood; (2) The var-iety of reef line, ex4er-ier- finish mater-ials and elevations of the 7 proposed new stfuettffes-. (3) That the design of the house and all accessory structures shall be subject to design review criteria as set out in chapter 25.57; and Annotation: After the current standards for development on emerging lots were codified, the city adopted single family residential design review. The criteria used for residential design review included the first two standards of the emerging lot line code section. It suggested that the original section (item 1 and 2 above) be combined and the residential design review criteria/standards included instead. This change would make code administration more consistent. (2) The commission shall also consider the necessity or mitigation for the removal of any protected trees, that are located within the footprint of any proposed structure and shall establish conditions to protect such trees during construction and to maintain protected trees following construction. 3 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 Annotation: The requirement placing priority on protected trees over siting of new development on these emerged lots is retained. This provision is more restrictive than the design review guidelines and an appropriate guideline for development on these older lots. The added provisions(italics)for requiring tree protection and post construction maintenance are based on experience the Commission has had with reuse of existing older lots with protected trees. Problems with trees have occurred frequently enough that it seemed wise in the code to remind applicants and staff about the need for tree protection during construction and maintenance after construction. The Subcommittee recommended that the condition of approval regarding long term maintenance of protected trees on a site be revised from 3 years to 5 years for post construction protection, after the building permit is finaled. Staff will make this change to the standard conditions of approval. It is too specific for the zoning regulations to put in the years for which maintenance is required. Moreover this is a policy matter based on experience which the city should be free to adjust based on further experience. Homeowner pruning is regulated by the citys Reforestation Ordinance. Pruning is limited to removal of no more than one-third of the canopy of the tree;the Subcommittee thought this to be sufficient regulation. Both the tree protection and pruning requirements are administered by the City Arborist through a permit program. CS 25.28.090(cont) Proposed Wording (c) The conditional use permit granted pursuant to this section for a lot that is a standard lot size conforming to the lot dimensions of chapter 25.28 shall include the following conditions: (1) The maximum allowable lot coverage of all structures on each such emerged lot shall not exceed thirty(30%)percent for the ten(10)years immediately following the approval of the conditional use permit,and Annotation: This section sets out different development standards for new houses on standard emerged lots. It reduces the lot maximum coverage allowed from 40%to 30%in order to encourage smaller footprint development, generally more in keeping with the scale of the older existing houses in the early subdivisions where the great majority of the emerging lots are located.To offset the reduction in lot coverage these proposed standards(Section 3)allow full,habitable basement areas. The proposed 30%lot coverage number was arrived at by reviewing the existing lot coverage for the projects acted on by the Planning Commission from 2001 through 2003- A review of the data indicated that the average lot coverage of existing single family houses reviewed over the three year period was 29.9%. The average lot coverage of the houses with additions or being replaced in the same period was 32.9%a.The 30%maximum lot coverage for 10 yeas is consistent with existing average footprints,based on planning experience. Since the proposed regulations would allow living areas in basements,the square footage that would be in the additional lot coverage could be shifted to the basement area without exceeding the footprint of the building above.It should be noted that the reduction in lot coverage may 4 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 discourage over large garages because the additional parking space would need to be taken from the footprint of the house. The proposed regulations include a two covered parking space requirement if a basement is included in the house. (See Section 3)The ten year limitation on lot coverage is an entitlement. After 10 years from the time the construction is completed the property owner may add up to 10%to the footprint of the structures on the site without an amendment to his conditional use permit. However, the future addition would still be subject to design review and all the other city development regulations in effect at the time application is made for the addition, remodel or replacement. (2) The maximum allowable floor area above grade on each lot shall be based on eighty percent (801/6) of the combined total floor area for all of the lots encompassed by the conditional use permit that would otherwise be allowed pursuant to this title. In order to encourage variety among the new structures, the eighty percent (80%) of the combined floor area may be divided among the emerged lots unevenly, so long as the total floor area on any one lot encompassed by the conditional use permit does not exceed one hundred percent(1001/o)of the maximum floor area that would otherwise be allowed on a single lot pursuant to this title. Annotation: Section 2 provides that the floor area allowed above grade also be reduced on emerging standard lots. The formula proposed is to calculate the floor area allowed for each of the legal emerged lots. Then to take 80%of the sum of the FAR for each emerged lot. The "80%square footage" may then be distributed among all the emerged lots, for the above grade(first and second story)portion of the future structures. The developer may decide how to distribute the 80%square footage between or among the lots. The additional square footage allowed for each house, based on the FAR formula for that particular lot, may be placed in a basement (Section 3 below). However, the basement area in any structure may not exceed the first floor footprint, as defined by the exterior wall foundation, e.g. excluding any patios and decked areas; and each emerged legal lot with a basement area must include a two car garage. The basement may not cause the total floor area on any emerged lot to exceed 100% of the floor area that would be allowed under the city's formula for development on existing legal lots, e.g. one that did not re-emerge. The objective is to provide the developer with as much opportunity for variety in design and above ground massing among the houses to be built as possible. In addition, since the basement areas are habitable and it is difficult to control future conversions of these areas to bedrooms, adequate covered parking to address this eventuality should be provided on the site from the beginning e.g. the two car garage requirement(attached or detached). A note on basements: The Subcommittee felt that if basement living areas were to be allowed in order to reduce the lot coverage (e.g. mass and bulk)the basement area should be allowed to be used for all types of living area without size constraints on rooms such as bathrooms. This revision would allow bedrooms and full baths in basements without a conditional use permit or variance, which would not be allowed in remodeled or new houses on existing legal lots. This i 5 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft:March 22,2004 would be an appropriate trade off for the restrictions on lot coverage and floor area of structure above ground. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title and without the requirement of a special permit under subsection 25.28.035 above, any dwelling unit built upon a lot subject to the conditional use permit may include habitable area in a basement that does not extend more than two (2)feet above grade and that does not exceed beyond the dwelling unit's footprint. This basement area shall not be included in the calculation of the maximum allowable eighty percent (80%) floor area under subsection(2) above, but shall be included in the maximum allowable floor area for the lot calculated pursuant to section 25.08.265. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, this basement may contain bedrooms, bathtubs, and shower stalls, and bathrooms in the basement may exceed twenty-five (25) square feet without a special permit. An exit well required by the California Building Code shall be only allowed at the rear of the structure. Annotation: To compensate for the loss of floor area above grade (the 80% of 100%formula, see Section 2 above). The Subcommittee felt that a full basement area (equal to the footprint of the first floor) should be allowed. The remainder of the FAR of each legal lot could be put in the basement. This would encourage variety of the house size with, for example, 65% of the allowed FAR above grade and the rest below. Based on the average FAR for new or remodeled houses reviewed by the Planning Commission in the last 3 years. Total FAR for a 6,000 SF lot would be 3, 420 SF. 801/o of this would be 2,736 SF if the garage were detached and 2,336 SF if the garage was attached. Therefore, the remaining 600 to 1000 SF could be placed in a habitable basement, so long as the basement was within the exterior walls/foundation of the house. The resulting size house would be consistent with the average house size being built currently. Moreover, this provision would keep the portion of the house above grade smaller (especially since a two car garage is required) and still provide incentive for the developer to meet all the cit,/s objectives and allow sufficient development to carry the cost of the land. If a future owner wishes to expand the footprint of a house on an emerged legal lot which includes a habitable basement area the future addition would probably need a FAR variance, so would be reviewed by the Commission.. In reviewing the proposed ordinance, the Chief Building Official has pointed out that if a basement area is greater than 3000 SF or the hole in the ground for the basement is 8 feet deep or greater, then an exterior door and stairway are required by the building code. In addition, because of safety concerns, particularly fire, he notes that the exiting requirements from basement areas will likely be changed in the next few years to require an exterior door and stairway from all basement areas. Given this situation he would strongly recommend that a prohibition on exterior doors and stairways from basement areas not be considered. His concern is that this requirement may, in certain circumstances, put the zoning code in direct conflict with the building code. The result would be that the Commission would approve a project with a basement for which the applicant could not get a building permit. The current building code basement exiting requirement for exterior door and stair has not come _ up under current zoning code allowances of 700 SF basement areas because of the small size. 6 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft: March 22, 2004 Exiting lightwells are required but the small basement size (700 SF) and the interior stair requirement adequate address exiting under the current building code requirements. However, the Chief Building Official has indicated that if the regulations currently being considered nationally are adopted in the next couple of years, even these 700 SF areas will be required to have exterior doors and stairwells. Note: originally the Planning Commission recommended that there be no exterior door and stairwell exits from habitable basement areas. However, in their action on March 8, 2004, the Commission changed their recommendation because of the building code requirements and possible conflict with the zoning code. Now the Planning Commission is recommending allowing an exterior door and stairwell from habitable basement areas when required by the building code, only at the rear of buildings. The text of the proposed revisions (3) above was changed to reflect this recommendation. Staff would note that if the language as proposed in CS 25.28.090 (3) is removed, basement area access would float with the building requirements. The Commission could add a standard condition on each single family house with a basement, that the basement area shall never be used as a second dwelling unit. This would provide the maximum coverage for code enforcement should a basement be converted to a second unit in the future. Moreover, through the title report the restriction would be recorded with each property and disclosed as a limitation on the use of the property each time the property is sold. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title all dwelling units with basement areas built on lots subject to the conditional use permit shall have at least two covered parking spaces and each lot's covered parking shall be designed to match the architectural style of the dwelling unit on the lot. Annotation: The Subcommittee members recommended that any single family house on an emerged standard lot which took advantage of having any habitable basement area be required to also provide two covered parking spaces on site. The reason for the requirement was that there is no way to prevent future owners from converting or using basement area originally shown as family room or den with open walls into bedrooms or sleeping areas. Conversion of such space to sleeping area would be particular hard to fight later since egress requirements for sleeping areas would already be met. So rather than having to rely on code enforcement (probably at the time of sale) it seemed prudent to simply require the maximum covered parking on site at the time of construction. CS 25.28.090 (cont.) Now Reads: (d) A variance shall be required, in addition to and as a part of the conditional use permit, if, on a substandard lot, the following maximum gross floor area of all structures is not met: 7 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft:March 22,2004 (1) Thirty-two(32) percent plus 750 square feet with an attached garage. (2) Thirty-two (32) percent plus 750 square feet plus up to 350 square feet in a detached single or two car garage and other accessory structures. Annotation: These are the current requirements for development on substandard emerged lots. No change is proposed to these requirements. While the FAR is reduced with these requirements, all other development regulations would apply including 40% lot coverage. All other siting requirements are based on the zoning code and automatically adjust to the smaller dimensions of the lot. It should be noted that the City Attorney is comfortable with requiring a variance in this case since the lots are substandard, and it may be legitimately difficult to build a new house on such lots because of some aspect of their dimension, terrain etc. Now Reads (e) The maximum allowable house size and lot coverages established pursuant to this section in the conditional use permit shall become effective upon the issuance of a building permit for the approved construction; and may not be exceeded as required by this code section without amendment of the conditional use permit. Annotation: This statement is reminding us that future owners of development on emerged lots can come back to the commission at a later date (after 10 years) and request an addition for up to the - maximum then allowed by the zoning code on their lot. In other words, For emerged legal lots, in ten years the applicant would be eligible to expand the lot coverage on a legal lot from 30% to 40%without applying for a conditional use permit amendment. However, the addition would still be subject to all the requirements of design review and the other standards in the zoning code in effect at the time. To implement this regulations basement access requirements need to be clarified Add to definitions section CS 25.08.253: 25.08.253 Exit well. "Exit well" means an excavation with an open top through which light and air are conveyed from the outdoors to windows or doors at the bottom of the shaft and that provides a means of exiting from the basement of a structure. Add to definitions section CS 25.08.393: 25.08.393 Light well. "Light well" means a shaft with an open top through which light and air are conveyed from the outdoors to windows on or at the bottom of the shaft. 8 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft:March 22,2004 Annotation: While light wells and exit wells are becoming increasingly popular as habitable basement areas are added to single family residences, there has been no definition of them in the zoning code. This addition addresses that problem and defines them for planning purposes. Add new code section 25.28.074 to clarify location of lightwells and exit wells. 25.28.074 Placement of light wells and exit wells. (a) Light wells shall meet the following requirements: (1)Not be located in the front of a dwelling unit; and (2) In the rear of a dwelling unit, not be wider than three (3) feet nor have a cumulative length of more than twenty-five (25)feet; and (3) On a side of a dwelling unit, not extend more than three (3) feet from the dwelling unit nor have a maximum length of more than 15 feet; and (4) Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. (b) Exit wells shall meet the following requirements: (1) Be located only in the rear of a dwelling unit, not be wider than three (3) feet, and not have a cumulative length of more than twenty-five (25)feet; and (2) Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Annotation: A significant impact of full basements with habitable area is how the Building Code egress requirements will be met. Since habitable basement areas require pr exit wells for emergency egress, light and air, which intrude into the surface area around the foundation, it is important that the zoning code give direction regarding location and size of these features. There is also a public safety(fire) issue here since the light wells cannot be covered over with grates, and fire personnel need space to get by them. The minimum encroachment into the side setback for a light well or exit well is based on the current requirements for bay windows,which have been in the zoning code for a number of years. Further, in the case that the California Building Code requires an exterior door and stair from a habitable basement area, the Planning Commission determined that such door and stair should only be located at the rear of the structure exiting into the rear yard. This location was to discourage the future use of the habitable basement as a separate, illegal dwelling unit. Prepared/Revision History August 22, 2003 (for Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee) Revised September 19, 2003 Revised October 3, 2003 Revised October 6, 2003 Revised December 29, 2003 (for Planning Commission) Revised February 13, 2004 (for Planning Commission) �.Revised February 27, 2004 9 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft:March 22,2004 Revised March 1, 2004 Revised March 10, 2004 (for City Attorney) —� Revised March 22, 2004 (for City Council Introduction) U:\ZoningIssues\EmergingStandardLots\4IntroCCEmergStandardLotsRev3 3.22.04.doc 10 City oJBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 8,2004 Chair Boju6s called for a ten minute break. The commission reconvened at 9:55 p.m. )�"10. PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ON EMERGING STANDARD LOTS AND CREEK SIDE LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT(NEWSPAPER NOTICE)PROJECT PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented the proposed regulations noting that there were two sets. The first addresses zoning standards for lots on which old property lines emerge when a structure is demolished,and the emerging lots are consistent with the minimum lot size in the area. She noted that in reviewing the regulations for these legal standard sized lot there were a couple of issues to focus on addressed in the March 5,2004 staff memo including the minimum 9 SF size of light/egress wells,the prohibition of these wells at the front of a structure and insuring 3 feet of clearance between wells and side property lines. Also she noted in some circumstances the California Building Code requires exterior door and stairs from habitable basement areas. To avoid contradiction between zoning and building codes,exit stairs from habitable basements cannot be prohibited. CP Monroe also noted that the March 5,2004 memo addresses clarification of the creek side lot development regulations. Key was clarifying the line from which the proposed 6 foot side setback would be measured. This line is the 100 year flood or flow limit line. It is established by calculating for each lot how the volume of water at that point in the creek would be accommodated within the exiting channel. The highest point on the creek bank of the 100 year flood flow would be the limit line from which the setback would be taken.This point my be lower than the highest elevation on the creek side lot. There can be no cantilevers over the 6 foot setback from the 100 year flood flow limit line. Anyone developing or making an addition on a creek side lot in the future would have to hire a surveyor to establish the 100 year flood flow limit line for their property before submitting plans to the Planning or Building Departments. Commissioners asked: Some existing development will not meet the new 6 foot setback line from the 100 year flood flow limit line,how will that be addressed? CP Monroe noted it would be treated the same as other nonconforming setbacks on existing development;some are minor modifications(if minor)others require a variance,but the change would only require an exception if the addition extended into the required setback. Can the tree canopy be trimmed? Yes,for maintenance as limited by the City's Reforestation Ordinance,but not so that the life of the tree would be threatened. On creek lots how is the FAR and lot coverage calculated?CP Monroe noted that the lot coverage and FAR calculations are proposed to be based on the square footage of the lot out side of the 100 year flood flow limit line. Because of subdivision regulations,this area would not be less than 60% of the lot with street frontage. Was concerned about exterior stairs from basement living areas, understand the code problem,can exterior stairs be limited to the rear yard,it would discourage use of the basement area as a second unit. CP Monroe noted that it was possible to limit exterior stairs to the rear yard area,also the required 3 foot setback requirements for light wells and well exits would also apply to stair wells and would make location in side yards difficult. Can kitchens be located in the basement?CP Monroe noted yes,but there can be only one kitchen in a single family dwelling,so if it were in the basement there would be no other kitchen in the structure. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor on the regulations for either emerging legal lots or creek side lots. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: should the setback be taken from the 100 year flood flow limit line or the top of bank whichever is greater?Would not work,in some cases the top of bank(highest elevation from the creek) could be off the property;will we end up with houses cantilevering over the creek?;Subcommittee felt that `- this regulation works because we have a good data point for establishing a limit line on which to base the setback and the additional space of the setback will reduce the possibility of structures cantilevering 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 8, 2004 significantly over the flow of the creek. Is the allowance of 80% of the 100% total FAR to be allowed above grade for emerging lots the right number? Commissioner noted it is to some extent an arbitrary choice however, it does provide a reduction and at the same time gives the developer some design option, he can build 100% FAR with no basement on one lot and do something very different on another, if he wishes. C. Osterling moved to recommend the two ordinances on emerging legal lots and creek side lot development standards to the City Council for action with the revisions in the March 5, 2004 memo and requiring basement exit stairs only at the rear of the building. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the additions to the code to the City Council for hearing and action. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. CP noted that this item would go to the City Council for action in April. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 123 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TADHG CANNIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Mark Robertson, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, project designer, was available to answer questions. Noted that property owner already built a mirror image of this house at 325 Occidental Avenue, was a spec house and fell in love with the design so he wants to do it again. Commission asked applicant to describe the difference in the setting between the Occidental site and the Dwight site. What is the height of the adjacent houses on Occidental? Applicant noted that on Occidental most of the adjacent houses are two stories, on Dwight Road there are single story houses on each side ofthe subject property, there are two story houses on the corners, also duplexes and single story homes with detached second units on the block, kind of a mixed, eclectic neighborhood. Commission asked to explain why there are two small windows on the north elevation. Applicant noted that these are two small windows in the kitchen that will be installed between the counter top and the upper cabinet to expand wall space for cabinets and to get light in the kitchen. Commission asked what is the box shown on the south elevation. Applicant noted that this is a recessed area, will put planting in this space. The Planning Commission had the follow comments: Would like to see true divided fight wood windows for this project; • Doorway is not celebrated enough, hidden, need to pull out entry farther, and not have it so recessed, rooms on each side of entry dominate, needs to be improved and embellished; Too much stucco, would like to see more variety of materials, add other materials, maybe a water table detail for a change in material and texture, add window trim, dress it up; and • Would like to see unit pavers used for the landscaping hardscape, driveway and walkways. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chair Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION IVIlNUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 12, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojues called the January 12, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran,Bojues,Brownrigg,Keighran,Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan M. MINUTES The minutes of the December 8, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Brownrigg asked if staff could prepare for the Commissioners a report on the residential fire sprinkler requirements, what is their intent and how they are triggered. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1129 CLOVELLY LANE,ZONED R 1-FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION. (JERRY DEAL,JD&ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;JEFF AND DIANE FELTMAN PROPERTY OWNERS)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • How is the setback measured, is it to the closest portion of the structure; • What is the front setback of the houses on either side of the project; • Would any addition to the front of the house trigger the front setback variance,for example could the addition be held back to the required front setback without triggering a variance. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. 2. REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RE-EMERGING LOTS — PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed changes to regulate emerging legal lots. Commissioners discussed and noted: • Is 10 years long enough before a development is allowed to increase lot coverage to 40%. Staff noted that the 10 year time was picked because it would allow for other changes in the neighborhood to catch up with the reuse of the emerged legal lots;at the end of 10 years the additions affecting lot City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 coverage would still be subject to design review and other single family residential requirements in --� effect at the time of the remodel; • While like the idea of putting FAR in the basement,how will this greater excavation affect emerging lots with a lot of established, protected trees; • Will smaller footprint result in more boxy houses; • Did the subcommittee consider basing the permitted FAR on the existing average FAR on a block, similar to the front setback standard, • Creekside lot regulations should be included with emerging legal lot regulation changes, footprint/FAR should be calculated on the 601/6 that is developable not on the total lot size; • Creek side lots should look at setbacks from top of bank not from property line, cantilevers should not be allowed; • Reduction in lot coverage is a good idea but is 30%the right number,what is the typical maximum lot coverage of existing development, can staff collect some information, in fact 30% may not be reducing by 10%but by some other amount; • How does section on protecting trees address trimming trees? • Understand reason for not having an outdoor connection from basement living areas to discourage area becoming second unit, but is this a real concern; • Concerned that with 30%lot coverage will cause all houses adjacent on the emerged lots to look the same,how will we insure variation among the new houses,would prefer a sliding scale so that one is 100% of the permitted FAR, second 80% of permitted FAR and third 75% of the permitted FAR, • Sliding scale for FAR among emerged lots could result in a clouding of the title for the new houses, the cookie cutter appearance can be dealt with through the design review process; and • Think 25% reduction in lot coverage from 40%to 30%is pretty radical. Commissioners suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meet again and discuss the issues raised by the Commission and report back. Would like to do this soon, since this is an important issue and would like to hear from developers on this topic. Chair Bojues directed that this item be returned to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for more study and then return to the Commission for action. Recognizing the importance of this issue,he encouraged the Subcommittee to meet soon. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Bojues asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Auran requested that item 3a Policy on FYI Review be removed from the consent calendar. There were no requests from the audience to remove items. Item 3 a was moved to be the first item on the Regular Action Calendar 3 b. 360 & 380 BEACH ROAD, ZONED O-M—APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 360-380 BEACH ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 2, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 1 SUBDIVISION,PM 03-11 (MICHAEL T.MCCALLION,APPLICANT;BEACH ROAD ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNERS) (10 NOTICED)PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG 2 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ESTABLISH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS THAT WERE FORMERLY 3 PUT TO COMBINED USE,TO DEFINE LIGHT WELLS,AND TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF LIGHT WELLS 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. As the prices for property on the Peninsula continue to escalate, it becomes 8 economically feasible to develop lots that had previously been put to use in a combined form, often 9 having natural features such as creeks and stands of trees. The sudden development of these properties, 10 usually coupled with removal of the existing home, with two, three or even more homes has a 11 tremendous impact on the neighborhood. This ordinance is intended to dampen that impact by providing 12 design requirements for the new homes that will reduce the mass and bulk of the homes while providing 13 the property owners with similar total square footage of development. The ordinance also provides a 14 definition and design requirements for light wells that are a key component of basement construction 15 and use. 16 17 Section 2. A new Section 25.08.253 is added as follows: 18 25.08.253 Exit well. 19 "Exit well"means an excavation with an open top through which light and air are conveyed from 20 the outdoors to windows or doors at the bottom of the shaft and that provides a means of exiting from 21 the basement of a structure. 22 23 Section 3. A new Section 25.08.393 is added as follows: 24 25.08.393 Light well. 25 "Light well"means a shaft with an open top through which light and air are conveyed from the 26 outdoors to windows on or at the bottom of the shaft. 27 28 Section 4. A new Subsection 25.28.073(4)is added as follows: 1 3/13/2004 I as set out in chapter 25.57; and The blend of inass, scale and dominant structnral characteristics of thel 2 new construction with thL. existing street mid neighborhood, and- 3 ,exterior finish materials and elevations of the Pioposed new 4 structures. 5 (2) The commission shall also consider the necessity or mitigation for the removal of any 6 protected trees, that are located within the footprint 7 of any proposed structure and shall require conditions to}protect those trees 4� 8 maintain the protected trees to remain following construction. 9 (c)Any conditionaluse permit granted pursuant to this section for aiot that is a stan� t g 10 cq#fortzrgttf chapter 25.28 shall include the following conditions �fi. 11 (1) The maximum allowable,lot coverage of all structures on.each such emerged',jot shall zt� 12 exceed thin f � den (i ) ye rs mediately following the date of approval.of: g 13 conditional use permit; and 14 (2) The rn l flpa arga above grade on each'such lot shall be erglity;:percent 15 (8,0%)of the comb ea far all of the lots encompassed by the conditional use permit tha, .. _ 16 j�quld otherwise.bq o this#taourage variety among the new 17 trti tures,the eighty p a 4 mbind t i oo area may be divided amp the emerged 18 loth unevenly, so long., 19 does not exceed one fiix� §� 0"Q) oxcn t ` 1. _wS, 20 allowed on a single lot pursuant`to this title. 21 (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title and without the requirement of a special 22 permit under section 25.28.035 above, anyt. ._u n a lot subject to the conditional use 23 permit may include habitable area in abasement that -On r tend more than two(2)feet above grade 24 and that does not extend beyond the dwelling unit's footprint. This basement area shall not be included 25 in the calculation of the irnum allowable eighty percent(80%)floor area under subsection(2)above, 26 but shall be included in the maximum allowable floor area for the lot calculated pursuant to section 27 25.08265. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, this basement may contain bedrooms, 28 bathtubs, and shower stalls, and bathrooms in the basement may exceed twenty-five (25) square fe,. 3 3/13/2004 2 ' 3 4 5 6 A variance shall be required,in addition to and as a part of the conditional use permit,if,on 7 a substandard lot,the following maximum gross floor area ratio of all structures is not met: 8 (1) Thirty-two (32)percent plus 750 square feet with an attached garage. 9 (2)Thirty-two (32)percent plus 750 square feet plus up to 350 square feet in a detached single 10 or two car garage and other accessory structures. 11 x Sch maximum allowable house sizes and Icit coverages established pursuant to this 12 ..k., shall become effective upon the issuance of a building permit for 13 the construction and may not be exceeded without amendment of the conditional use permit. 14 15 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published according to law. 16 17 Mayor 18 19 I,ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing 20 ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of ,2004, 21 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 22 ,2004, by the following vote: 23 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 24 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 25 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 26 27 City Clerk 28 4 3/13/2004 1 (4) Light wells. A light well may extend up to three(3) feet into a side setback so long as the 2 outermost edge of the light well is at least three (3) feet from any lot line. 3 4 Section 4. A new Section 25.28.074 is added as follows: 5 25.28.074 Placement of light wells and exit wells. 6 (a) Light wells shall meet the following requirements: 7 (1)Not be located in the front of a dwelling unit; and 8 (2)In the rear of a dwelling unit,not be wider than three(3) feet nor have a cumulative length 9 of more than twenty-five(25) feet; and 10 (3) On a side of a dwelling unit,not extend more than three(3)feet from the dwelling unit nor 11 have a maximum length of more than 15 feet; and 12 (4)Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by 13 roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. 14 (b)Exit wells shall meet the following requirements: 15 (1)Be located only in the rear of a dwelling unit,not be wider than three(3) feet, and not hav,- 16 a cumulative length of more than twenty-five (25) feet; and 17 (2)Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by 18 roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. 19 20 Section 5. Section 25.28.090 is amended to read as follows: 21 25.28.090 Multiple lots developed with a single structure. 22 (a) This section shall apply to all lots which t are required to obtain a conditional use permit 23 pursuant to section 25.28.030 (5) or (6). Demolition of existing structures or construction of new 24 structures upon any such lot shall not be commenced until and unless a conditional use permit and any 25 variances and special permits required by this section and a building permit are first obtained. 26 (b) In considering the conditional use permit for either standard or substandard lots the 27 commission shall evaluate in addition to the criteria for a conditional use permit: 28 (1)The design of the house and all accessory structures shall be subject to design review criteri. 2 3/13/2004 ���CITY ,w STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b MTG. A� 6:0 DATE 4.05.04 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sIIBMITTED BY DATE: MARCH 24, 2004 APPROVED FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONIN REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS Introduction: City Council should set the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to establish new regulations for development on creek side lots in the R-1 (single family) zoning district. Staff would recommend that this item be set for public hearing at your meeting on April 19, 2004. Introduction requires the following council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on March 8, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) to recommended to the City Council for approval new regulations for development on all creek side lots in the City. (See Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 attached) It should be noted that the Commission held a public hearing on the proposed regulations for emerging legal lots and new regulations for development on creek side lots at the same time. The regulations on for creek side lot development will apply to all creek side lots in the city; those which are currently developed with single family houses and those yet to be created by subdivision or emerging lot lines. BACKGROUND: After completing design review for development proposals on several individually unique creek side lots, the Planning Commission asked its Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee if they could make some recommendations to the Commission for new regulations for development on creek side lots. Among the Issues on creek side lots identified which needed to be addressed were: ■ There should be a minimum setback from the top of bank on creek side lots and new structures should not be allowed to cantilever over creeks and visually enclose or reduce/remove the sense of creek; ■ Protection of existing mature trees and the sense of vegetated open space offered to neighborhoods by the creeks; INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS April S,2004 ■ Orienting development and design toward the creek and taking advantage of the creek side setting; ■ Fitting the house into the site, under the tree canopy, and scaled to the developable area on the site, not necessarily the square footage of the entire lot including the unbuildable area; ■ Insuring that development respects the existing development on the sides of the lot which are not affected by the creek and avoid large massing along property lines away from the creek. The proposed creek side regulations are summarized below. Also attached to the staff report are the annotations staff prepared which explain the reasoning behind each of the proposed regulations or standards to address future development on creek side lots. The annotations also address issues raised and changes proposed by the Subcommittee and Planning Commission during their discussions regarding creek side lot development in the R-1 zone. (See Planning Commission Minutes January 12 2004, February 23, 2004, March 8, 2004) Summary Regulations to Address Development on Creek Side Lots in the R-1 Zone The proposed creek side regulations include the following proposals: ■ A definition for"creek side lot" based on 1989 studies done by the Public Works Department to define the city's creeks called the"1989 Creek Map". ■ A definition of"developable area on a creek side lot" based on the city's subdivision regulations which evolved from the 1989 Creek Map and require, to be developable, a creek side lot to have 60% of its area contiguous, and out side of the 100 year flood flow limit on the lot. ■ Makes all development or remodel on creek side lots subject to a conditional use permit; allows an exception for less than 100 square feet. ■ Establish new development regulations for development on creek side lots: o All structures set back a minimum of 6 feet from the 100 year flood flow limit on the lot; and o Floor area ratio will be calculated on the developable portion of the lot( e.g. the area above the 100 year flood flow limit which is contiguous, greater than 60% of the total lot area, and has 12 feet of street frontage); and o Lot coverage shall be calculated on the developable portion of the lot(e.g. the area above the 100 year flood flow limit which is contiguous, greater than 60% of the total lot area, and has 12 feet of street frontage); and o Possibilities for basements and swimming pools will be determined after soils and arborist studies have determined that the excavation will not cause bank failure or kill protected trees; and o Height of any structure to be built will be limited by existing protected tree canopy if that canopy height is less than the structural height allowed on the lot without tree cover; General Plan Compliance The proposed changes to the zoning regulations will affect the areas of the City with the land use designation of low density residential (up to 8 dwelling units per acre) in the City's adopted Land Use Element. These new regulations will address residential development on creek side lots and modify the density of development allowed on these specific lots to address the community need for protection from flooding, increased erosion of creek beds and banks, and to conserve the role of the creek areas within the existing residential neighborhoods which they cross. The densities proposed are consistent with the single family residential densities allowed in the General Plan since the minimum lot sizes established in the zoning code or established in the original subdivisions will be met. The specific community needs addressed in the regulations such as flooding, erosion and protection of neighborhood open space also conform to the goals INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS April 5,2004 and policies in the Conservation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. Finally, the proposed new regulations are consistent with the Housing Element since the areas affected will remain designated for residential development and no affected properties are identified as sites with potential to meet the city's mandated housing needs for affordable housing. Environmental Review The provisions of this code amendment are categorical exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15332 In-fill Development Projects (a) (e), The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation; and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Regulations, Class 5, (a) minor lot line adjustments, side yard and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. ATTACHMENTS: Annotated Development Standards for Development on Creek Side Lots as Recommended by Planning Commission, March 24, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 Draft, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending the Zoning Code to Better Regulate Construction on Lots Along Creeks. U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR2004\lntroCreekSideLotReg 4.5.04.doc CITY STAFF REPORT 9IJRLJNGAMIE AGENDA ITEM# 8b MTG. DATE 4.05.04 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE:• _MARCH 24,2004 GG?� APPROVED FRom: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONIN REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS Introduction: City Council should set the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to establish new regulations for development on creek side lots in the R-1 (single family) zoning district. Staff would recommend that this item be set for public hearing at your meeting on April 19, 2004. Introduction requires the following council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed �— adoption. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on March 8, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) to recommended to the City Council for approval new regulations for development on all creek side lots in the City. (See Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 attached) It should be noted that the Commission held a public hearing on the proposed regulations for emerging legal lots and new regulations for development on creek side lots at the same time. The regulations on for creek side lot development will apply to all creek side lots in the city;those which are currently developed with single family houses and those yet to be created by subdivision or emerging lot lines. BACKGROUND: After completing design review for development proposals on several individually unique creek side lots, the Planning Commission asked its Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee if they could make some recommendations to the Commission for new regulations for development on creek side lots. Among the Issues on creek side lots identified which needed to be addressed were: ■ There should be a minimum setback from the top of bank on creek side lots and new structures should not be allowed to cantilever over creeks and visually enclose or reduce/remove the sense of creek; �. ■ Protection of existing mature trees and the sense of vegetated open space offered to neighborhoods by the creeks; INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS April S,2004 ■ Orienting development and design toward the creek and taking advantage of the creek side setting; --� ■ Fitting the house into the site, under the tree canopy, and scaled to the developable area on the site, not necessarily the square footage of the entire lot including the unbuildable area; ■ Insuring that development respects the existing development on the sides of the lot which are not affected by the creek and avoid large massing along property lines away from the creek. The proposed creek side regulations are summarized below. Also attached to the staff report are the annotations staff prepared which explain the reasoning behind each of the proposed regulations or standards to address future development on creek side lots. The annotations also address issues raised and changes proposed by the Subcommittee and Planning Commission during their discussions regarding creek side lot development in the R-1 zone. (See Planning Commission Minutes January 12 2004, February 23, 2004, March 8, 2004) Summary Regulations to Address Development on Creek Side Lots in the R-1 Zone The proposed creek side regulations include the following proposals: ■ A definition for"creek side lot" based on 1989 studies done by the Public Works Department to define the city's creeks called the"1989 Creek Map". ■ A definition of"developable area on a creek side lot" based on the city's subdivision regulations which evolved from the 1989 Creek Map and require, to be developable, a creek side lot to have 60% of its area contiguous, and out side of the 100 year flood flow limit on the lot. ■ Makes all development or remodel on creek side lots subject to a conditional use permit; allows an exception for less than 100 square feet. ■ Establish new development regulations for development on creek side lots: o All structures set back a minimum of 6 feet from the 100 year flood flow limit on the lot; and o Floor area ratio will be calculated on the developable portion of the lot(e.g.the area above the 100 year flood flow limit which is contiguous, greater than 60% of the total lot area, and has 12 feet of street frontage); and o Lot coverage shall be calculated on the developable portion of the lot(e.g. the area above the 100 year flood flow limit which is contiguous, greater than 60% of the total lot area, and has 12 feet of street frontage); and o Possibilities for basements and swimming pools will be determined after soils and arborist studies have determined that the excavation will not cause bank failure or kill protected trees; and o Height of any structure to be built will be limited by existing protected tree canopy if that canopy height is less than the structural height allowed on the lot without tree cover; General Plan Compliance The proposed changes to the zoning regulations will affect the areas of the City with the land use designation of low density residential (up to 8 dwelling units per acre) in the City's adopted Land Use Element. These new regulations will address residential development on creek side lots and modify the density of development allowed on these specific lots to address the community need for protection from flooding, increased erosion of creek beds and banks, and to conserve the role of the creek areas within the existing residential neighborhoods which they cross. The densities proposed are consistent with the single family residential densities allowed in the General Plan since the minimum lot sizes established in the zoning code or established in the original subdivisions will be met. The specific community needs addressed in the regulations such as flooding, erosion and protection of neighborhood open space also conform to the goals INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS April S,2004 and policies in the Conservation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. Finally, the proposed new -egulations are consistent with the Housing Element since the areas affected will remain designated for I-- ;sidential development and no affected properties are identified as sites with potential to meet the city's mandated housing needs for affordable housing. Environmental Review The provisions of this code amendment are categorical exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15332 In-fill Development Projects (a) (e), The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation; and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Regulations, Class 5, (a) minor lot line adjustments, side yard and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. ATTACHMENTS: Annotated Development Standards for Development on Creek Side Lots as Recommended by Planning Commission, March 24, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 Draft, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending the Zoning Code to Better Regulate Construction on Lots Along Creeks. U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR2004\IntroCreekSideLotReg 4.5.04.doc AGENDA BAR"" AME STAFF REPORT ' ITEM # 8C DATE 4/05/04 i, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: MARCH 23, 2004 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTE 11 .04 AND 12 . 12 FOR A FIVE YEAR SUNSET CLAUSE OBLIGATING OWNERS TO MAINTAIN AND REPAIR SIDEWALKS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council begin adoption of the attached ordinance for a five year sunset clause obligating property owners to maintain and repair sidewalks by: A. Requesting City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waiving further reading of the ordinance. , C. Introducing the proposed ordinance. D. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: On March 15, 2004, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1732 which amended the Municipal Code to require adjoining property owners to maintain and repair sidewalks in safe conditions. With adoption of the ordinance, staff was requested by Council to include a five-year sunset clause. DISCUSSION: The amended ordinance includes a sunset clause of five years and ceases to be effective on March 31 , 2009. If the economic conditions improve and the City is able to fund sidewalk replacement, Ordinance No. 1732 can be repealed within the five-year period. Unless a subsequent ordinance states otherwise, the provisions of Sections 12. 12.005, 12. 12.010, 12. 12.015, and 12. 12.020 prior to Ordinance No. 1732, shall be reinstated at the expiration of Ordinance No. 1732. EXHIBITS: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: When Ordinance No. 1732 expires or with a subsequent ordinance, property owners will no longer be responsible for the cost of the program. As a result, the City will need to increase the CIP budget to pay for the cost of sidewalk replacement adjacent to private properties. c: City Clerk, City Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Sidewalk2004-3.wpd 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING AN EXPIRATION DATE FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1732,WHICH RESTORED THE OBLIGATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW 4 5 6 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 7 8 Section 1. On March 15,2004,the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the Municipal 9 Code to require property owners to maintain the sidewalks adjacent to their properties in a safe 10 condition. For single-family residential properties,this was a change in a policy that had been adopted 11 in 1990. The Council would like to ensure that this change is reviewed in the hope that economic 12 conditions will allow the policy to be reconsidered if the City is in a more advantageous position in 13 financial terms. 14 15 Section 2. Ordinance No. 1732 shall be effective until March 31,2009,unless earlier repealed. 16 and shall have no further force and effect beyond that date. If Ordinance No. 1732 ceases to be effective, 17 the provisions of Sections 12.12.005,12.12.010, 12.12.015,and 12.12.020 in effect when Ordinance No. 18 1732 was adopted shall be reinstated unless otherwise provided by an ordinance subsequent to this one. 19 20 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 21 22 Mayor 23 24 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing 25 ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 52004, 26 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2004, by the 27 following vote: 28 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4/5/2004 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 4/5/2004 CITY AGENDA STAFF REPORT ITEM# 8d 4"grEMTG. DATE 4/5/2004 } ( _ v TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: April 5, 2004 APPROVED BY FROM: Lam E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO CHANGE TO CITY ORDINANCE 13.40.030—TIME OF OPERATION OF PARKING METERS The process for introducing this ordinance regarding the extension of parking meter operation to 6 p.m. is as follows: A. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before proposed adoption. Attached please find the proposed ordinance. Attachment Proposed Ordinance I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 13.40.030 TO CHANGE THE PARKING METER OPERATION TO RUN TO 6 P.M. FROM 5 P.M. TO 3 CONFORM TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The off-street parking meters have always been established to run to 6 p.m. Because 8 of longer shopping hours and ongoing need to ensure that access to short-term meters is provided by 9 effective enforcement,the hours for on-street parking meters should also run to 6 p.m. This is consistent 10 with the hour restrictions themselves. 11 12 Section 2. Section 13.40.030 is amended to read as follows: 13 13.40.030 Time of operation of parking meters. 14 The provisions of this title relating to the operation of parking meters shall be effective between 15 the hours of eight a.m. and five p.m-sib on every day except Sundays and holidays. 16 17 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 18 19 Mayor 20 21 I,ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing 22 ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 52004, 23 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of ,20045 by the 24 following vote: 25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 26 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 27 28 City Clerk 4/5/2004 CIT AGENDA 8e 4RyUAjf_MjE °a. ITEM#STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE -April 5, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBM BY I *Akn DATE: March 26, 2004 APP`RO D FROM: Netie Shinday (558-7204) BY SUBJECT: Commission Vacancies RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council should call for applications for the following commissions: Commission Filing Deadline Planning April 30, 2004 Library Board May 28, 2004 The Mayor and Council should determine two-member committees to perform the interviews. 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 the upcoming months, the following commissioners' terms will expire: Term Terms Commissioner Commission Expiration Served Ralph Osterling Planning 04-07-04 1 Cecile Coar Library Board 06-30-04 2 Catherine McCormack Library Board 06-30-04 1 Exhibit A: Resolution 33-2003: Establishing Revised Procedure for Appointments to City Commissions and Boards RESOLUTION NO. 33-2003 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING R-9VISED PROCEDURE FOR APPOINTMENTS TO CITY COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, Resolution No. 21-94 established procedures to be used in the appointment of citizens to City commissions and boards; and WHEREAS,the City has implemented additional questionnaires and some of the procedures in Resolution No. 21-94 seem unclear or sometimes unworkable; and WHEREAS, it is important that these procedures be as clear as possible so that they can be applied in a consistent manner, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Procedures for Appointments to City Commissions and Boards contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved., 2. This Resolution supersedes the provisions of Resolution No. 21-94. MAYOR I, ANN.T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was intro4uced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18thiay of March 2003, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BAYLOCK, COFFEY, GALLIGAN; JANNEY, O'MAHONY v NOES. COUNCILMEMBERS. NONE "J ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Clkk CLERK PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO CITY COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS 1. Application Dates. a. The City Manager will report when the term of office of a commissioner or board member will be expiring to the City Council approximately thirty(30)days in advance. The City Manager will also report any board or commission vacancy to the City Council. b. The City Council will then determine what deadlines for applications will apply for each board or commission. Generally,deadlines will be three(3)or more weeks following the Council's determination. The City Council may extend the deadlines as the Council may deem appropriate. 2. Advertisement. The City Clerk will post notice of the vacancies and deadlines at City Hall,the Main Library,and such additional places as the City Clerk determines may be helpful. For unscheduled vacancies,the City Clerk will also post notices as required by Government Code section 54974. 3. Applications. a. A standard application form together with supplemental questions will be provided by the City Manager to persons interested in appointment to a vacant office. b. Incumbent commissioners and§oazd members seeking reappointment,as well as new applicants,will complete the application forms and return them to the City Manager by the designated deadline in order to be considered for appointment. However,a board member or commissioner who has been appointed to fill an unexpired term within the previous 12 months will not be required to complete and file an application. C. Applicants are expected to have attended at least one meeting of the board or commission for which they are seeking appointment. d. Applications will only be accepted for specific vacancies. Persons who have applied for previous vacancies will be kept on an interest list for a period of 2 years by the City Manager and be mailed notices of pending vacancies during that ' period. 4. Interviews. a. The Mayor will appoint an ad hoc interview committee of two councilmembers to interview the applicants for each board or commission. 1 3/18/2003 b. The committee will interview all applicants, including incumbents, who have submitted application forms by the designated deadline. If an applicant is unable to interview with the committee at the time appointed by the committee because of a personal emergency or other compelling reason, the committee will make an attempt to reschedule the appointment but is not required to do so. The committee may conduct interviews by telephone so long as both committee members are physically present in the same room. However, a candidate who is unable to be interviewed will be dropped from consideration. C. Following the interviews, the committee will make its recommendation for appointments to the full Council. Interview committees shall provide their recommendations in writing no later than the beginning of the Council meeting at which the appointments are to be made. Recommendations need not be unanimous. 5. Appointments. a. Appointments are made at regular or special meetings of the City Council by open motion and voting. The interview committee will report their recommendations to the Council. Ballots will not be used. b. If there is more than one office to fill on a board or commission, the Mayor may direct that the voting be conducted on an applicant pool basis; in other words, the City Clerk is asked to read the name of each candidate with each Councilmember entitled to vote for the number of applicants equal to the number of open positions, with a majority vote required to appoint an applicant; if the Council is unable to reach a majority vote to fill the offices, an applicant receiving the fewest votes will be dropped through each voting cycle, until the required number of appointments are made. C. If the Council is unable to reach the necessary number of appointments for whatever reason, the Council may then proceed to seek additional applicants, continue the appointment process, or take such other action as the Council may deem appropriate. 6. Terms of Office. Commissioners and board members are appointed for only a single term, and there is no expectation of reappointment. Terms of office will comply with the provisions of the Municipal Code, or in the case of the Library Board of Trustees, the California Education Code. 7. Local Appointment List. The City Clerk shall maintain and provide the Local Appointment List as required by Government Code section 54972 and following. 2 3/18/2003 CiTr AGENDA 8 f AINUGAMt) oITEM#STAFF REPORT MTG. e' DATE 4/5/2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED / BY . (/ DATE: April 1, 2004 APPROVE BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: UPDATE ON PG&E'S PROPOSED JEFFERSON-MARTIN ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE The hearing process from the Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded at the end of last month. On March 4, 2004, the parties, including the City, filed closing briefs, and on March 18, 2004, the parties filed reply briefs. This brought the ALJ process to a close. The ALJ will now review the hearing testimony and briefs and issue a recommended decision in late spring or early summer that will go forward to the Commission for final decision. City staff has spoken and met with representatives of the Skyline and Trousdale neighborhoods as well as with the Burlingame Elementary School District. The City has received a draft ordinance from Dennis Zell, who is working with citizens in the Trousdale neighborhood. We have discussed various alternatives and approaches and done some preliminary research on various legal theories. We expect that we will continue that effort in the coming week or two and would be able to return to you on the April 19 or May 2 with additional information. AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT -�' f ITEM# 9a MTG. 4/05/04 D TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ' DATE: MARCH 23, 2004 BY AP7/*�� FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT:TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATibN OF PORTION OF LOT 16, LOT 15 AND PORTION OF LOT 16, BLOCK 2, AND PORTION OF SAN MATEO AVENUE (APN 029-053-090)AND LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 1, PORTIONS OF LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 2, AND PORTION OF SAN MATEO AVENUE (APN 029-053-100), DE COULON SUBDIVISION, 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, PM 04-01 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve this map. This action should be considered as approving both the Tentative and Final Map to facilitate processing. Following are the conditions: • A final parcel map for a lot merger shall be filed by the applicant within the time period allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance. • All property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map. • The final map shall show the width of the right-of-way for California Drive, Oak Grove Avenue and Palm Drive, including the centerline of the right-of-way, bearings and distance of the centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. • All existing easements shall be retained. • All damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new. BACKGROUND: On March 8, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached report and the Tentative and Final Parcel Map. The Planning Commission found that all requirements were met and recommended that Council approve the map with the above conditions. EXHIBITS: Tentative and Final Map, Staff Report, Planning Commission Minutes Victor V ng Assist nt ngineer c: City Clerk, Applicant S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\04-01.STF.wpd BURLINGAME MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DATE: FEBRUARY 24,2004 RE: TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PORTION OF LOT 16, BLOCK 1, LOT 15 AND PORTION OF LOT 16, BLOCK 2, AND PORTION OF SAN MATEO AVENUE (APN 029-053-090) AND LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 1, PORTIONS OF LOTS 13 AND 14, BLOCK 2, AND PORTION OF SAN MATEO AVENUE(APN 029-053-100), 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,PM 04-01 This application is to combine two (2) existing lots into one (1) lot at 755 California Drive. The applicant is proposing an on-site improvement which will require a lot combination in order to meet the zoning code. There are no comments from the Building Department and Planning Department. There will be no new easements created by this map; all easements shown on the map are existing. The map application is complete and therefore may be recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A final parcel map for lot merger must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this map should be considered as both the tentative and final map to facilitate processing. 2. All property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map. 3. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for California Drive, Oak Grove Avenue and Palm Drive, including the centerline of right-of-way, bearing and distance of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 4. All existing easements shall be retained except as noted. 5. All damaged sidewalk,curb and gutters shall be replaced with new. Exhibit: Tentative Map&Assessor's Map /11iictor oong ssi t Engineer U:WICTOR\Projects\Private1PM04.01.wpd City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 8,2004 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. 2A. 1225 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(BRET BOTTARINI, APPLICANT,PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2B. 888 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C4—APPLICATION FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND VARIANCES FOR A NEW SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING(KIRK SYME,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (4 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2C. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2—APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION(CHARLES L. KAVANAGH,APPLICANT;HENRY HORN AND SONS, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (52 NOTICED)PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Chair Boju6s asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner noted that would like the applicant at 1225 Cabrillo to consider adding a water table detail to enhance the appearance of the structure,it would allow him to break up the mass and use two colors on the house. Asked if this should be added as a condition,Commissioner noted that it was just a suggestion and if employed would not require additional review. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar including the suggestion that a water table feature be added to the design at 1225 Cabrillo based on the facts in the staff report,commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGUL ACTION ITE 3. 11 DRAKE AVE E, ZONED R-1 — AYAICATION FOR DE GN REVIEW AND SPECIAL RMIT FOR DE WING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AXD SECOND STORY DTTION AND DETACH GARAGE (GREG TEkRY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNS , ESSALAT HEKMAT HITECTS ARCHIT T) (65 NOTICED PROIECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Refere staff report March 8, 04,with attachments. In Barber presented th eport,reviewed teria and ff comments. Ten citions were suggeste or consideration. hair Bojues opened e public hearing. Es lat Hekmat, 312 N. S Mateo Drive, S Mateo, project architect was avai le to answer questio . Noted that resubm' ed plans after s meeting and ve removed varian s from proposal. Co ission noted that on a landscape plan a front right si of the driveway to s bare, can youad a tree. Essalat He at noted that the andscape pl is still in developm t and could add a tre n the front. Commiss' n noted that a tree' front would b ance the birch trees, . 1 look nice and wil elp set the house ba . There were no er commen s and the public hearing was closed. 2 NOW AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM# 9b MT DA D TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ZeLDATE: BY APPROVt FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY L� SUBJECT: WEEDS AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPE Y - JOB NO. 81020 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution setting a public hearing for May 17, 2004 for the 2004 Weed and Rubbish Abatement Program on public and private properties. BACKGROUND: Each year the City establishes the Weed and Rubbish Abatement Program to abate weeds on public and private properties. Once the hearing date is set,property owners will be notified to abate their weeds. At the public hearing, property owners objecting to such proceedings may be heard. BUDGET IMPACT: Staff time will be spent on this program as in previous years. Work authorized by the City to remove weeds and rubbish on private property will be paid for by liens assessed with the tax roll in July of this year. EXHIBIT: Resolution Syed Wrtuza, P.E. City Engineer (650) 558-7230 c: City Attorney City Clerk f\apublicworksdir\staffreports\weeds.stf RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING NOXIOUS AND DANGEROUS WEEDS AND RUBBISH A NUISANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11.08 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME, that: WHEREAS,all weeds growing upon any private property or in any public street, lane,way or alley within the City which bear seeds of a wingy or downy nature, or which, because of having attained such a large growth and being dry, shall become a fire menace, or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous,and all rubbish,refuse,or piled dirt in parkways,sidewalks or private property constitute a public nuisance, and WHEREAS, it is the obligation of each owner of real property to maintain its property free of nuisances, including the adjacent parkways pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT these nuisances exist upon streets,squares,lanes,alleys,avenues,courts,parkways,private property and places within the City of Burlingame, and these weeds, rubbish, and refuse do now constitute a public nuisance. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND ORDERED THAT these public nuisances be abated without delay pursuant to law. Unless these nuisances are abated without delay, the City of Burlingame may perform this abatement with its own forces or by contract, and the expense of that abatement may be assessed and charged against the property from which the nuisance is removed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a public hearing shall be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 17, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of the City of Burlingame, located at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, for the time and place for the City Council to 1 receive and hear objections to the proposed removal of such weeds, rubbish, and refuse. Any interested person may submit oral or written comments prior to or at this public hearing. The City Engineer is hereby ordered and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be given in the time, manner, and form provided by law. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 , 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK SAA Public Works Directory\MISCELLANEOUS\WEED RES#I.wpd.RES 2 SWI AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM# 9C DATE 4/05/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: MARCH 24, 2004 BY APPRO FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT AMENDM T NO. 1 WITH CONTROL MANUFACTURING COMPANY TO PROVIDE PHASE 2 OF THE CITYWIDE SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION (SCADA) SYSTEM INTEGRATION - CITY PROJECT NO. 9940 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for Agreement Amendment No. 1 for the subject work to Control Manufacturing Company of Napa, California, in the amount of$234,836. BACKGROUND: On December 2, 2002, Council awarded a contract to Control Manufacturing Company for the design, construction, start up and training of Phase 1 of the SCADA System, including the central control center,telemetry(radio)system,and major operational stations within the City's water,wastewater and storm drain operational systems. Control Manufacturing Company,a designibuild SCADA integration company,has met all the requirements for the design, furnishing of equipment, and installation of Phase 1 and is presently testing and starting up the project. DISCUSSION Staff is returning to Council for approval of a contract amendment for Phase 2, which includes furnishing and installing SCADA equipment for four stormwater pump stations, one water connection with San Francisco, Washington Park well and design drawings for a future San Francisco water connection and pressure-reducing valve locations as described in attached Exhibit A. All work will be performed in accordance with the Phase 1 design and installation contract specifications. It is estimated that Phase 2 will be completed by March 2005. Staff will return to Council in FY 2004-05 for approval of an agreement amendment to complete Phase 3 of this project. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Agreement Amendment No. 1 BUDGET IMPACT: The 2003-04 Capital Improvement Budget, including the General (320), Water(326) and Sewer(327) includes funding for these services. The estimated costs are: Design and construction $234,836 Contingencies $ 23,484 Staff Administration& Inspections 43,500 $301,820 Doug Bea,, . ., Senior Civil Engineer 650-558-7230 c: City Clerk S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9940 AGR AMEND 1 SCADA.wpd RESOLUTION NO. AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO AGREEMENT WITH CONTROL MANUFACTURING COMPANY TO PROVIDE PHASE 2 OF THE CITYWIDE SCADA SYSTEM INTEGRATION CITY PROJECT NO. 9940 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 , 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROVIDE PHASE 2 OF THE CITYWIDE SCADA SYSTEM INTEGRATION CITY PROJECT NO. 9940 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into this day of , 2004, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME,a municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as"CITY"and CONTROL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT," WITNESSETH : WHEREAS,CITY and CONSULTANT have previously entered into an agreement for certain services, said agreement being dated DECEMBER 2, 2002; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties to amend said agreement as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amendment of Agreement Said agreement dated DECEMBER 2, 2002, is hereby amended to include those revisions in services and compensation set forth in EXHIBIT "A", attached hereto. 2. In all other respects said agreement dated DECEMBER 2, 2002, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME A municipal corporation Approved as to form: By City Manager City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Consultant SAA Public Works DirectoryTORMSTroject Forms\AGREEMENTAMENDMENT.wpd EXHIBIT A Control Manufacturing Company Page 1 of 3 2650 Napa Valley Corporate Drive Napa,California 94558 707.258.8400 Fax:707.258.8465 _. www.controlmanufacturing.com Napa,CA Portland,OR March 22, 2004 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Attention: Mr. Douglas Bell, Senior Engineer and Project Manager Subject: Proposed Phase 2 Project Work for SCADA Integration Project Reference: City of Burlingame Project 9940; CMC Project 2926 Dear Doug, As we approach the successful completion of Phase 1 of the Burlingame Citywide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System implementation, I thank you for the opportunity to furnish this System. I also thank you for the opportunity to provide a Quotation for continuation of this contract in Phase 2 (attached). Control Manufacturing Company (CMC)has used the same prices per site as in our original quote, except in cases of modified scope. Work will be in accordance with the provisions of the Phase 1 contract. A Schedule is also attached. Phase 2 will include completion of hardware installation for four storm drain pump stations (Adrian, Marsten, 1740 Rollins, and Cowan), which were previously programming-only sites. Four sites (Easton& El Camino Turnout, Fairfield & El Camino Turnout, Fey & Canyon Pressure Reducing Valve, and Adeline & Hillside PRV) are quoted for site drawings only. Balboa& Broadway Turnout is quoted with a special custom-designed enclosure to accommodate the area landscape. Washington Park Well is quoted as a fully-integrated Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) site, rather than as the originally-specified stand-alone Wonderware PC site. As in Phase 1, 1 will be CMC's Project Manager, and Atlas-Pellizzari Electric will be our installation subcontractor. We look forward to working with you, your staff, and CyberNet Consulting on Phase 2 of this project. Sincerely, Brendan L. Doss, PE, PMP, CBM Senior Project Manager Control Manufacturing Company, Inc. CMC, Inc is certified by the Control and Information Systems Integrator Association www.controlsys.org P. 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME Control Manufacturing Company Citywide SCADA System Phase 2 3/22/2004 B Doss City Project#79400 CMC Project#2926 Phasell Phase 2 Total ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 Easton PS $ 35,006.00 $ 35,006.00 2 Trousdale PS $ 54,443.00 $ 54,443.00 3 Hillside PS and Resewrvoir $ 55,504.00 $ 55,504.00 4 Donnelly PS&Reservoir $ 61,262.00 $ 61,262.00 5 Mills Reservoir $ 26,807.00 $ 26,807.00 6 Alcazar Reservoir $ 35,096.00 $ 35,096.00 7 Skyline PS&Reservoir $ 58,121.00 $ 58,121.00 8 Adrian Storm Drain PS $ 7,869.00 $ 38,815 $ 46,684.00 9 Marsten Storm Drain PS $ 10,728.00 $ 42,373 $ 53,101.00 10 1740 Rollins Storm Drain PS $ 10,217.00 $ 42,000 $ 52,217.00 11 Cowan Storm PS $ 11,781.00 $ 43,000 $ 54,781.00 12 Mitten Road Sewer PS 13 Gilbreth Sewer PS $ 40,243.00 $ 40,243.00 14 1740 Rollins Sewer PS $ 44,528.00 $ 44,528.00 15 Hyatt Sewer PS(program only) $ 7,140.00 $ 7,140.00 16 Airport Sewer PS $ 41,591.00 $ 41,591.00 17 399 Rollins Sewer PS $ 40,757.00 $ 40,757.00 18 1000 Rollins Sewer PS $ 10,640.00 $ 10,640.00 19 Wastewater Treatment Plant $ 12,961.00 $ 12,961.00 20 Library $ 15,578.00 $ 15,578.00 21 Driving Range Sewer LS#1 22 Driving Range Sewer LS#2 23 Marsten#2 SD PS 24 California&Grove Storm Drain PS $ 21,977.00 $ 21,977.00 25 Marco Polo Turnout(PG&E by City) $ 27,059.00 $ 27,059.00 26 Magnolia&Trousdale Turnout $ 25,733.00 $ 25,733.00 27 Easton&ECR Turnout $ 1,200 $ 1,200.00 28 Balboa&Broadway Turnout(PG&E by City) $ 31,343 $ 31,343.00 29 Pepper&Chapin Turnout(PG&E by City) $ 24,781.00 $ 24,781.00 30 Fairfield&ECR Turnout $ 1,200 $ 1,200.00 31 Fey&Canyon PRV $ 1,200 $ 1,200.00 32 Adeline&Hillside PRV $ 1,200 $ 1,200.00 33 Washington Park Well $ 32,505 $ 32,505.00 34 Central Site $ 280,400.00 $ 280,400.00 35 Mobilization,Bonds&Insurance $ 13,114.00 $ 13,114.00 CCO CCO#1-5 $ 84,961.09 $ 84,961.09 TOTAL $ 1,058,297.09 $ 234,836 $ 1,293,133 Page 1 of 1 Burlingame Citywide SCADA Integration Project Phase 2 I / IAJ ID Task Name Qtr 2 2004 Qtr 3 2004 Qtr 4 2004 Qtr 1 2005 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 1 Burlingame Citywide SCADA Integration Project Phase 2 2 Project Initialization 3 Phase 2 Design & Development 4 Phase 2 Factory Assembly & Testing 5 Phase 2 Construction & Commissioning 6 Phase 2 Closeout -0 m a x ca = CD 0 -fi D W Control Manufacturing Company - Tue 3/23/04 10:06 AM Page 1 BURLINGAMEA Agenda STAFF REPORT Item# 9d Date Date 4/5/04 SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BY: APPROVED DATE: MARCH 24, 2004 BY: FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS — CITY JOB NO. 80770 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing a professional services agreement amendment with The Culver Group (TCG) in the amount of$98,652. BACKGROUND: City Council has approved an annual water system capital improvements program (CIP) budget of$4,500,000 to replace aging water system infrastructure within the City of Burlingame. The first CIP project under this program involves the replacement of undersized, inaccessible water mains at the end of their service life located within the Burlinghome and Easton Subdivision Nos. 5 and 7. Due to the volume of work, the construction of this project is being phased over two years. In September 2002, City Council authorized a professional services agreement with TCG in the amount of$509,265 to prepare a design for both a 2002-03 construction package and a 2003-04 construction package. TCG has completed the designs, and Phase I is currently being constructed by Shaw Pipeline. Phase 11 construction will be bid in April 2004. DISCUSSION: In order to successfully complete the designs, the following additional services were required of TCG: • Design of Three Pressure-Reducing Valve Stations ($17,327) These stations were deemed necessary after design began in order to accomplish the conversion from chlorine to chloramine water disinfection. • Design of Residential Electrical Grounding System ($6,480) Upon investigation, it was discovered that older homes' electrical systems were grounded to the water system that was to be replaced. As a result, the design of new electrical grounding was required. • Preparation of Additive Bid Items ($8,680) In order to optimize the amount of work that could be completed with additional funds available from favorable bond sales, TCG prepared additive bid items for inclusion in the Phase I project bid package. • Additional Field Trips to Complete House Designs ($56,430) The agreement had assumed that the design of individual service connections would take 1.5 hours. However, after careful review by staff, 2.25 hours of design time per house was justifiable based on the more extensive citizen contact involved to resolve plumbing issues. • Preparation of an additional Design Package ($9,735) The original agreement contemplated the preparation of two design packages. However due to favorable bond sales and construction bids, staff requested TCG to prepare an additional design package for a change order to Shaw Pipeline which involved new services to 100 more houses. Staff Report 5 April 2004 Page 2 of 2 SUMMARY: The City selected TCG as the consultant from a group of six proposing firms as the best qualified to perform the design. To date, construction has proceeded with very few change orders in large part due to the quality of TCG's design. The total design cost of$607,917 represents 13% of the estimated two-year construction cost of$4,630,000. As this is within the 10%to 15% civil engineering standard range for projects of this complexity, staff believes the amendment is reasonable and recommends Council approval. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Agreement Amendment No. 1 BUDGET IMPACT: Sufficient funds are available in the 2003/2004 Water System CIP budget for the additional work. c: City Clerk, City Attorney, EKI, The Culver Group RESOLUTION NO. AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO AGREEMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 , 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO.1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS— CITY JOB NO.80770 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into this 6th day of April, 2004, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as"CITY"and The Culver Group, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT have previously entered into an agreement for certain services,said agreement being dated 24 September 2002;and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties to amend said agreement as hereinafter set forth; NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amendment of Agreement Said agreement dated 24 September 2002, is hereby amended to include those revisions in services and compensation set forth in EXHIBIT"A",attached hereto. 2. In all other respects said agreement dated 24 September 2002,shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME A municipal corporation Approved as to form: By City Manager City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk Consultant C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGSISMURTUZALLOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK MMG.DESIGN AMMENDMENT.V1.130C Exhibit A THE CULVER GROUP, INC. Engineering • Construction Management Land Surveying Services 2/09/04 RECEIVED Mr. Matt Zucca FEB 12 2004 Erler & Kalinowski 1870 Ogden Drive ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Burlinghome / Easton Water Main Replacement Project City Project # 80770 Dear Matt: In regards to item # 10 of the response to your letter of September 20, 2003 and our letter of December 9, 2003, where the Culver Group had requested additional contract change order for the amount of $19,470.00. The Culver Group agrees to accept half of the mutually acceptable amount or $9,735.00. This will resolve all of the issues in previous letters. Summary Item 1 $ 17,327 Item 2 $ 0 Item 3 $ 0 Item 4 $ 61480 Item 5 $ 0 Item 6 $ 8,680 Item 7 $ 0 Item 8 $ 56,430 Item 9 $ 0 Item 10 $ 9,735 Total g OR 16c2 We request that you issue a contract amendment for items of mutual agreement. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (925) 556-6252. Sincerely, rPYevhilipovitch, P.E. t Manager cc: Glenn Culver 6850 Regional Street, Ste. 210 • Dublin, California 94568 • (925) 556-6252 Fax (925) 556-3364 9 website—www.culvergroup.com CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLJNGAW AGENDA ITEM# 9e wDq 9,m MTG. 4/5/04 OFA7ED JUNEb DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY r DATE: April 5, 2004 APPRO ' FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention: 4 Broadway Area Business Improvement District—Setting 2004-2005 Assessments RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution of intention and set public hearing. BACKGROUND: Each year a public hearing is scheduled to adopt a resolution of intention for the next fiscal year Broadway area Business Improvement District assessments. The BID Annual Report and 2003- 2004 Budget have been submitted. There are no changes in boundaries, assessments or classification. The recommended hearing date is May 3, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. BUDGET IMPACT: Approximately$25,000 in assessments are collected annually with our business licenses. All of these funds are forwarded to the Broadway Improvement District for improvements as authorized the BID Board of Directors. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT d • 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010 � � r Ay .®� February 26, 2004 m City Manager ° City of Burlingame T c/o Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District ,®o 1399 Broadway ®a= Burlingame, CA 94010-3422 n m �Ld`+ Dear City Manager: ° RE: BID Annual Report and 2003-2004 Budget Y-2�nf2A)S� Ate_ I The BID proposes no changes in boundaries or assessments. W Budget outline for fiscal 2004-2005 activities (in percent of total revenue): z w A Streetscap e Beautification 75% -rmo B) Seasonal Decorations 5% y C) Burlingame Shuttle 20% X11 Detail of Funds as of of Funds as of Janua�31, 2004. (Funds on Hand)2004. (Funds on Hand) ® 1ii f EM Income Received N Interest Income $ 125.99 2 BID Assessment Collected 24,342.50 Other Income 240.00 md��oozN Total Income Received $24,708.49 a7 W v xm IVY 0 Z 0® ff]8Lid Page 2 of 2 BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT • 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010 y e� Expenditures " Ay Business Promotion $ 400.00 Shuttle Contribution 5,000.00 ®� Seasonal Decoration Expense 3,347.43 g Streetscape Beautification 16,485.00 m Miscellaneous Expenses 2,014.43 m N Total Expenditures $27246.86 •®� EA Status of Funds as of February 28, 2002 (Funds on Hand) 79 Checking Account 1 $ 3,668.16 e1 0Checking Account II 23,409.41 Checking Account III (Merchants' Association) 2,108.24 Total Funds on Hand $29 1 5 1 `"'r'�' During the fiscal year ended February 28, 2003, the Broadway Burlingame _ ®� Business Improvement District made a three year pledge to the City of Burlingame in the amount of $40,000 to assist the City with its streetscape improvements. Payments on the pledge are as follows: - r tmd $20,000 Year ended February 28, 2003 10,000 Paid November 2003 ^ 10,000 Payable November 2004 $40,000 Total Pledge ® $10,000 Remaining Balance 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at A.V.R. Realty, Inc. (650) 342-2073. - -a Sin ly, T v ED®® Z Ross Bruce �® ®®® President, BID Green & Green, LLP Certified Public Accountants EDMUND M.GREEN 5 Third Street,Suite 616 Phone:415.778.3969 DIANE A.GREEN San Francisco,CA 94103 Fax:415.243.8411 To the Board of Directors Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District Burlingame,CA We have compiled the Statement of Funds — Cash Basis of Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District (a not-for-profit corporation) as of January 31, 2004 and the related Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures — Cash Basis for the period then ended included in the accompanying prescribed form in accordance with Statements and Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The financial statements have been prepared on the cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principals. Our compilation was limited to presenting in the form prescribed by the City of Burlingame information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the financial statements referred to above and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other for of assurance on them. The Statement of Funds—Cash Basis and related Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures — Cash Basis are presented in accordance with the requirements of the City of Burlingame, which differ from generally accepted accounting principals. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such differences. GREEN&GREEN,LLP March 1,2004 Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures - Cash Basis For the Period Ended January 31 , 2004 Income Received Interest Income $ 125.99 BID Assessment Collected 24,342.50 Other Income 240.00 Total Income Received 24,708.49 Expenditures Seasonal Decoration Expense 3,347.43 Streetscape Beautification 16,485.00 Insurance 0.00 Shuttle Contribution 5,000.00 BID Events 0.00 Business Promotion 400.00 Miscellaneous Expenses 2,014.43 Total Expenditures 273246.86 Total Income Received less Expenditures $ <2,538.37> See Auditor's Compilation Report Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District Statement of Funds-Cash Basis For the Eleven Months Ending January 31,2004 Checking Account 1 $ 3,668.16 Checking Account II 23,409.41 Checking Account III(Merchants'Association) 2,108.24 Total $ 29,185.81 See Auditor's Compilation Report RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH 2004-2005 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, AND APPROVING 2003-2004 ANNUAL REPORT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the Broadway Area Business Improvement District was established for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business districts, and WHEREAS, the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board has filed its 2003-2004 annual report and requested the Burlingame City Council to set the assessments for the 2003-2004 year; and WHEREAS, it appears that the Broadway Area Business Improvement District has provided important services in enhancing the District and its businesses and properties, NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. The 2003-2004 annual report of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board is approved. 2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2004-2005 fiscal year on businesses in the District, as the District is described in Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for improvements and activities of the District. 3. The types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. These activities and improvements are without substantial change from those previously 1 established for the District. 4. The method,basis,and amounts for levying the assessments on all businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference, and would remain the same as those levied in the previous fiscal year. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. 6. A public hearing on the proposed assessments for 2004-2005 is hereby set for May 3, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame,at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 7. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at both of the public hearings, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at either public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 8. Oral or written protests maybe made at these hearings. To count in a majority protest against the proposed assessments or programs and services for 2004-2005, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on May 3,2004. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the business and its address,include a description of the business and the number of employees. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the business,then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 9. If at the conclusion of the public hearing,there are of record written protests by the 2 owners of businesses within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District,as to the proposed assessments for 2004-2005, no assessment for 2004-2005 shall occur. If at the conclusion of the public hearing there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to an improvement or activity proposed,then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the District for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. 10. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and changes and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650 - 558-7203. The annual report of the Business Improvement District is on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 510 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 11. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing the notice contained in Exhibit "C" attached to this Resolution as well as this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets & Highways Code and mailing them in accordance with those requirements as applicable. MAYOR I,ANN T.MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the—day of , 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\BDWYINTr2OO4.BID.wpd 4 EXHIBIT A TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Seasonal flags and banners. f. Sidewalk enhancement and maintenance. 2) Business Recruitment and Retention a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive b. Develop strategy to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 3) Commercial Marketing, Public Relations, and Advertising a. Organize special events throughout the year. 4) Shuttle Establish a people mover system between the area and the hotel district, to be funded on a cooperative cost sharing basis. C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\improvmtlis2OOO.bid.wpd EXHIBIT B BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF ** ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RETAIL & 4+ $450 ------------------------ ------------ RESTAURANT 1 - 3 $300 SERVICE ----------3+ -----------------------$250$250 ------------ 1 - 2 $150 PROFESSIONAL ----------3+ -----------------------$200$200 ------------ 1 - 2 $150 FINANCIAL NA $500 * ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working (full time or full time equivalency) including owners, partners, managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions (Burlingame Municipal Code § 6.52.010): Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, etc. Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink. Service ❑ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops, repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc. Professional ❑ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists, physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc. Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, etc. C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\assessbas.bid.wpd EXHIBIT C NOTICE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 54954.6 OF PROPOSED RENEWAL OF BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Burlingame will be considering the following: The proposed assessment basis for 2003-2004 would remain the same as in 2002-2003. The assessments are levied to support activities of the District as described in Exhibit A to the Resolution of Intention that is enclosed. A public hearing on the proposed District programs and the assessments for the 2004- 2005 fiscal year is set for May 3, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. At that time,the Council will hear from any interested person who wishes to submit written or oral testimony regarding the proposed amendment. Oral or written protests may be made before or at that hearing. See the resolution for information on how protests are made and what effect protests have. Further information regarding the proposed assessments may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650-558-7203). Written comments may be directed to the Council at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\notice2.bid.wpd CITY AGENDA 9f °� ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. c=_ DATE 4/5/04 4 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: March 24, 2004 APPROVE FROM: Jill Hipps (558-7204) BY- SUBJECT: Special Event Permit-Bicycle Race in Burlingame Avenue Area RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of special event permit for annual Velo Bicycle Club bike race. BACKGROUND: Attached is an application from Peter Kraft with the Peninsula Velo Bicycle Club for a special event permit. He is requesting permission, to hold a bicycle race in downtown Burlingame on Sunday, June 27, from 5:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The proposed course includes portions of Lorton, Howard, Park, Burlingame, Primrose and Bellevue Avenues. The course will be marked "No Parking," but no towing will be authorized unless the course is physically blocked. Traffic would be allowed to circulate except when a specific race or heat was in progress. This special event has been held for the last 13 years with few complaints. Proceeds from the race will benefit the Burlingame Community for Education. Public Works Traffic Engineer, Augustine Chou and Officer Don Sheply have reviewed the application and recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is to coordinate with the police department to arrange (1) hiring four officers and (2) a race radio for the officers. Officer Sheply noted the cost to the applicant will be $2310 for 33 hours @ $70.00 per hour, which includes equipment costs; 2. The applicant coordinates traffic control at the Chapin/Donnelly intersection to allow parking in the Donnelly lots; 3. All residents and merchants in the area of the race be notified two weeks in advance with a reminder the night before the race; 4. That the applicant submit a $1 million insurance liability policy to the City Attorney's office, prior to the event; 5. That the applicant rent and place any required barricades and tape off the race area with their own equipment; and 6. That the applicant be responsible for positing all "No Parking" signs and for all clean up including removal of all signs, barricades and participant and spectator debris. Attachments c. Chamber of Commerce Michael Yessik CITY 0� M11 Il LE EIURLJNGAME �004 �DAMENEYLl�e Critg of`�urlingam CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE-ROAD TEL(650)x9&7204 BURLINGAME.CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX(650)342-8386 SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ANY TEMPORARY CLOSING OF ANY CITY STREET OR USE OF CITY SIDEWALK OR PROPERTY. /Please type or pant clear .) i rrr�� ■� rr r. �r�re�.r�r r APPLICANT INFORMATION Company/Agency Name:-F�tNSOLAVal C(uu IIJC1 C&Q3 Daytime Phone: 650.1 •lo�SS Contact Person: �ErrR IL12Rf� FAX#: (DSV•(03�• �'{ $ Address: USO VISTA Cl /&JP M tt L Ps2ING (-A 01`03 O Representing: -e1 l(d5k'--A//��VrcLo J Insurance Carrier: ' 0Q flj91e �`I� ��C�(�� Limits:'�2M U4I,'j NN�cta✓ EVENT INFORMATION Date(s): SUING 2�'-ZDG-f- Staging Time: C) 0 Starting Time: 0 }Do Q Ending Time: WOL) De-staging Time: SOD Event Purpose: 91u/Gcc ��� Any Hazardous Activity? (If so,describe.) "—,JCy (A5 (At' f0a,, - V 42+0f) Number.of Participants: Soo Type(actors,crew,participants): 4100 fiw-eYZ5' /60 5'.0/0r2-r Number of Equipment: Type: E5•r6UU-/&7 y 5 C-, &0JUS ll Parking Permit(s)Requested: Location: ,AAS 4,5 P2en11O0J yEgrtJCS N��t�fcy/ Police Service(s)Required(S45per officer per hour): ATTACHMENTS Please attach the following information with this application: -Letter of intent(detailed description of event); -Map of street(s)/area to be closed; -Petition of property owner(s)affected by event/closure; -Barricade plan(if appropriate);and -Certificate of insurance. I agree to hold harmless the City of Burlingame,its officers and employees,whether elected or appointed,from any and all liability arising from the event planned and described above. Further,I understand that prior to the issuance of any permit as described above,I shall file a certificate of insurance with the City Manager naming the City,its officers and employees, whether elected or appointed,as additional insured,and that I must pay all City costs prior to the issuance of this permit. Date: 1/29 0q Applicant's•Signature.�Df�q - Page 1 of 2 ------------------------------FOR CITY USE----------------------------- POLICE DEPARTMENT REVIEW: (for police use only) Reviewing Officer: SHEPtGy Date: Number of Personnel Required for Event: y Pi4�tE ro'ro�rcy�c Equipment Required/Suggested: I op- L PA-raot- ce-a.S Expenses: Personnel Costs $ f), 3 10 . DO Equipment Costs $ Comments FbwL_ orrtcE&S qr?-c A5s# 4 •ti.9 Tw 'TNrS rI/�c"ni7 AS AN 0U.7I/ 0DETAIL, IVUE OFF /«(A_ eJ0 &44-S "d TO 1506 FO(Z- A iO TAL- dJ 9 HoLk" . OW To MOO (a a-A 7a TAt o c A f p u2s EACH- 33 )( 170.06 or- , 23 )0 .00- ifs i.vc� �.clJ' !S �'d�u � �N� Cos-rs_ CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW: (For assigned department use only) Reviewing Employee: Au&as7-/A1E' Cwoa Date: Vi4ZA-011 Contact Person: Au 6tt5TlNG �.1lc ct Equipment Needed: Costs: Comments No A-Dj>(rroA)AL_ Atrp-m AjL=ilj Rccjpj gr--/'t&oyrs R0-Fr,-9�� To P*ST 5/GLiR X;:>,2 nLd:61 DA*D ���c.t n2 lc�ritlTS. CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE: Approval: Date: Checklist for issuance: (Administered by CM Office) Letter of approval/denial sent to applicant: Date: Permit fee received: Additional fees applied, received: Certificate of insurance received: Administered by: PENINSULA VELO CYCLING TEAM EVENT DATE:JUNE 27,2004 Attachment to Special Event Permit Application 1. Description of Event A bicycle race as in prior years. A race description and schedule from last year's event is enclosed. 2. Map of streets to be closed: A map of the course is shown in the race history brochure. Also enclosed is a map showing the course,the location of the barricades,the location of the course marshals, and the plan for handling any traffic on the course. There is no change from last year planned. 3. Barricade Plan: The barricade plan is attached.Also the course will be protected by fencing,caution tape,and sings.There is no change from last year planned. 4. Certificate of Insurance: Application has been made for the certificate.The insurance carrier and coverage is as shown on the application.The certificate will be supplied shortly as soon as it is issued by the insuring company. 5. Expo Area: Contributing vendors and sponsors are going to be invited to set up exhibit only booths in the already blocked off section of Burlingame Avenue between Lorton Ave.and Park Rd. 6. Other items: a. The race will be a fund raiser for the Burlingame Community for Education. b. Peninsula Velo will coordinate with the police department on the arrangements. c. Signs will a posted to instruct residents and shoppers on how and where to park. The course marshals will be trained to help cars get to parking lots and get past closed streets. d. Peninsula Velo will provide complete course security,including snow fencing, barricades,safety tape,hay bales and course marshals. e. Traffic control at the Chapin/Donnelly intersection will be designed to facilitate parking in the Donnelly lots. f. The race announcer will promote the stores open during the race. g. All of the streets will be open to normal traffic no later than 3:00 p.m. h. Athletes who come to race will park in a designated area away from the downtown parking. icy � �.K 'u�il (�'.�� ! �� r¢� f rr,. �✓�.L.�. .. '�.a'cr.. mac__. -rt:�-.. -L� -�.�•.t�... '` f - _ `_�V1AKZ5 hAL NAME POSITION SHIFT START TIME FINISH TIME The course marshals insure a safe and exciting event for the participants and the spectators. They assist pedestrians, and even cars at one location, to safely cross the course while races are in progress. They keep the course free of obstacles and provide racers with an early warning about changing conditions. Without course marshals, these races simply would not take place! Positions 20, 21, 2233. 24 25 & 26. Traffic control of PCs i ions 18. 19 & 20 cars wanting to leave driveways and enter course. VT= Light pedestrian traffic riders are not apnroachina direct cars to exit the course control• quickly onto California Ave at position 28. Cars cannot go backwards to the exit onto Chapin at position 17. Positions 15.16 & 17+33 Important car traffic . Position & 30. control crossing. Allow Q 2Z 2y 27 is a 'spoa tter' cars to cross between 2A for the pedestrian Oonnely and Chapin 19 Benerue -y. 127 crossing at position only, and not continue 31 & 32. Position on the course. Watch Is O O 2S 28 30 controls car traffic position 14 to tell when v� O trying to enter the + 29 course. no riders are coming. !7 Auto exit onto Chapin. chaph �w Position 28 & 29. Positions 10. 11. 16 i5 32 - 31 Moderate pedestrian Dornety 12.13. & 14. Heavy control and auto exit pedestrian traffic onto California Ave. control. Watch the position 31 & 32, marshals ahead of + Heavy pedestrian you to tell when riders ly _ 13 traffic control. Mu.11; are approaching. ---� RE6'm� coordinate with Positrons 8 & 9 'A; BurtingameAve vr=rfio position 27 to know Control of cars that /O when riders are might try to enter the approaching. Cn course. Auto exit AlleyQ onto Primrose. 0 9 8 3 Positions 1 & 2 ?o srcc 0 Heavy pedestrian Category Start Duration d of traffic control. Sr. 4,5 7:00 45 min Mst 45+155+ 7:55 45 min Positions 3 & 4 Sr. 3 8:50 45 min Control of cars that ,Mst30+4,5 9:45 45 min _ _ ©__� S may try to enter Mst 35+ 12,3 10:40 45 min onto the course. Kid's Race-4 events 11:35 45 min Howard Are -w— Wm 1,2,3/V312:30 45 min © MR- 1644515K PEO, CRpSyNG Positions 5.6-&-z Pro 1,3 1:10 l hr 5 min Dorf --- Light pedestrian traffic control. Report to your Position 10 minutes before your shift starts to receive instructions, vest, flag, and whistle from the marshal you are relieving. Return all equipment to the registration table at the end of the last shift. Thank You. Parking for Shops & Restaurants 00ficial Program The race course is closed to parking from 5:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., DURLINCAME but parking is available on all side streets outside the course including the Caltrain parking across California. The parking lot behind the Copenhagen Bakery is also at Chapin Avenue and Primrose where course marshals will usher cars through between ' t� race traffic. To drive around the course from California Drive to EI Camino Real, the best route is either Bayswater Avenue from the south or Oak Grove Avenue from the north. CRITERIUM tHAUENCE OAK Gt= (:)1/E 411rz I I � T O Sunday, June 29, 2003 tfLLEVVCategory Start Duration Value PlacesE GNI�PlN SR 4/5 7:00 a.m. 40 Min $150 6 �2 M45+/M55+ 7:50 a.m. 40 Min $200/$100 6/3 SR 8:40 a.m. 45 Min $300 6 a l N a iaN�ME M30+,4/5 9:35 a.m. 45 Min $200 6 �tvE z M35+,1/2/3 10:30 a.m. 45 Min $300 8 ZO1L4 IOd's Race,4-12 Yr 11:25 a.m. 30 Min Ribbons ALL "'ow ��• 0 W 1/2/3,35+,4 12:10 p.m. 45 Min $400/100/100 6/3/3 Pro 1h 1:05 P.M. 60 Min $1200 12 VAY54yq e�►.a��a SUMMIT BICYCLES - BEWLEY NAME 05 WE BAN PUL Burlingame Community for Education Race History The recent history of bicycle racing on the Peninsula is both SPONSORS varied and colorful. In the late 70's and early 80's the .c Peninsula Velo Club promoted the only"all women's"stage r• o race in the country sponsored by Self Magazine. This race included the old"Pinky's"road course that wandered thru Pescadero and the La Honda hills on the coast side. Some of the course was on dirt roads that turned to mud with the YCLEPATH coast side fog. During the mid 80's the criterium and circuit locations varied. Some races were held near the Burlingame �c Y �• ,'I n , Recreation Center and Washington School, while one year � `•' �' 1, there was even a circuit race thru the residential area of C'H,gp1 Burlingame. In 1983,the race included Mary Ann Martin from Colorado who went on to become the first(and only r' ro s © Q. 9 American)winner of the Tour de France Feminine. p• ,r Y> 4 •�:• D In 1987,the Peninsula Velo Club became promoter of the �' = o .NN Y AQ 1: 11 Burlingame Criterium on the present downtown course.The course was immediately popular and in 1989 and 1990, it was •'�' .' ..,+1. �: sponsored by Coors("Silver Bullet Criterium'. Since then,the ° +>�I charm of downtown Burlingame,the tight challenging turns, Z Q Sri and the long fast sprint finish have produced many exciting ,• � '0• �• oD memories for racers and spectators. o F The Course13a r. � The 0.7 mile circuit starts at the intersection of Burlingame N o ��, and Lorton Avenues, and runs southward down Lorton. A fast :1: , r E A M A P A A A 8 L right turn onto Howard is followed immediately by another right turn onto Park Road.The short straight up Park is one of ~ ❑ Cj :�. the few sections where positions can be advanced before the next series of turns.The Park/Primrose Chicane is created by ° j; p Skaates a tight left turn onto Burlingame Avenue and a sharp right 1®0 ' ;l: Y: turn onto Primrose. The brick street surfaces and tightness of Inc. the turns demand expert bike control, As the riders continue .D .a R' ,.1; past the library building,they begin a gradual turn along L7_ • � ., � Plumbing & H ydronics Belview Avenue.The very fast section has traditionally been where fierce battles for position occur.The road narrows and d g the first riders thru the corner have the best chance to win the • `� �• '• • �W�' �••• �••' • ♦.:•„ sprint. !4Vi:�♦ SUMMIT Race Strategy FI-NANCIAL ADVISORS Racers typically stay in a tight pack(or peleton)where the shielding from wind allows a fast pace.The stronger riders then periodically attack, or speed up and force the pack to chase them. Sometimes, several riders join an attack to form a break and separate from the pack. Now the riders in the pack can block for a team member in the break, and make it harder for others to chase. Or,they might try to bridge up to the break and join it. It is also common for team members to protect their best sprinter so they will be fresh for the finish. Often, the main pack will remain together, and then the finish is decided by a field sprint,which is why bicycle racing is so exciting.There could be as many as 60 riders jockeying for position on the last lap to sprint for the victory. oIa, CITY on STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9g MTG. 04/05/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBNATTED BY DATE: February 24,2004 AP?AME D FROM: Director of Parks&Recreation(558-7307) BY 6 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BURLIN AND BURLINGAME YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION FOR LEASE OF BAYSIDE PARK PROPERTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A BASEBALL BATTING CAGE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Agreement between the City and Burlingame Youth Baseball Association (BYBA) for lease of Bayside Park property for the construction, maintenance and operation of a baseball batting cage. BACKGROUND: BYBA approached the City with a request to construct, maintain and operate a batting cage adjacent to the new baseball field in Bayside Park. The City and BYBA entered into a similar contract for a batting cage in Washington Park in 2000. That agreement has been well adhered to by BYBA and the cage has been used by hundreds of Burlingame youth. BYBA's program has been located almost exclusively at Bayside Park, since the addition of the new baseball field. The addition of a batting cage at Bayside Park will allow for use in conjunction with team practices. The cage at Washington Park will continue to be used by both BYBA and the Burlingame High School teams. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Agreement 2. Exhibit A: Map of the proposed site location within Bayside Park 3. Exhibit B: Construction Diagram of Batting Cage BUDGET IMPACT: None Exhibit"A" AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BURLINGAME AND BURLINGAME YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION FOR LEASE OF BAYSIDE PARK PROPERTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A BASEBALL BATTING CAGE THIS AGREEMENT, glade and entered Into this day of , 2004,by and between the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and the Burlingame Youth Baseball Association, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CORPORATION." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City owns certain real property developed as a part of Bayside Park, within the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, which is shown in Exhibit"A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference ("PREMISES"); and WHEREAS, Corporation and City agree it is reasonable and desirable that Corporation, an established and recognized organization of citizens, construct and then maintain and operate a new recreational facility(`BATTING CAGE") as described below; and WHEREAS, under this Agreement, CITY intends to grant the Premises Lease to Corporation for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and operating the Batting Cage. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, the parties mutually agree as follows: 1. Purposes. The purposes of this Lease are: A. To allow Corporation to construct the Batting Cage Project and make available a safe and attractive baseball and softball batting practice recreational facility for City, Burlingame High School and community group use. 2 B. To provide for Corporation's sole management of the Premises and the Batting Cage and the conditions under which it will operate during the term of this Lease. 2. Term. The term of the Lease granted under this Agreement shall be for ten(10) years from the day and date above written. At the expiration of such term, this agreement shall automatically be extended for terms of five(5)years, unless either the City or the Corporation provides written notice to the other at least six(6)months before the end of the term of this agreement that they wish to renew or terminate this agreement, but no more than three (3) such extensions, for a total of 25 years. Should City observe that the Batting Cage is unused by Corporation for one full year, City reserves the right to require Corporation to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City why lease should not be terminated and Batting Cage demolished. 3. Consideration for Lease. In consideration for the Lease granted hereby, and if Corporation satisfies all of the conditions set forth below, Corporation agrees to construct the Batting Cage at its own expense and to perform the additional duties set forth in the Lease. 4. Construction. Corporation shall construct on the Premises a Batting Cage as shown in Exhibit`B" attached hereto. Corporation shall be responsible for all construction labor and costs and shall obtain all necessary building permits and approvals (no City fees shall be charged for such permits and approvals). All plans and specifications shall be approved by the City Parks &Recreation Director(DIRECTOR)before any work is begun. Once work is begun, construction project must be completed to satisfaction of City within 90 calendar days. 5. Damage or Destruction(Makin Batting atting Cage Unfit for Use). In the event the Batting Cage, or any portion thereof, is destroyed by any cause that renders the Premises unfit for the purposes designated in paragraph 1 and if the Batting Cage is so badly damaged that it cannot be repaired within ninety(90)days from the date of such damage, either party may 3 terminate this Lease by giving to the other party written notice within(10) days of the occurrence. (Both parties shall meet in a timely manner to discuss removal of the Batting Cage and apportionment of costs for the removal.) 6. Corporation Maintenance Duties. Corporation shall maintain the Batting Cage in accordance with all City laws and regulations and applicable safety standards. The roof, structure and fence of the Batting Cage shall be kept in good repair and in an attractive condition at all times. City shall have the right to enter upon and inspect the Batting Cage, subject to reasonable advance notice,to determine whether Corporation is complying with this lease and whether the site is being maintained in a reasonably safe manner. Notwithstanding the above provisions, Corporation shall also be responsible for damage or repair to Bayside Park resulting from Corporation's construction of the project or Corporations's other use of Bayside Park, and not occasioned by normal wear and tear. 7. Failure to Maintain. If Corporation fails to maintain or make repairs or replacements as required herein, City may notify Corporation in writing of said failures. Should Corporation fail to correct the situation within 90 days thereafter,Director may make, or cause to be made,the necessary corrections and the cost thereof, including,but not limited to the cost of labor,materials, and equipment, plus a 15%charge for City administration of the repairs, shall be paid by Corporation within ten(10)days of receipt of a statement of said cost from Director. City may, at its option, choose any other remedies available herein or by law to secure such payment. If Corporation fails to correct the situation within 90 days thereafter, City may consider Corporation in default, and, ten(10) days after notification to Corporation, at City's option and City's cost, demolish the Batting Cage or cancel this Lease, or both. 4 8. Corporation Use of the Property. The Corporation shall have the exclusive control over the use of the Batting Cage and City authorizes Corporation or its approved user to conduct batting practice in the Batting Cage. Corporation may permit City or other user groups to use the facility for batting practice, at its discretion, on a time available basis. All use of the Batting Cage will be governed by rules developed by the Burlingame Park&Recreation Commission(COMMISSION)for City parks. Changes to these rules will only be considered by the Commission in a public meeting which has been properly noticed according to the laws of the State of California. These rules shall be considered minimum standards, and the Corporation is solely responsible for determining whether additional safety requirements are appropriate. The Corporation warrants that it shall not discriminate in permitting or allowing use of the batting cage on the basis of age, sex color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion or medical condition, unless based on a bonafide safety limitation founded on manufacturer and Consumer Product Safety Commission recommendations. It is agreed that it is not the intent of City or Corporation to create a for-profit batting cage open to the public on a fee basis. Rather, it is the intent of both parties to create a facility to be used by nonprofit community groups. The months of February through September each year shall be considered the Baseball Season for the purposes of this agreement. During the "off season,"October through January, at least 25%of the available daylight hours shall be made available to bona fide Burlingame youth groups wishing to use the batting cage for their batting practice. Corporation may charge bona fide Burlingame youth groups or other user groups rental fees to cover the direct cost of necessary supervision and wear and tear on the Batting Cage and 5 its equipment. Such fees shall be approved in advance by the City's Parks & Recreation Director. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 9. Ownership of Improvements. All improvements constructed, erected or installed upon the Premises must be free and clear of all liens, or liability for labor or material and shall become the property of the City and remain upon the Premises upon termination of this Lease. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107.6, the property interest created by this Premises Lease may be subject to a property or possessory interest tax under California law, and Corporation agrees that it shall be solely responsible for payment of any such tax. 10. Utilities. City shall be responsible for and shall pay, prior to delinquency, any charges for utilities supplied to the Premises. 11. Insurance. The Corporation shall obtain and maintain the following insurance throughout the term of this Lease: A. Minimum scope of insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office form number(GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Comprehensive General Liability and insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" form GC 0001). 2) Workers Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability insurance. B. Beginning of Lease. Corporation shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required limit. 2) Workers Compensation and Employers Liability: Workers compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of$1,000,000 per accident. 6 C. Deductibles and self-insured retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials,volunteers; or the Corporation shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. D. Other insurance provision. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provision: 1) General Liability Coverages. a. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liabilities arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Corporation, products and completed operations of the Contracts, premises owned, occupied, or used by the Corporation. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. b. The Corporation's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Corporation's insurance and shall not contribute with it. C. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. d. The Corporation's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 2) Workers Compensation and Employers Liabilily Covera. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Corporation for the City. 3) All coverages. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall 7 be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or limits after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt required, has been given to City E. Acceptability of insurer. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than B+. F. Verification of coverage. Corporation shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. Where by statute, the City's workers compensation-related forms cannot be used, equivalent forms provided by the State Insurance Commissioner are to be substituted. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. G. Other user groups. Corporation shall be solely responsible for obtaining any insurance coverages it may desire from other user groups, but this insurance shall in no way affect the responsibility of the Corporation to the City for obtaining Corporation's own insurance. Insurance coverage required of other groups by Corporation shall not be excessive or onerous. H. Increases in Limits. At least six(6)months before the end of the term of this lease, or each extension thereto, City may give written notice to Corporation that the insurance limits under this Lease are to be increased, and so long as the limits are not increased by more than fifty percent(50%), such notice shall not be considered a notice of termination under this Lease. 8 12. Indemnity. Corporation hereby releases and agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless, and indemnify City, its City Council, its officers, employees and elected officials, boards and commissions, from and against all claims, injury, liability, loss, costs and expense, or damage, however same may be caused, including all cost and reasonable attorney's fees in providing the defense to any claim arising therefrom, for any loss or damage to property(real and/or personal) and for personal injury to or death of any person or persons arising out of, occurring by reason of, or in any way connected with the facility for batting practice, unless the claim arises for the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers or employees. 13. Amendments. This agreement may be amended or modified by written agreement signed by both parties, including the continuing or changing of the maintenance or operations programs for Batting Cage in subsequent years. Failure on the part of either party to enforce any provisions of this agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or provisions. 14. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered to in person or transmitted by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage paid: Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed: Parks &Recreation Director City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed: President Burlingame Youth Baseball Association P. O. Box 1633 Burlingame, CA 94011 9 Said persons shall be representatives of City and Corporation for all purposes of this agreement. 15. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender included each gender,the singular includes the plural, and vice versa. 16. Venue. The applicable law for any legal disputes arising out of this contract shall be the law of the State of California, and the forum and venue for such disputes shall be the law of the State of California, and the forum and venue for such disputes shall be the appropriate Superior or Municipal Court in and for San Mateo County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first written above. CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION A Municipal Corporation A California Nonprofit Corporation By By City Manager President ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 10 i l : LLJ if I �I ,; pya I � EXHIBIT B -Jan 27 04 03: 46p 707 996 2066 p, 1 L ,1 V Storage Barns; Inc. 5 ►��c5 x �: 4 S �oroJ� �- 6 1-Y A4 P—L It,w 4 0 r- sr S?EES fa Tui cV TG? u S,re i 1 I i ? !a (;"t I x!1"1 r�45�7'!N rQV� i ✓)eAt- ��oocz J X157 � F'LD0+2 S • '---.__�_'.. -__V,� �"'_1T,,�►a�v S I C^,t f�-1�,£ �•.._ ,jam=�.M.._ ...._ .,....._....- - _............. �". P O. Box 11165 - Truckee, CA 96162 910 Oak Street Soroma, CA 9 ,476 PHONE & FAX: 1-800-888-BARN Jan 26 04 05: 51p 707 996 2066 EXHIBIT �= ---- — p- 2 SAM N. MERCER TIMBERMILL STORAGE BARNS GABLE STYLE 1. DOOR S. WINDOWS Our standard door is larger than most. It 6 42 inches in Windows are included in TIMBERMILL ?rices. width to allow easy access for the largest of your lawn tools Large 2' X 2' sliding window with screen allows or other storage materWs. Laraer doors are available. for light and ventilation. Larger windows are Heavy duty hinges and iatches made from the finest durable available. metals are installed for years of wear and general de?enda- bilitY. -r 2. TRIM AHractive Redwood 41r V X 4" Trim is standard on our barns. 3 3. TRUSSES TIMSERMILL 1 trusses are enol- . , neered for strength. There is no adequate substa- k Me for truss con- nector plates; only shortcuts. Our cur I iomers demand and deserve the best. We t ' `t give ft to them. t 6.FLOORING FLOOR JOISTS We install our floor�sis every 16 inches 1 rather than 24 etches to provide a solid , s 4. SIDING floor for years of traffic. Heavy duty, Unlike reaular plywood storage barns, 3/4" plywood on to? of aur 16 inches 518,16-111 siding is STANDARD on center floor foists provides the strongest blending it into the beauty of floor available. the natural surroundings. 7. SKIDS Pressure treated 41111111111111W" z 4" skids are used for sirengtlr, rigidity, durability and ground clearance. SIZES AVAILABLE OUR PRICES INCLUDE: 8 Ft. Wide 10 Ft. Wide 12 Ft. Wide 8 x 8 10 X 8 12 x 8 COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION l 8 x 12 10 x 12 12 X 12 ALL MATERIALS 8 X 16 10 X 16 12 X 16 FIVE YEAR GUARANTEE 8 X 20 10 X 20 12 X 20 DELIVERY 8X24 10X24 12X24 Al loelyded---Building Permits, Zoning or Covenant Searches, Leveling of Building beyond 6" 4�CITY ob STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9h MTG. NCOA�AATED1JYNE b,9p0 DATE 04/05/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY DATE: April 5, 2004 APPRO D Y FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director. 558-7222 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR AUDITING SERVICES WITH CAPORICCI & LARSON, CPAs RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution. BACKGROUND: The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in January seeking certified public accountants to audit its financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004. A mandatory pre-proposal conference was held on February 9, 2004 to inform all interested firms about the engagement and to answer questions that the firms may have had about the RFP. Nine firms attended the pre-proposal conference. Seven firms submitted qualified proposals by the February 23, 2004 deadline. KPMG, the City of Burlingame's former auditors did not submit a proposal. A Finance Department staff team comprised of Jesus Nava, Mary Asturias, Chris Rogers and Tammy Mak reviewed the seven proposals and chose three firms to interview based on their accounting qualifications, municipal and hotel auditing experience and cost. The three firms that were interviewed were Caporicci & Larson, Macias & Co. and Maze and Associates. Upon completion of the interviews, the Finance staff team scored and ranked the firms. The firm of Caporicci & Larson received the most points and was ranked number one by all the members of the team. The initial engagement is for one year(fiscal year 2004). The proposed fees to be charged by Caporicci and Larson are $71,150 for the first year of the contract. The fee includes a$9,000 discount. The city may choose to extend the agreement for two subsequent fiscal years by written amendment for a total of three years. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Approving the Agreement with Caporicci & Larson 2) Exhibit A. City of Burlingame's Proposal Specifications for Audit Services 3) Exhibit B. Addendum 1 to the Proposal Specifications—Proposal Calendar 4) Exhibit C. Proposal to Perform Professional Auditing Services, Caporicci & Larson RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH CAPORICCI & LARSON TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT AUDIT SERVICES TO THE CITY FOR UP TO THREE YEARS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City sought proposals from qualified firms to provide an independent audit in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposals duly received, interviews held, and references checked, Caporicci & Larson appear to provide the most cost-effective services offered by the proposals, NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Agreement between Caporicci & Larson and the City attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is approved, and the Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 2. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. MAYOR I,ANN T. MUSSO, 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 ,2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND CAPORICCI & LARSON FOR AUDITING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2004,by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and CAPORICCI & LARSON, a California partnership, hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, City is required to have an independent audit performed on an annual basis; and WHEREAS,pursuant to State law and City requirements, the City duly sought requests for proposals from auditing firms for these audit services; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposals submitted and an interview process, it appears that the Contractor will provide the most cost-effective auditing services of the proposals received; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for auditing services, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in the Request for Proposal—"Proposal Specifications for Audit Services attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement("Request"), Addendum 1 to the Request for Proposal for Audit Services attached as Exhibit B to this Agreement("Addendum 1"), and the Proposal to Perform Auditing Services submitted February 23,2004 ("Proposal"). 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract consists of the following documents: this Agreement, the Request for Proposal—"Proposal Specifications for Audit Services attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement, Addendum 1 to the Request for Proposal for Audit Services attached as Exhibit B to this Agreement, and the Proposal to Perform Auditing Services submitted February 23, 2004, attached as Exhibit C to this Agreement, and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all of these documents. 1 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full,payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sums described in the Professional Fees and Expenses of the Proposal. In the event authorized work or service is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in the Proposal, such work, service, and materials will be paid for at the rates described in the Proposal. As clarification, the Hotel Procedures Audit described in the included services on pages 37 and 51 of the Proposal encompasses an audit of procedures at four(4) hotels. 4. Term. The term of this Agreement is for one year to April 15, 2005, unless earlier terminated pursuant to the Contract Documents. However, at the sole option of the City, this Agreement may be extended for two terms of one year each on the terms and conditions contained in the Contract Documents upon written notice by the City to the Contractor no later than ninety(90) days before the end of the then-current term. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: FINANCE DIRECTOR CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to the Contractor shall be addressed as follows: STEPHEN L. LARSON CAPORICCI &LARSON 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1365 Oakland, CA 94610 2 7. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 8. Testimony. Contractor agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Contractor shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Contractor or is based on allegations of Contractor's negligent performance or wrongdoing. 9. Conflict of Interest. The Contractor has not and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Contractor has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Contractor warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Contractor shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Contractor discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship. 10. Equal Employment Opportunity. Contractor warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Contractor nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability,national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. 11. Availability of Records. Contractor shall maintain the records supporting billings under these Contract Documents for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Contractor shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Contractor's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. 3 12. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Contractor. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City. 13. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of four (4) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME,a Municipal CAPORICCI & LARSON Corporation By By Approved as to form: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk 4 City of Burlingame, California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Request for Proposal Table of Contents Part I —Audit Specifications Page Number 1. Introduction 3 Il. Description of City of Burlingame 3 A. The City of Burlingame 3 B. The Finance Staff 3 C. Computer System 4 D. Contact Persons 4 E. Special Consideration 4 F. City Council Audit Committee 4 III. Auditors'Responsibilities 4 A. Services to be performed by Auditors 4 B. Specific Deliverables for the City of Burlingame 5 IV. City's Responsibilities 6 V. Basis for Compensation 6 VI. Additional Provisions 6 Part 2—Insurance Requirements for Consultants 1. Verification of Coverage 7 II. Indemnification and hold harmless 7 Part 3—Proposal Requirements and Information I. Proposal Process and Calendar 9 A. Distribution of Proposals 9 B. Pre-Proposal Conference—Mandatory 9 C. Proposal Submission 9 D. Proposal Review and Notification 9 E. Interviews 9 F. Final Selection Notification 9 G. Recap of Key Dates 9 II. Proposal Requirements 10 A. Independence 10 B. License to Practice in California 10 C. Insurance 10 D. Firm Qualifications and Experience 11 E. Partner,Supervisory and Staff Qualifications and Experience 11 F. Similar Engagements with Other Government Entities 12 City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 2 G. Specific Audit Approach 12 H. Identification of Anticipated Potential Audit Problems 12 I. Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price 12 J. Rates by Partner,Specialist,Supervisory and Staff Level Times Hours Anticipated for Each 12 K. Ownership of City-Related Documents 12 L. Acceptance of Proposal Contents 12 M. Acceptance or Rejection and Negotiation of Proposals 12 III. Evaluation Process 13 A. Responsiveness of the Proposal 13 B. Cost 13 C. Auditor's Experience 13 D. Technical Experience and Professional Qualifications of the Audit Team 13 E. Size and Structure of the Firm's Office 13 F. Auditor's Experience with Compliance 13 G. Ability of Firm in Providing Optional Services 13 IV. Format and Content of Proposal 13 A. Title Page 13 B. Table of Contents 13 C. Letter of Transmittal 13 D. Audit Team 14 E. Audit Scope and Provisions 14 F. Cost Data 14 G. Additional Data 14 Appendices A. Format for Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses to Support the Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price B. Format for Schedule of All-Inclusive Maximum Price by Report C. Proposer Guarantees D. Proposer Warranties City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 3 PART 1 -AUDIT SPECIFICATIONS I. INTRODUCTION The City of Burlingame is requesting proposals from qualified firms of certified public accountants to audit its financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30,2004. At the option of the City,the audit engagement may be extended for two subsequent fiscal years by written amendment. These audits are to be performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards,the standards set forth for financial and compliance audits in the U.S.General Accounting Office's(GAO)Standards for Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs,Activities, and Functions, the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1984,as amended in 1996, U.S.Office of Management and Budget(OMB)Circular A-133,Audits of State and Local Governments and Governmental Accounting Standards Board(GASB)Pronouncements. There is no expressed or implied obligation of the City of Burlingame to reimburse responding firms for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in response to this request. A pre-proposal conference for all the firms interested in submitting a proposal will be held on February 9, 2004 to answer questions about the engagement. After this pre-proposal conference,any inquiries concerning the request for proposals should be addressed to Jesus Nava,Finance Director. To be considered,ten(10)copies of a proposal must be received by Jesus Nava,Finance Director.,at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA 94010,by 5:00 p.m.on February 23,2004. The City of Burlingame reserves the right to reject any or all proposals submitted and/or waive any irregularity. During the evaluation process,the City of Burlingame reserves the right,where it may serve the City of Burlingame's best interest,to request additional information or clarifications from proposers,or to allow corrections of errors or omissions. At the discretion of the City of Burlingame,firms submitting proposals may be requested to make oral presentations as part of the evaluation process.(See Part 3,Sec.III,pg. 13) The City of Burlingame reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted and to use any ideas in a proposal regardless of whether that proposal is selected. Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposals,unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City of Burlingame and the firm selected. It is anticipated the selection of a firm will be completed by March 15,2004. II. DESCRIPTION OF CITY OF BURLINGAME A. The City of Burlingame The City of Burlingame,a general law city,is located in San Mateo County. There are approximately 6 square miles of land included in the City's boundary with a population of 28,250. City of Burlingame, employing approximately 271 regular full-time budgeted employees,is a full service city providing fire and police protection,parks and recreation,library,water and sewer utilities,metered parking facilities, and other general city services. The City only stores,pumps and distributes water,as potable water is purchased from the City of San Francisco. All water and sewer billing is provided on one bill. B. The Finance Staff The Finance Department consists of two groups:Financial Services Division and the Customer Service/Information Technology Division. The Customer Service/Information Technology Division includes Business License,Cash Collection and Utility Billing. In Financial Services,we have one Financial Services Manager,three Accounting Technicians and two Account Clerks. The Customer City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 4 Service/Information Technology Division has one Administration/Information Services Manager,two Account Clerks and one Desktop Support person. The Finance Director oversees both divisions. C. Computer System City of Burlingame contracts with the City of Redwood City for government accounting software and technical support. The software is for General ledger,utility billing, accounts payable and payroll accounting. D. Contact Persons The auditor's principal contacts with the City of Burlingame will be Jesus Nava,Finance Director(650- 558-7222), and Mary Asturias,Financial Services Manager(650-558-7221),who will coordinate the assistance to be provided by the City of Burlingame to the auditor. E. Special Consideration The City received the Government Finance Officers Association(GFOA)"Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting"for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report(CAFR)for the fiscal year ended June 30,2002. This is the ninth consecutive year the City has received this award. The City also received the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers(CSMFO)"Outstanding Financial Reporting"award for its CAFR for the fiscal year ended June 30,2002. This is the ninth consecutive year that the City has received this award. Continued receipt of the foregoing awards is a high priority for the City. F. City Council Audit Committee City Council Audit Committee is made up of two Council Members who oversee the audit on behalf of the City Council. III. AUDITOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. Services to be Performed by Auditors 1. The auditors will perform a financial and compliance audit to determine(a)whether the combined financial statements of the City fairly present the financial position and the results of financial operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,and(b)whether the City has complied with laws and regulations that may have a material effect upon the financial statements. 2. The auditors will examine the City's internal accounting controls and accounting procedures and render written reports of their findings and recommendations to the Council Audit Committee and the City Manager. 3. The examination shall be made and reports rendered in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 4. If the auditors find indications of defalcation or other circumstances requiring an extension of procedures beyond the scope of the examination which would be sufficient under ordinary circumstances,the auditors will provide the Council Audit Committee and the City Manager with all readily ascertainable facts relative to such extraordinary circumstances together with an estimate for the additional cost of investigating same. Fees relating to such additional services are not contemplated as being within the scope of services to be performed under the paragraphs above and will be subject to approval by the City Council. City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 5 In the required reports on internal controls,the auditor shall communicate any reportable conditions found during the audit. A reportable condition shall be defined as a significant deficiency in the design or operation of the internal control structure,which could adversely affect the organization's ability to record,process,summarize and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements. Reportable conditions that are also material weaknesses shall be identified as such in the report. Nonreportable conditions discovered by auditors shall be reported in a separate letter to management,which shall be referred to in the reports on internal controls. The reports on compliance shall include all instances of noncompliance. 5. Irregularities and illegal acts. Auditors shall be required to make an immediate,written report of all irregularities and illegal acts or indications of illegal acts of which they become aware to the following parties: Jim Nantell, City Manager Larry Anderson,City Attorney Jesus Nava,Finance Director 6. The Financial Services Manager will be responsible for coordinating the audit process internally. The auditors will meet on a weekly basis with the Financial Services Manager to discuss preliminary audit findings. 7. Prior to issuing their final reports,the auditors will meet with representatives of the Finance Department. All audit reports will be addressed to the City Council. 8. The auditors may be consulted occasionally throughout the year as an information resource. The auditors may be asked to provide guidance on implementation of Government Accounting Standards Board(GASB)requirements and specifics of federal and state regulations as they may affect local government accounting. 9. The auditors will be asked to complete the interim testing by May 21,2004. 10. The auditors will format and publish and produce 60 copies of the CAFR. B. Specific Deliverables for the City of Burlingame 1. Audit of the general purpose financial statements and review of the preparation of the CAFR,and deliver opinion letter for the CAFR by November 1. Produce the CAFR to meet the CSMFO December deadline for the Outstanding Financial Reporting award program. 2. Testing of Hotel agreed upon procedures audit and full report. Issue 5 copies and deliver by December 1. 3. Testing of and full report on the compliance with the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended in 1996, and applicable laws and regulations. Issue 5 copies and deliver by December 1. 4. Testing of compliance with Proposition 111 Appropriation Limit Increment. Issue 5 copies and deliver by December 1. 5. Testing of compliance with the Agreement for Distribution of Measure A Funds. Issue 5 copies; deliver by December 1. City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 6 6. Management letter and recommendations on internal control and audit adjusting journal entries. Issue 5 report copies and deliver by December 1. Delivery dates may be subject to change if due date requirements of oversight agencies should change. IV. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. City staff will prepare the final closing of the books and the CAFR. The City will provide balance sheets for all funds and groups and statements of revenue and expenditures for all funds as well as detailed subsidiary ledgers. B. City staff will produce the confirmation letters prepared by the auditor. C. City staff will be available to assist the auditors in locating records or preparing audit schedules. All requests will first be directed to the Financial Services Manager. D. The City will provide the auditor with reasonable workspace,desks,and chairs. The auditors will also be furnished access to telephones,facsimile machines,and photocopying machines. V. BASIS FOR COMPENSATION A. The City will pay the auditors for those services described in Part I,Section III(Auditor's Responsibilities)the not-to-exceed amount contained in the agreement. For additional services required after the inception of the agreement,written approval by the City is required in advance of such services being rendered,for which a fee will be paid based on the auditor's quoted hourly rates. B. The auditors may submit itemized bills for their services at the end of each calendar month period in which accumulated unbilled charges exceed$1,000.00. The City will promptly review and act upon these bills. C. Unless otherwise agreed to by the City,the City will withhold,and the auditors shall forfeit,ten(10) percent of the contracted fees if the reports required by the contract are not completed and filed by the specified contract dates. VI. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS A. The auditors shall be an independent contractor and their officers,agents,and employees shall not be deemed officers,agents,or employees of the City. B. No officer,agent,or employee of the City and no member of its governing bodies shall have any pecuniary interest,direct or indirect,in this agreement or the proceeds thereof. No officer,agent,or employee of the auditors shall serve on a City committee,or hold any such position which is incompatible with such person's duties or obligations or other relationship to this agreement. C. The auditors shall not assign or transfer or subcontract this agreement,any interest therein,or claim thereunder without the prior written approval of the City. D. The City,the City's cognizant agency under the Single Audit Act of 1984,as amended in 1996,and the state audit agencies under terms of its assistance agreement with the City shall have access to the auditors'work papers for purposes of review. Such records shall be complete and available for review for a period of five years from the date of the audit report. The auditors shall make their work papers available to successors. E. The City may terminate this agreement at any time by giving the auditors not less than thirty-(30)days prior written notice of such termination. Nothing herein shall be deemed a limitation upon the City's City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 7 right to terminate for cause or otherwise to pursue such legal or equitable rights or remedies which may accrue to the City hereunder.The City will pay the auditor an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement,unless such termination is made for cause, in which event,compensation,if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. F. Time is of the essence in each and all the provisions of this agreement. G. No alteration or variation of the terms of this agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto. H. Auditors will warrant that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Auditor does not and shall not discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them,nor discriminate in the provision of services,on the basis of age,sex,color,race,marital status,sexual orientation,ancestry,physical or mental disability, national origin,religion,or medical condition,unless based upon a bona fide occupational or service qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment&Housing Act. I. All working papers and reports must be retained,at the auditor's expense,for a minimum of five(5) years,unless the firm is notified in writing by the City of Burlingame of the need to extend the retention period. The auditor will be required to make working papers available,upon request,to the following parties or their designees: City of Burlingame Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S.General Accounting Office(GAO) Parties designated by the federal or state governments or by the City of Burlingame as part of an audit quality review process. Auditor of entities of which the City of Burlingame is a subrecipient of grant funds Auditor of entities of which the City of Burlingame is a component unit In addition,the firm shall respond to the reasonable inquiries of successor auditors and allow successor auditors to review working papers relating to matters of continuing accounting significance. PART 2-INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANTS I. VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE Auditor shall furnish the City with original certificates and endorsements affecting coverage required in Part 3,Section II,C-H. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. II. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS The auditors hereby agree to defend, indemnify and save harmless the City,their Council,boards, commissions,officers,employees, and agents from and against any and all claims,suits,actions,liability,loss, damage, expense,costs(including,without limitation,costs and fees of litigation)of every nature,kind and description,which may be brought against,or suffered or sustained by the City,its Council and their respective boards,commissions,officers, employees or agents caused by,or alleged to have been caused by, City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 8 the negligence, intentional tortious act or omission,or willful misconduct of the auditors,its officers, employees or agents in the performance of any services or work pursuant to this agreement. The duty of the auditors to indemnify and save harmless,as set forth herein,shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code;provided,however,that nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant to indemnify City,its Council and their respective boards,commissions, officers,employees and agents against any responsibility or liability in contravention of Section 2782 of the California Civil Code. City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 9 PART 3-PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND INFORMATION I. PROPOSAL PROCESS AND CALENDAR A. Distribution of Proposals Request for Proposals mailed on January 23,2004 B. Pre-Proposal Conference-Mandatory City staff will meet collectively with firm representatives seeking additional information about the proposal process and City audit needs. The conference is scheduled for February 9,2004 beginning at 1:30 p.m. in Conference Room A at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,California. Unless absolutely necessary,we request that you do not bring more than two representatives. The City also requests that the proposers advise the City of their attendees by contacting Mary Asturias,Finance Department,(650)558-7221 or via e-mail at masturias@burlingame.org. C. Proposal Submission Proposals for the City's audit must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Monday,February 23,2004 Proposals submitted via facsimile will not be accepted. A total of ten identical copies must be submitted to the following: Jesus Nava,Finance Director City of Burlingame Finance Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Proposals must be sealed and show the following information outside: auditor's name and address and the due date for submission of audit services proposal. D. Proposal Review and Notification The Finance Director and Finance Staff will review and evaluate each proposal submitted. It is anticipated the proposal review process will be completed by February 27,2004. The City will send written notification only to those firms selected for an interview. E. Interviews The City will schedule interviews with the finalists on March 8,2004. Firms selected for interviews are requested to prepare a short presentation for the committee. F. Final Selection Notification The City anticipates sending written notification on March 15,2004 to the finalists of their status. G. Recap of Key Dates January 23 RFP mailed February 9 Mandatory pre-proposal conference February 23 Deadline for proposal February 27 Notifications for interviews March 8 Interviews with finalists March 15 Selection notification May Commence interim audit work City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 10 II. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS A. Independence The firm should provide an affirmative statement that it is independent of the City of Burlingame as defined by generally accepted auditing standards. Moreover,the firm must have no conflict of interest with regard to any other work performed for the entity being audited. It is understood that the services performed by the auditors are in the capacity of independent contractors and not as an officer,agent,or employee of the City of Burlingame. B. License to Practice in California An affirmative statement should be included indicating that the firm and all assigned key professional staff are properly licensed to practice in California. C. Minimum Scope of Insurance 1. Consultant will have and maintain,for the duration of the contract,General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than:one million dollars($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury and property damage. 2. Consultant will have and maintain for the duration of the contract,an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. 3. Consultant shall provide to the City all certificates of insurance,with original endorsements effecting coverage. Consultant agrees that all certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. 4. Consultant will have and maintain,for the duration of the contract,professional liability insurance in amounts not less than two million dollars($2,000,000)which is sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement. General Liability 1. The City,its officers,officials,employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant;products and completed operations of Consultant,premises owned or used by the Consultant. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. 2. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City,its officers, officials,employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the City,its officers,officials,employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City,its officers,officials,employees or volunteers. 4. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought,except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended,voided,canceled,reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty(30)days'prior written notice by certified mail,return receipt requested,has been given to the City. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. In addition to these policies,Consultant shall have and maintain Workers'Compensation insurance as required by California law and shall provide evidence of such policy to the City before beginning services under this Agreement. Further,Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Auditor provide the required Workers'Compensation insurance for their respective employees. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California. City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page l l Verification of Coverage. Upon execution of this Agreement,Consultant shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,certified copies of all required insurance policies,at any time. D. Firm Qualifications and Experience 1. The proposal should state the size of the firm,the size of the firm's governmental audit staff,the location of the office from which the work on this engagement is to be performed,and the number and nature of the staff to be so employed on a part-time basis. Please indicate whether any members of the audit team assigned to the City are reviewers in the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting program 2. The firm is also required to submit a copy of the report on its most recent external quality control review,with a statement whether that quality control review included a review of specific government engagements. 3. The firm shall also provide information on the results of any federal or state desk reviews or field reviews of its audits during the past three-(3)years. In addition,the firm shall provide information on the circumstances and status of any disciplinary action taken or pending against the firm during the past three(3)years with state regulatory bodies or professional organizations. 4. The City of Burlingame issued FY 2002-03 Financial Statements in compliance with GASB 34. The firm shall state experience with clients issuing Financial Statements under GASB 34. E. Partner,Supervisory and Staff Qualifications and Experience The firm shall identify the principal supervisory and management staff,including engagement partners, managers,other supervisors and specialists,who would be assigned to the engagement and indicate whether each such person is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in California. The firm also should provide information on the governmental auditing experience,including the scope of audit services requested by the City,of each person,and information on relevant continuing professional education for the past three(3)years and membership in professional organizations relevant to the performance of this audit. The firm should provide as much information as possible,including resumes,regarding the number, qualifications,experience and training of the specific staff to be assigned to this engagement. The firm also should indicate how the quality of staff over the term of the agreement will be assured. Engagement partners,managers,other supervisory staff and specialists may be changed if those personnel leave the firm,are promoted,or are assigned to another office. These personnel may also be changed for other reasons with the express prior written permission of the City of Burlingame. However,in either case,the City of Burlingame retains the right to approve or reject replacements. Consultants and firm specialists mentioned in response to this request for proposals can only be changed with the express prior written permission of the City of Burlingame,which retains the right to approve or reject replacements. Other audit personnel may be changed at the discretion of the proposer provided that replacements have substantially the same or better qualifications or experience. City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 12 F. Similar Engagements with Other Government Entities For the firm's office that will be assigned responsibility for the audit,list the most significant engagements(maximum of 10)performed in the last five years that are similar to the engagement described in this request for proposals. These engagements should be ranked on the basis of total staff hours. Indicate the scope of work,date,engagement partners,total hours,and the name and telephone number of the principal client contact. G. Specific Audit Approach The proposal should set forth a work plan,including an explanation of the audit methodology to be followed,to perform the services required in Part I,Section III of this request for proposals. H. Identification of Anticipated Potential Audit Problems The proposal should identify and describe any anticipated potential audit problems,the firm's approach to resolving these problems and any special assistance that will be requested from the City of Burlingame. I. Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price The bid should contain all pricing information relative to performing the audit engagement as described in this request for proposals. The total all-inclusive maximum price to be bid is to contain all direct and indirect costs including all out-of-pocket expenses. J. Rates by Partner Specialist,Supervisory and Staff Level Times Hours Anticipated for Each The bid should include a schedule of professional fees and expenses,presented in the following format, that supports the total all-inclusive maximum price. See appendix A See appendix B K. Ownership of City-Related Documents All property rights,including publication rights of all reports produced by proposer in connection with services performed under this agreement,shall be vested in the City of Burlingame. The proposer selected shall not publish or release any of the results of its examinations without express written permission. L. Acceptance of Proposal Contents After auditors are selected by the City,the contents of the submitted proposal will become a contractual obligation. The successful proposer will be required to execute a standard consultant agreement with the City. Failure of the auditors to agree to include the proposal as part of the contractual agreement may result in cancellation of the award. The City reserves the right to reject those parts that do not meet with the approval of the City. M. Acceptance or Rejection and Negotiation of Proposals The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals,to waive non-material irregularities or information in the request for proposal,and to accept or reject any item or combination of items. By requesting proposals,the City is in no way obligated to award a contract or to pay expenses of the proposing firms in connection with the preparation or submission of a proposal. Furthermore,the City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals prior to the execution of the contract(s),with no penalty to the City of Burlingame. If the City elects to reject all proposals,it reserves the right to continue with its current services arrangement. City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 13 I1I. EVALUATION PROCESS The proposals for the City's audit will be evaluated by the Finance Director and staff. Proposers may be asked to make oral presentations to supplement proposals. These presentations would only be held subsequent to the receipt of the proposals and will be part of the process for determining the qualifications of the auditors. The City will schedule a time and location in City of Burlingame for each oral presentation that it requests. Should a proposer refuse to honor the request for an oral presentation or interview,it may result in the rejection of the proposal by the City. Evaluation considerations will include the following: A. Responsiveness of the proposal in clearly stating the understanding of the work to be performed and in demonstrating the intention and ability to perform the work. B. Cost. Although a significant factor,cost and other factors will be considered. C. Auditors' experience in conducting audits of cities of similar nature,size,and complexity, and the auditors' commitment to maintaining technical expertise in the municipal financial environment. D. Technical experience and professional qualifications of the audit team. The number of key and supervisory personnel who will directly participate in the audit will be a consideration. Another consideration will be the auditors'commitment to keeping the same team assigned to this job for each successive year the auditor is awarded the contract. E. Size and structure of the firm's office from which the audit work is to be done. The City is looking for a highly qualified team that is able to meet the due dates specified in this document,and it expects that same team(wherever possible)to complete any successive year's engagements. F. Auditor's experience in complying with applicable federal and state regulations relating to non- discrimination of an affirmative action program for equal employment opportunity. G. Ability of the firm in providing optional services such as special studies,system review and other services. Examples of such services performed for other client cities will be helpful. IV. FORMAT AND CONTENT OF PROPOSAL In order to simplify the review process and to obtain the maximum degree of comparability,proposers are asked to organize their proposals in the following manner: A. Title Page Show the request for proposal subject,the name of the proposer's firm,local address,telephone number, name of the contact person,and the date. B. Table of Contents Include a clear identification of the material by section and by page number. C. Letter of Transmittal 1. State whether the firm is local,national,or international. 2. Give the location of the office from which the work is to be done and the number of partners, managers,supervisors,seniors,and other professional staff employed at that office. 3. Describe the range of activities performed by the local office such as audit,accounting,or management services. 4. Describe the local office's information technology(IT)audit capabilities,including the number and classifications of personnel skilled in IT auditing who will work on the audit. City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 14 5. Describe the local office's recent auditing experiences similar to the type of audits requested and give the names and telephone numbers of client officials responsible for five of the audits listed. 6. Describe the document publication technology and staff formatting and proofreading expertise. D. Audit Team 1. Describe the composition of the audit team,including staff from other than the local office,and consultants. Describe the commitment of the firm to providing the same audit team on subsequent audits. Include resumes of each person so identified. 2. Identify the supervisors and consultants who will work on the audit and include resumes of each person so identified. 3. Identify any members of the audit team who are certified CAFR reviewers in the GFOA's Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting program. E. Audit Scope and Provisions Describe the scope of the required services to be provided and outline a plan on how such services will be provided. Please include depth of work,staffing,and time estimates. Proposers should list all reports including management letters that are to be issued,the points to be addressed by reports,and the estimated completion dates. F. Cost Data Indicate the total hours and hourly rates by staff classification and the resulting all-inclusive maximum fee for which the requested work will be done for each of the specific deliverables identified in this Request for Proposal. Fees must include all anticipated costs including travel,per diem,and out-of- pocket expenses. G. Additional Data Data not specifically requested should not appear in the foregoing sections,but any additional information considered essential to the proposal may be presented at this section. City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 15 Appendix A Standard Quoted Hourly Hourly Hours Rates Rates Total Partner $ $ $ Manager $ $ $ Supervisory Staff $ $ $ Staff $ $ $ Other(Specify): $ $ $ Sub-Total $ Out-of-Pocket Expenses $ Total $ City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 16 Appendix B All-Inclusive Maximum Price 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 by Report a) Basic City Audit/ GASB 34 CAFR (including Gann report) $ $ $ b) Hotel Procedures Audit $ $ $ c) Single Audit $ $ $ d) Measure A $ $ $ e) Reproduction of the CAFR $ $ $ 60 copies f) Printing of All Non-CAFR Reports $ $ $ Total $ $ $ City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 17 Appendix C Proposer Guarantees The proposer certifies it can and will provide and make available,as a minimum, all services set forth in Part 1, Section III,Auditor's Responsibilities Signature of Official: Name (typed): Title: Firm: Date: City of Burlingame,California Proposal Specifications for Audit Services Page 18 Appendix D Proposer Warranties A. Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to comply with State of California laws with respect to foreign(non- state of California)corporations. B. Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to obtain an errors and omissions insurance policy providing a prudent amount of coverage for the willful or negligent acts,or omissions of any officers,employees or agents in conjunction with the services to be provided. Coverage limits shall be$1,000,000 or more,per occurrences without reduction for claims paid during the policy period. The carrier should be duly insured and authorized to issue similar insurance policies of this nature in the State of California. C. Proposer warrants that it will not delegate or subcontract its responsibilities under an agreement without the prior written permission of the City of Burlingame. D. Proposer warrants that all information provided by it in connection with this proposal is true and accurate. Signature of Official: Name(typed): Title: Firm: Date: City of Burlingame,California Addendum 1 Proposal for Audit Services Page 1 Addendum 1- Proposal Calendar Page 5 B. Specific Deliverables for the City of Burlingame 1. Audit of the general purpose financial statements and review of the preparation of the CAFR, and deliver opinion letter for the CAFR by November 19. Produce the CAFR to meet the CSMFO December deadline for the Outstanding Financial Reporting award program. Page 9 Proposal Submission Proposals for the City's audit must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 27, 2004. Proposals submitted via facsimile will not be accepted. A total of ten identical copies must be submitted to the following: Jesus Nava, Finance Director City of Burlingame Finance Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Proposals must be sealed and show the following information outside: auditor's name and address and the due date for submission of audit services proposal. Proposal Review and Notification The Finance Director and Finance Staff will review and evaluate each proposal submitted. It is anticipated the proposal review process will be complete by March 5, 2004. The City will send written notification only to those firms selected for an interview. Interviews The City will schedule interviews with the finalists the week of March 15, 2004. Firms selected for interviews are requested to prepare a short presentation for the committee. Final Selection Notification The City anticipates sending written notification on March 22, 2004 to the finalists of their status. Recap of Key Dates January 23 RFP mailed February 9 Mandatory pre-proposal conference February 27 Deadline for proposal Week of March 15 Interviews with finalists March 22 Selection notifications May Commence interim audit work CITY AGENDA 9i ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. �o + DATE 4/5/2004 9�OAs TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY � DATE: March 31, 2004 APPkC3V�ED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BEGINNING WITH THE 2004 TERM RECOMMENDATION: Appoint eight Advisory Board members for the years 2004-2006 for the San Mateo County Tourism BID. DISCUSSION: The Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism BID is made up of 23 members, representing various interests in the hospitality industry in the District— 15 representing owners/managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel within the District, and 8 representing companies or businesses that are directly related to tourism in the County. The fifteen hotel representatives are also allocated among the member cities. The Board members serve 3-year terms. The terms of a portion of the board will expire early next year. With the concurrence of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau Board,the San Mateo Hotel Council has submitted a list of nominees for the 3 year term beginning on May 1, 2004. Len Almalech (Enterprise Rent-a-car) Phil Brezinski (San Mateo Marriott) Ken Landis (Landis Shores) Paul Herbert (Best Western Grosvenor Hotel) Bruce Carlton (Doubletree Hotel) Paul Ratchford (Ritz Carlton) Kandance Bender(SFO) Bill Gillespie (Half Moon Bay Brewing Co.) Distribution Anne LeClair, SMCCVB CITYAGENDA 9j JBy!F�4kM91kMF_ oeITEM # I STAFF REPORT MAG. �q< DATE 4/5/2004 �E.�!�' I TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED B cr �/ DATE: April 1, 2004 APPROVED BY FROM: LgM E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO BEGIN PROCESS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON WHETHER TO FORM A BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND IMPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 2004-2005 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution of intention to form the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District(BID) and impose assessments for the 2004-2005 year and approve form of notice to be mailed to the businesses in the proposed district. DISCUSSION: Earlier this year, a group of merchants, businesspeople, and property owners worked to develop a proposal to form a Burlingame Avenue Area BID. On March 1, 2004, the Council appointed an Interim Advisory Board to complete the proposal. The Advisory Board has requested the Council to begin the public hearing process by adopting a resolution of intention. The Board recommended that the district encompass all of Subarea A of the Burlingame Commercial Area, and most, but not all of Subarea B. A map is attached for your reference. The Board proposed an assessment formula for the District(Exhibit C to the attached resolution). Assessments would be generally modeled after the categories currently being used on Broadway, but the assessments would be different between Subarea A and Subarea B (higher in A than in B), and slightly higher overall than the assessments in the Broadway BID. A spreadsheet showing the projected assessments by business is attached to this report at the end of the attachments. The projected assessments would raise about$140,00 per year. Because the district contains so many businesses, it will cost a good deal to prepare the mailings and pay the postage, as well as to regularly update the BID information. Staff is proposing that these costs be charged to the district assessment as is allowed by State law, with a maximum of$8,000 for the set-up costs for the coming year. If the Council adopts the proposed resolution of intention, a public hearing would be held on April 19, 2004,to receive input from interested persons, and an ordinance to form the district would be provided for introduction Mayor and Council Re: Resolution of Intention to Form Burlingame Avenue Area BID March 31, 2004 Page 2 at that meeting. A second public hearing would be held on May 2, 2004,to take additional testimony and determine if protests have been filed. At that time,the Council could adopt the ordinance forming the district, determine the programs and improvements to be funded by the district, and impose assessments for the 2004- 2005 year. A form of notice to be mailed to the businesses in the proposed district is attached to this report, and Staff requests that the Council approve the notice. It would provide each business with its projected assessment together with the classification that the business appears to fit. This will give businesses a chance to verify the classification(type of business and number of employees) and evaluate the assessment amount. The notice mailing will also include the resolution of intention itself and a letter from the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Association regarding the district. The resolution will also be published. Attachments Letter from Interim Advisory Board Map of Proposed District Proposed Resolution of Intention Exhibit A—Description of District Exhibit B—Programs and Improvements to be funded by assessments Exhibit C—Assessment Basis Proposed notice to businesses of hearings Projected assessments spreadsheet Proposed Notice Distribution Sam Malouf Burlingame Chamber of Commerce Finance Director Burlingame Avenue Area Business Associationv (� 1426 Burlingame AvenueI�1nU1�I---I Burlingame Ca 94010 MAR 1 9 2004 i CITYOF BURLINGAME CITY ATTORNEY March 16,2004 Larry Anderson City Attorney City Hall 510 Primrose Burlingame,CA 94010 Re:Burlingame Avenue Area Improvement District Dear Lary, Thank you for your assistance and guidance in forming a Business Improvement District ("BID")for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. The BID will invigorate our downtown commercial community. The funds raised will support our activities,such as the Holiday Open House and the shuttle service,and will allow us to do more advertising and business promotion. Funds will also be used to augment the City's streetscape improvement plan for the downtown area. We are very excited about bringing the BID to fruition. The advisory committee appointed by the City Council met on March 16to review the boundaries of the district,the proper categorization of the businesses,assessment basis, salons and to formally submit a letter of intention to form the district. The boundaries of the BID will include all of Subarea A(as defined in the Zoning Code) and most of Subarea B. I am enclosing a map showing the precise boundaries of the BID. The Title Companies should be listed as Financial(Category B)rather than Professional (Category P). The beauty salons and similar businesses will be treated as one business with the number of independent contractors being counted as FTE's. Please also see attached a list of the Banks and Savings Loans in the defined District. We have decided that qualifying non-profit organizations or businesses operating within the proposed District will not be assessed. I4168.00MCB(' 81\1211633.1 I am enclosing a list of all business, with employee counts within the proposed district. The Interim Advisory Board appointed by the Burlingame City Council is formally requesting that a Resolution of Intention to form a Burlingame Improvement District be introduced and adopted by the City Council and that we proceed with the formation of the BID in time to begin assessments in connection with this year's business license fees. Over the next few weeks, our committee will be publicizing the BID and visiting as many businesses as possible to marshal support for the BID. Already, we have received a great deal of press coverage and the feedback from the merchant community has been overwhelmingly positive. Thanks again to you and the other staff members who are assisting us in this process. We also want to thank Mayor O'Mahony and the other Council members for their interest and support. Please let me know what the advisory committee can do to help with the process. ery Truly Yo s, C--"/l am Malouf Enclosures cc: Committee members Georgette Naylor Mark Hudak 14168.00004\BGI IB 1\1211633.1 b1y bv� Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District ti o •, R�r/,� � : Subarea A 1T�3 o a , to � 3 �i'i'A�y c7 °` ° ♦ � Tral B lin ame ation itylall Gty V !y Parking Burlingame Parkin ,y Library F4�rk Cary LotA - City RD City Parking Post #`'�O ��- 0✓r !ly+, ryj sr Office or rr2 rSfso �L[�8g r r°j o City Parking CEris !rY� r v'l li til b° 'Q Lot J !lp�Fl9! .xLParMng,, Ci `Lti.y° LhtW T'. .y1'V t Parking 249 Cit LOC Parking N C Lot K t C. } Par( g _ 1420' Church »...... 4S rking GJ w\ Ltr United , Aa Mg.01 ist � LS S therines urc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005, AND TO ESTABLISH A DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD,AND SETTING DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS,merchants and business owners in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and the Interim Advisory Board for the formation of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District have asked the City of Burlingame to consider the formation of a business improvement district to adequately fund and serve the promotion of businesses in the proposed district and improvements and programs in the proposed district; and WHEREAS, the proposed district would be formed pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 and following; and WHEREAS, the proposed District would: A. Encompass much of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area as described in Exhibit A. B. Levy assessments on businesses in the District on an annual basis to fund the activities and programs described in Exhibit C to this Resolution. The assessments would be subject to annual review. The proposed classification of businesses is set forth in Exhibit B; and C. Set the assessments for the 2004-2005 year as generally described in Exhibit B hereto; and D. Establish an advisory board of owners and operators of businesses in the District to advise the City Council on the District's budget, assessments, and programs. WHEREAS, it appears that the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District would provide important services in promoting and enhancing business and the ambiance of the Burlingame Avenue area, NOW,THEREFORE,the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. The Burlingame City Council intends to form the Burlingame Avenue Area Business 4/5/2004 1 Improvement District by adoption of an ordinance pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36500 and following. The boundaries of the proposed district are generally described in Exhibit A hereto. 2. The Burlingame City Council further intends to levy an assessment for the 2004-2005 fiscal year on businesses in the District to pay for services,programs, and activities of the District. 3. The types of services,programs,and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit C. 4. The method,basis,and amounts for levying the assessments on all businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit B. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment,but they shall only be assessed on the ratio that the number of quarters remaining in the assessment year bears to the full assessment amount, with a partial quarter being counted as a full quarter. 6. If the District is formed and assessments levied, the City will charge the costs of forming and administering to the District, including mailing and publishing costs, which shall not exceed$8,000 for the 2004-2005 year. 7. A first public hearing on formation of the proposed District and assessments for 2004- 2005 is hereby set for April 19,2004,at 7:00 p.m.before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 8. A second public hearing on the formation of the proposed District and assessments for 2004-2005 is hereby set for May 2, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 9. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at both of the public hearings, and pursuant to Streets & Highways Code § 36522, interested persons may submit written comments before or at either public hearing,or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 10. Oral or written protests may be made at these hearings. To count in a majority protest against any aspect of the proposed District or to the proposed assessment for 2004-2005, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010, at or before the close of the second public hearing on May 2, 2004. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that second public hearing. Each 4/5/2004 2 written protest shall identify the business and its address. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business,then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 11. Effect of Protests. (a) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing,there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed formation of the District,the District will not be formed. (b) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing,there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed assessments for the year 2004-2005, no assessment for the year 2004-2005 shall occur. (c) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a service, activity or program proposed, then that type of service, activity, or program shall not be included in the District for the 2004-2005 fiscal year. 12. Further information regarding the proposed District and the proposed assessments and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650 - 558-7203. 13. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government Code and Streets&Highways Code and mailing in accordance with those requirements as applicable. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 4/5/2004 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK C:\F[LES\BIDBGAMEAV\resintform.res.wpd 4/5/2004 4 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARIES OF BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT IN GENERAL The Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District shall encompass: 1) All of Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area as described in Ordinance No. 1214, as amended by Ordinance No. 1621 ("Subarea A"); and 2) All of Subarea B of the the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area as described in Ordinance No. 1214, as amended by Ordinance No. 1621, with the exception of businesses located on: a) California Drive north of 401 California Drive; or b)Douglas Avenue; or c) Floribunda Avenue; or d) Oak Grove Avenue; or e) Park Road south of 149 and 180 Park Road; or f) Primrose Road south of Howard Avenue; but including businesses located at 1080 Howard Avenue ("Subarea B"). ZONES WITHIN THE DISTRICT Zone A Zone A shall encompass all of the area of the District described as Subarea A above. Zone B Zone B shall encompass all of Subarea B with the exceptions and inclusions described above. MAP OF DISTRICT A Map showing the actaul boundaries of the District is on file at the Office of the City Clerk located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. EXHIBIT B BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* ANNUAL ASSESSMENT BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF ** SUBAREA A SUBAREA B RETAIL & -----------6-----------------------$600 ----------------------$500------ RESTAURANT 1 - 5 $350 $250 6+ $400 $300 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ SERVICE 3 - 5 $300 $200 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ 1 - 2 $200 $100 6+ $350 $250 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ PROFESSIONAL 3 - 5 $250 $150 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ 1 - 2 $200 $100 FINANCIAL l+ $550 $550 * ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working (full time or full time equivalency) including owners, partners, managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, grocery stores, etc. Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink. Service ❑ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops, repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc. Professional ❑ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists, physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc. Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, title companies, etc. EXHIBIT C BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS All assessments raised by the Burlingame Avenue Area Improvement District ("District") shall be spent only in accordance with California Streets & Highways Code §§ 36500 and following and on such purposes as the District's Advisory Board recommends and the City Council approves. The following types of improvements and activities are proposed for the inception of the District: 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs, including: a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Street trees. C. Sidewalk enhancements and maintenance. d. Planters. e. Benches. f. Trash receptacles. g. Electrical outlets and supply. h. Seasonal decorations 2) Commercial Marketing and Advertising, including: a. Signage. b. Website design and maintenance. C. Print, radio, television, and electronic advertising. d. Publications for use with hotels and the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau e. Explorer hotel book. f. Concierge training. 3) Promotional and special events, including: a. Holiday Open House. b. Semi-annual sidewalk sale events. C. Spring Open House event. d. Performances, concerts,readings, etc. 4) Business recruitment and retention, including: Exhbit C - 1 a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive. b. Development of strategies to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 5) Shuttle Service a. Contribute to shuttle operation connecting hotels and Burlingame Avenue Area. 6) Personnel a. Fund a partial salary for an employee of the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to administer District programs, organize events, and promote the District. C:\FILES\BIDBGAMEAV\improvmtlis2OO4.bid.wpd Exhbit C - 2 MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1212 DONNELLY AVE 1212 GALLERY/GALLERY 1212 FURNISHINGS R 3 B $250 330 PRIMROSE RD 409B A.W.DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTOR S 1 B $100 240 PRIMROSE RD A-1 CLEANERS DRY CLEANERS S 4 A $300 1420 BURLINGAME AVE ABERCROMBIE&FITCH#416 C/O AMERITAX CLOTHING STORE R 25 A $600 330 PRIMROSE RD#502 ADHESIVE COATINGS CO RESEARCH P 1 B $100 319 PRIMROSE RD#A ADVANCED BEAUTY CARE AND HEALTH BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1375 BURLINGAME AVE AIDA OPERA CANDIES CANDY STORE R 3 A $350 1408 BURLINGAME AVE ALANA'S CAFE RESTAURANT F 10 A $600 1477 CHAPIN AVE ALBECO INC DBA MOLLIE STONE'S MARKET GROCERY STORE R 63 B $500 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#18 ALEXANDER GLOBAL PROMOTIONS INDEPENDENT SALES P 1 A $200 1220 HOWARD AVE#220 ALEXIA ESTRELLA CMT THERAPIST P 1 B $100 1408 CHAPIN AVE ALL CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE INC MORTGAGE BROKER P 4 B $150 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#S ALL CONTINENTS TRAVEL DBA PICASSO TR TRAVEL AGENCY S 6 A $400 344 LORTON AVE ALL FIRED UP POTTERY STORE R 4 B $250 329 PRIMROSE RD#111 ALL THAT GLITTERS ANTIQUE JEWELRY R 1 A $350 330 PRIMROSE RD ALLIANCE TITLE COMPANY TITLE COMPANY B B $550 330 PRIMROSE RD#402 ALLIED LOMAR,INC DBA INTL BEVERAGE EXPORTER P 6 B $250 401 PRIMROSE RD#D ALPINE INN RESTAURANT F 3 B $250 329 PRIMROSE RD#106 AMERICAN LIBERTY CARE PROVIDER NURSING PROVIDER P 1 A $200 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#P1 ANCHORS AWAY CRUISE CENTER TRAVEL AGENCY S 2 A $200 1325 BURLINGAME AVE ANN TAYLOR RETAIL,INC.#497 CLOTHING STORE R 9 A $600 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#108 ANNIE'S NAIL SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1208 DONNELLY AVE ANTIQUE MARKET OF BURLINGAME ANTIQUE STORE R 6 B $500 330 PRIMROSE RD#411 APOGEE VENTURE GROUP LLC INVESTMENTS P 2 B $100 1301 BURLINGAME AVE APPLE COMPUTER INC COMPUTER STORE R 17 A $600 329 PRIMROSE RD#202 APROPOS PROMOTIONS LLC PROMOTIONAL GIFTS R 3 A $350 1315 BURLINGAME AVE ARBY OF MERCED/TOPPER JEWELERS JEWELRY STORE R 5 A $350 1440 CHAPIN AVE#390 ARES CORPORATION ENGINEERS P 14 B $250 1 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL, P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1419 BURLINGAME AVE ARYANA FLOOR DESIGN RUG STORE R 1 A $350 1440 CHAPIN AVE#201 ATTRACTOR INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC INVESTMENTS P 4 B $150 220 PRIMROSE RD AURORA MEDIA INC SOFTWARE DEVELOPER P 1 A $200 251 CALIFORNIA DR AUTO MOBILE CARE CAR REPAIR S 2 B $100 401 PRIMROSE RD#G AVALON SKIN CARE ESTHETICIAN S 2 B $100 1409 CHAPIN AVE B&N INDUSTRIES INC DISTRIBUTOR P 19 B $250 200 PARK RD B.J.TRAVEL TRAVEL AGENCY S 1 i B $100 1220 HOWARD AVE#201 B.O.P.GROUP IT CONSULTANTS P 1 B $100 340 LORTON#212 BACK IN SHAPE CHIROPRACTIC CHIROPRACTOR P 2 B $100 1440 CHAPIN AVE#310 BAER MANAGEMENT INC INVESTMENTS P 1 B $100 1218 BURLINGAME AVE BANANA REPUBLIC#8274 CLOTHING STORE R 27 A $600 400 EL CAMINO REAL BANK OF AMERICA BANK B 25 B $550 149 PARK ROAD BANK OF THE WEST BANK B 20 B $550 405 PRIMROSE RD#301 BARBARA SEIFER,L.M.F.T. FAMILY THERAPIST P 1 B $100 329 PRIMROSE RD#212 BARBARA'S NAILS BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 291 PRIMROSE RD BARE NECESSITIES CLOTHING STORE R 1 A $350 347 PRIMROSE RD#B BARRACUDA/BARRACUDA SUSHI JPN REST RESTAURANT F A $350 1409 BURLINGAME AV BASKIN-ROBBINS 31 FLAVORS STORE ICE CREAM STORE F 5 A $350 251 PARK RD#710 BAUER&COMPANY REALTOR P 1 A $200 337 PRIMROSE RD BAY AREA ART DEALER ARTS STORE P 1 A $200 329 PRIMROSE RD#106 BAY AREA MEDICAL BILLING BILLING OFFICE P 1 A $200 401 PRIMROSE RD BAY COUNTIES FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS P 2 B $100 330 PRIMROSE RD#606 BAYWOOD CAPITAL CORPORATION INVESTMENTS P 3 B $150 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#B BEAUTY CENTURY BEAUTY SERVICE S 5 A $300 1410 BURLINGAME AVE BEAUTY IMAGE CLINIC BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1354 BURLINGAME AVE BEBE CLOTHING STORE R 6 A $600 1221 DONNELLY BECKY NEWMAN-BICKEL COSMETOLOGIST S 1 A $200 251 PARK RD BEHLING&ASSOCIATES,A CALIF CORP REALTOR P 1 A $200 2 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL, P -- PROFESSIONAL, S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1131 HOWARD AVE#201 BEVERLEY B CONRAD PH.D. PSYCHOTHERAPIST P 1 B $100 1454 BURLINGAME AVE BIJOU HAIR&NAIL STUDIO BEAUTY SERVICE S 7 A $400 1465 CHAPIN AVE#B BISCHOFF'S MEDICAL SUPPLIES MEDICAL SUPPLY STORE R 2 B $250 350 LORTON AVE BLACK SEA GALLERY ARTS STORE R 1 B $250 I 261 PARK RD BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO#06332-A/P STORES VIDEO STORE R 10 A $600 229 PARK RD BLU-WHITE CLEANERS DRY CLEANERS S 1 A $200 261 CALIFORNIA DR BLUSH NIGHTCLUB F 10 B $500 345 CALIFORNIA DR BOB'S SPORTS COLLECTIBLES COLLECTIBLES STORE R 1 B $250 329 PRIMROSE RD#208 BOHEMIAN REALTY REALTOR P 1 A $200 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#101 BOOKS INC BOOK STORE R 8 A $600 1325 HOWARD AVE#712 BRAND ADVISORS DESIGN CONSULTANTS P 1 B $100 249 PARK RD BRENDA P CURTIS MANICURIST S 1 A $200 1351 HOWARD AVE BROTHERS DELI RESTAURANT F 30 B $500 1411 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME AVENUE BEAUTY SUPPLY SUPPLY STORE R 3 A $350 1201 HOWARD AVE#101A BURLINGAME CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC CHIROPRACTOR P 1 B $100 1427 CHAPIN AV BURLINGAME GARDEN CENTER GARDEN STORE R 25 B $500 145 PARK RD BURLINGAME MASONIC HALL,INC. FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION P 2 B $100 349 CALIFORNIA DRBURLINGAME NAILS BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 B $100 1380 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME OPTICAL OPTICAL STORE R 4 A $350 311 LORTON AVE BURLINGAME PAINT&WALLPAPER PAINT STORE R 1 A $350 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#105 BURLINGAME PILATES STUDIO PERSONAL TRAINER S 1 A $200 1400 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME SMOKE SHOP NEWSPAPER STORE R 2 A $350 321 CALIFORNIA DR. BURLINGAME STATION BREWING CO RESTAURANT F 68 B $500 1320 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME STATIONERS STATIONERY STORE R 7 A $600 1404 BURLINGAME AVE BURLINGAME TOBACCONISTS TOBACCO STORE R 3 A $350 215 HIGHLAND AVE C&T GALLERY&DESIGN ANTIQUE STORE R 7 B $500 1100 HOWARD AVE#A CALICO CORNERS FABRIC STORE R 11 B $500 241 CALIFORNIA DR CALIFORNIA BAR&GRILL RESTAURANT F t 2 B $250 3 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 270 LORTON AVE CALIFORNIA CANDY COMPANY CANDY STORE R 11 A $600 1423 BURLINGAME AVE CALIFORNIA SAVINGS BANK BANK B 20 A $550 330 PRIMROSE RD#211 CANTER-MOORHEAD LAW OFFICE P 4 B $150 1200 HOWARD AVE#204 CAPITAL REALTY GROUP REALTOR P 1 B $100 329 PRIMROSE RD#210 CARI LENAHAN MFT,ANN ROONEY MFT COUNSELORS P 2 A $200 216 PARK RD CARR,MCCLELLAN,INGERSOLL,THOMPSON&HORN LAW OFFICE P 67 B $250 401 PRIMROSE RD#H CARRICK&ENGLISH ASSOC.REAL ESTATE REALTOR P 2 B $100 401 PRIMROSE RD#H CARSON ENGLISH INC REALTOR P 2 B $100 329 PRIMROSE RD#103 CASAVIN DESIGN STUDIO HOME DESIGN P 1 A $200 1412 CHAPIN AVE CASHIN COMPANY REALTOR P 6 B $250 1223 DONNELLY AVE CERES USA INC CANDLE STORE R 2 A $350 330 PRIMROSE RD#207 CHAN&KOSOL CORPORATION IT CONSULTANTS P 7 B $250 1199 HOWARD AVE#200 CHARTERED FINANCIAL INVESTMENT CORP MORTGAGE BROKER P 5 B $150 1220 HOWARD AVE#250 CHASE BERENSTEIN&MURRAY-LAW LAW OFFICE P 2 B $100 234 PRIMROSE RD CHICKEN!CHICKEN!BURLINGAME INC. RESTAURANT F 18 A $600 1113 BURLINGAME AVE CHICO'S#274 CLOTHING STORE R 8 A $600 330 PRIMROSE RD#400 CHRISMAN&ASSOCIATES RISK MANAGEMENT P 7 B $250 245 CALIFORNIA DR CHRISTIE'S RESTAURANT F 7 B $500 1241 HOWARD AVE CIT SPORTS,INC. SPORTS STORE R 2 B $250 210 PRIMROSE RD CITIBANK(WEST) BANK B 20 B $550 350 PRIMROSE RD CITY NATIONAL BANK BANK B 25 B $550 290 PRIMROSE RD CJ'S DELI DELICATESSEN F 5 A $350 315 LORTON AVE CLASSIC KIDS LLC PHOTOGRAPHER S 5 A $300 251 PARK RD#710 CLAY HERMAN REALTOR, INC. REALTOR P 1 A $200 281 CALIFORNIA DR CLYDE'S BARBER SHOP BARBER S 4 A $300 1440 CHAPIN AVE#310 CMA CONSOLIDATED INC INVESTMENTS P 5 B $150 1300 HOWARD AVE COCONUT BAY RESTAURANT RESTAURANT F 4 B $250 330 PRIMROSE RD#206 COHEN&ASSOCIATES ACCOUNTANTS P 2 B $100 4 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL, P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA SUB 2004-2005ANNUAL ANAN T EES A 400 PRIMROSE RD#100 COLDWELL BANKER/FOX&CARSKADON-NRT REALTOR P 5 B $150 347 PRIMROSE RD#A COLOR ME COCOA TANNING STUDIO S 1 A $200 1208 DONNELLY AVE COMANDATORI DESIGN GROUP INTERIOR DESIGN P 1 B $100 319 PRIMROSE RD#1 COMME LA MER SKIN CARE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 330 PRIMROSE RD#303 CONTINENTAL WINGATE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS P 2 B $100 1216 BURLINGAME AVE COPENHAGEN BAKERY&COFFEE SHOP RESTAURANT F 52 A $600 � 1325 HOWARD AVE#910 CORBELLI'S DECOR WHOLESALE SUPPLY P 1 B $100 215 HIGHLAND AVE COTTONG&TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE P 71 B $250 1150 BURLINGAME AVE CRYSTAL VISION PSYCHIC SERVICES S 2 A $200 260 EL CAMINO REAL CURRIES CHEVRON GASOLINE STATION R 13 A $600 1471 BURLINGAME AVE D MUSIC CORP DBA COLTON PIANO&ORGAN PIANO STORE R 2 A $350 180 PARK RD DANIEL C MORENO CPA ACCOUNTANTS P 2 B $100 340 LORTON AVE#203 DANLI CHIROPRACTIC&WELLNESS CHIROPRACTOR P 1 B $100 1200 HOWARD AVE#204 DAVID LARSON EA INCOME TAX PREPARER P 1 B $100 1325 BURLINGAME AVE#1325 DBA ENZO ANGIOLINI#8097 SHOE STORE R 4 A $350 329 PRIMROSE RD#216 DE COLORES HAIR STUDIO-NANCY LOPEZ BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 319 PRIMROSE RD#1 DEANNE'S BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 f� 1414 BURLINGAME AVE DEBORELLA HOME&GARDEN R 1 A $350 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#103 DIAMONDS A FINE HAND&FEET SPA BEAUTY SERVICE S 2 A $200 221 PARK DICEY REILLY'S AN IRISH PUB RESTAURANT F 4 A $350 1218 DONNELLY AVE#1 DISENO ACTUAL INTERIOR DESIGN P 1 B $100 1427 BURLINGAME AV DOERR STUDIOS PHOTOGRAPHER S 2 A $200 i 1110 BURLINGAME AVE DON SNIDER&ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS P 1 A $200 345 LORTON AVE#104 DONALD E NEWMAN MD PHYSICIAN P 1 B $100 330 PRIMROSE RD#500 DOYLE&BOISSIERE LLC INVESTMENTS P 3 B $150 340 LORTON AVE#215 DRAKE REALTY REALTOR P 1 B $100 1290 HOWARD AVE#323 DUNCAN&BRANSON INVESTMENTS P 3 B $150 1412 BURLINGAME AVE D'ZOV CLOTHING STORE R 21 A $350 5 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 329 PRIMROSE RD#106 E&K DME COMPANY MEDICAL SUPPLY RENTALS S 2 A $200 322 LORTON AV ECCO RESTAURANT F 8 A $600 1201 HOWARD AVE#101 EDIE L SWITZER&ASSOCIATES REALTOR P 1 B $100 311 CALIFORNIA DR EDITH'S SKIN CARE AND ELECTOLOGY BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 340 LORTON AVE#204 EDU-THERAPY TUTORING P 1 B $100 ` 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#18 EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES P 1 A $200 330 PRIMROSE RD#204 EHRNEST E.BALLAGH III ACCT CORP ACCOUNTANTS P 1 B $100 1109 BURLINGAME AVE EIGHTY EIGHT PHOTO LAB PHOTO PROCESSING S 1 A $200 1375 BURLINGAME AVE ELITE TAILORING TAILOR SHOP S 1 A $200 211 PARK RD EMILY'S NAILS SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 5 B $200 341 PRIMROSE RD ENCHANTED APRIL GIFT SHOP R 2 A $350 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#200 ENCORE' CLOTHING STORE R 2 A $350 340 LORTON AVE#202 ESTATE MORTGAGE GROUP MORTGAGE BROKER P 1 B $100 1319 BURLINGAME AVE ESTYLE INC DBA BABYSTYLE CLOTHING STORE R 15 A $600 1199 HOWARD AVE#101 ETHAN ALLEN TRAVEL, INC TRAVEL AGENCY S 2 B $100 269 PRIMROSE RD EVERGREEN OVERSEAS INC HOME FURNISHINGS R 1 A $350 i 407 PRIMROSE RD FALK,CORNELL&ASSOCIATES,LLP LAW OFFICE P 2 B $100 1108 BURLINGAME AVE FANNY&ALEXANDER RESTAURANT F 28 A $600 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#V FELICE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1107 BURLINGAME AVE FGF HOLDINGS LLC DBA FOUR GREEN FIELDS GIFT SHOP R 2 A $350 1411 CHAPIN AVE FIDELITY BROKERAGE-FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INVESTMENTS F 7 B $500 233 CALIFORNIA DR FINE CONSIGN CONSIGNMENT STORE R 2 B $250 1406 BURLINGAME AVE FIORI FLORIST R 2 A $350 1105 BURLINGAME AVE FIREWHITE CONSULTING INC MARKETING CONSULTANT P 4 A $250 1440 CHAPIN AVE FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY TITLE COMPANY B B $550 330 PRIMROSE RD#308 FIRST COMMUNITY MORTGAGE CO MORTGAGE BROKER P 1 B $100 1461 BURLINGAME AVE FOX AVENUE SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 12 A $400 1419 BURLINGAME AV#E FOX MALL FINE JEWELRY&GIFTS JEWELRY STORE R 1 A $350 6 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF UAL N AN SUB 2004-2005 ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA -2005 ANNUAL EES 371 PRIMROSE RD FRINGE LLC BEAUTY SERVICE S 5 A $300 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#7 FRYKBERG ASSOCIATES INVESTMENTS P 1 A $200 405 PRIMROSE RD#205 GAIL M SHAK PHD PSYCHOLOGIST P 1 B $100 345 LORTON AVE GALLI HERITAGE CONTRACTOR S 25 B $300 209 PARK RD GAMBARDELLA'S RESTAURANT F 1 B $250 1294 BURLINGAME AVE GAP#141 CLOTHING STORE R 28 A $600 1390 BURLINGAME AVE GAP KIDS#9614 CLOTHING STORE R 23 A $600 1425 BURLINGAME AV GAU POANG CHINESE RESTAURANT RESTAURANT F 8 A $600 1333 HOWARD AVE GENERAL APPLIANCE&KITCHEN CENTER, INC APPLIANCE STORE R 9 B $500 1465 BURLINGAME AVE GENEVE JEWELERS-GOLDSMITHS JEWELRY STORE R 2 A $350 330 PRIMROSE RD#407 GEORGE S YOUNGLING(LAW OFFICE) LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 1410 BURLINGAME AVE GIA'S SKINCARE&ELECTROLYSIS BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 217 CALIFORNIA DR GILMAN SCREENS&KITCHENS HOME FURNISHINGS R 3 B $250 329 PRIMROSE RD#104 GLAD ON PARIS TAILOR SHOP S 1 A $200 1325 HOWARD AVE#222 GLOBAL FLAGS FLAG STORE R 1 B $250 200 PARK RD GLOBAL JOURNEYS TRAVEL AGENCY S 1 B $100 256 LORTON AVE GLOW SKIN CARE AND WAXING BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 205 PARK ROAD#205 GOTCHA SUBPOENA SERVICES PROCESS SERVER P 1 B $100 1232 BURLINGAME AVE GRACE HOLMES INC DBA J CREW RETAIL CLOTHING STORE R 25 A $600 1107 HOWARD AVE GRANDVIEW RESTAURANT OF BURLINGAME RESTAURANT F 8 B $500 1166 HOWARD AVE GRAY'S PAINT&WALLPAPER PAINT STORE R 5 B $250 1202 BURLINGAME AVE GYMBOREE STORES DBA JANIE&JACK#938 CLOTHING STORE R 10 A $600 209 HIGHLAND AVE. H.E.R.E.UNION LOCAL 340 LABOR ORGANIZATION P 8 B $250 311 CALIFORNIA DR HAIR DESIGNS BY DANIELLE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1199 HOWARD AVE#250 HAMILTON PARTNERS L.P. REALTORS P 3 B $150 1200 HOWARD AVE#103 HARLOW'S BEAUTY SERVICE S 5 B $200 409 PRIMROSE RD HARMONIOUS HOUSING INC REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT P 2 B $100 1220 HOWARD AVE#250 HARRIS&FRASER LAW OFFICE P 2 B $100 7 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1440 CHAPIN AVE#201 HARVEY ALLISON INTERIOR/ARCHITECT DSGN ARCHITECTS P 1 B $100 405 PRIMROSE RD HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PLUS WEIGHT LOSS CENTER P 1 B $100 1450 CHAPIN AVE#6 HELEN MARLO PH.D. PSYCHOTHERAPIST P 1 B $100 405 PRIMROSE RD#300 HENRY HORN&SONS, INC. REALTOR P 2 B $100 1448 BURLINGAME AVE HOLA!MEXICAN RESTAURANT&CANTINA RESTAURANT F 45 A $600 1220 HOWARD AVE HOLIDAY EXPRESS TOUR OPERATOR S 4 B $200 1432 BURLINGAME AV HOLIDAY TRAVEL SERVICE OF BURLINGAME TRAVEL AGENCY S 6 A $400 1409 CHAPIN AVE HOPELINK CORPORATION HEALTHCARE MANAGMENENT P 11 B $250 409 PRIMROSE RD HORN APPRAISAL SERVICE APPRAISAL P 1 B $100 260 LORTON AVE HOUSE OF BAGELS RESTAURANT F 2 A $350 1243 HOWARD AVE HOUSE OF COFFEE RESTAURANT F 3 B $250 1407 BURLINGAME AVE HOUSE OF COFFEE RESTAURANT F 3 A $350 1200 HOWARD AVE#203 ICHINYOSHA INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT P 5 B $150 327 LORTON AVE IL FORNAIO RESTAURANT F 99 B $500 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#V INCOGNITO IMAGE STUDIO BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 345 CALIFORNIA DR#7 INTERIOR DECADENCE INTERIOR DESIGN P 1 B $100 1325 HOWARD AVE#814 INTERNATIONAL CONCEPTS INTERIOR DESIGN P 1 B $100 1115 BURLINGAME AVE IONA CLOTHING STORE R 3 A $350 1451 BURLINGAME AVE ISOBUNE BURLINGAME RESTAURANT F 23 A $600 345 CALIFORNIA DR#161 J C CARPET&UPHOLSTERY SPEC CARPET CLEANING S 1 B $100 1290 HOWARD AVE#325 J G ACCOUNTING SERVICES ACCOUNTANTS P 1 B $100 1325 HOWARD AVE#265 J.HOWARD ENGINEERING, INC ENGINEERS P 7 B $250 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#J J.A.E.'S-JENNY ELIOPOULOS GIFT SHOP R 1 A $350 1325 HOWARD AVE#228 J.N.EVENTS/PARTY PLANNER/PERSONAL MGMT PARTY PLANNING S 1 B $100 1215 BURLINGAME AVE JACADI CLOTHING STORE R 3 A $350 405 PRIMROSE RD#313 JAN E PERRY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK P 1 B $100 340 LORTON AV 207 JC INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AGENCY S 1 B $100 330 PRIMROSE RD#305 JDF ASSOCIATES INVESTMENTS P 1 B $100 8 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#5 JEAN DIXEN PH.D. PSYCHOLOGIST P 1 A $200 1440 CHAPIN AVE#310 JETFLEET MANAGEMENT CORP INVESTMENTS P 8 B $250 1200 HOWARD AVE#102 JKC&BEAUTY MARKET INC BEAUTY SERVICE S 10 B $300 329 PRIMROSE RD#205 JOAN RESTIVO BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 329 PRIMROSE RD#211 JOANNE'S PLACE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 330 PRIMROSE RD#202 JOEDON INC DBA MORTGAGE SERVICES MORTGAGE BROKER P 3 B $150 205 PARK RD#215 JOSEPH TOTAH INSURANCE SERVICES INSURANCE BROKER P 2 B $100 1375 BURLINGAME AVE JOUVENCE SKIN REJUVENATION CENTER BEAUTY SERVICE S 2 A $200 247 PARK RD JOY'S EUROPEAN TAILORING TAILOR SHOP S 1 A $200 205 PARK RD#207 KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR,AIA ARCHITECTS P 1 B $100 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#3 KAREL CAPITAL,INC. INVESTMENTS P 1 A $200 405 PRIMROSE RD#312 KAREN LINDAHL MFT PSYCHOTHERAPIST P 1 B $100 405 PRIMROSE RD#309 KAREN S ROBSON MA PSYCHOTHERAPIST P 1 B $100 1209 BURLINGAME AVE KARP COMPANIES/CALIF.REALTY REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT P 4 A $250 405 PRIMROSE RD#308 KATHERINE L MAYER M.A.,M.F.C.C. PSYCHOTHERAPIST P 1 B $100 1419 BURLINGAME AVE KEIKO JEWELERS JEWELRY STORE R 2 A $350 1316 BURLINGAME AVE KEN BRADLEY HAIR STUDIO BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#F KEN Y.TANISAWA,O.D. OPTOMETRIST P 3 A $250 1199 HOWARD AVE#101 KENNELLY MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES ADVERTISING AGENCY P 2 B $100 347 PRIMROSE RD#A KENTZLER FINE JEWELRY JEWELRY STORE R 3 A $350 235 PARK RD KERN JEWELERS JEWELRY STORE R 8 A $600 318 LORTON AVE KEYHAN INC DBA SOLEMATES SHOE STORE R 3 A $350 1199 HOWARD AVE SUITE 350 KIDZMOUSE INC PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT P 6 B $250 1213 BURLINGAME AVE KING YUAN RESTAURANT RESTAURANT F 3 A $350 330 PRIMROSE RD#502 KME MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC INVESTMENTS P 3 B $150 1211 BURLINGAME AVE KUPFER JEWELRY CENTER JEWELRY STORE R 2 A $350 1125 BURLINGAME AVE LA SALSA FRESH MEXICAN GRILL RESTAURANT F 14 A $600 1219 BURLINGAME AVE LA SCALA RESTAURANT F 101 A $600 9 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1114 BURLINGAME AVE L'AMOURETTE CLOTHING STORE R 1 A $350 330 PRIMROSE RD#210 LANDCO-A REAL ESTATE SERVICES CORP INVESTMENTS P 2 B $100 330 PRIMROSE RD#406 LAURENCE M MAY A PROFESSIONAL CORP LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 I 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#107 LA'VANYA BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#7 LAW OFFICE OF GRADSTEIN&GORMAN LAW OFFICE P 3 A $250 1220 HOWARD AVE#250 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C HAIGH LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 1199 HOWARD AVE#300 LAW OFFICE OF LAURIE ONDERDONK KNOX LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 340 LORTON AVE#213 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE K LEUNG LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 1290 HOWARD AVE#333 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D LIBERTY LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 1290 HOWARD AVE#302 LAW OFFICES OF HAITHAM E BALLOUT LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 345 LORTON AVE#302 LAW OFFICES OF HERMAN H FITZGERALD LAW OFFICE P 2 B $100 1201 HOWARD AVE#202 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN G CLARK LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 247 CALIFORNIA DR LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN J WERNER LAW OFFICE P 2 B $100 1220 HOWARD AVE#250 LAW OFFICES OF MARK FRIEDLAND LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 1410 BURLINGAME AVE. LAWRENCE WILLIAM AVILES COSMETOLOGIST S 1 A $200 330 PRIMROSE RD#310 LEE MENDELSON FILM PRODUCTIONS, INC MOTION PICTURE PRODUCTION P 10 B $250 1445 CHAPIN AVE LENA BEAUTY SERVICE S 2 B $100 405 PRIMROSE RD#324 LEONARD M MATESKY INSURANCE SERVICES INSURANCE BROKER P 1 B $100 411 PRIMROSE RD LEONARD MA,O.D. OPTOMETRIST P 2 B $100 1304 HOWARD AVE LERNER TAMBOR BLACK DBA FLOORCRAFT HOME FURNISHINGS R 3 B $250 1433 BURLINGAME AVE LES DEUX COPINES CLOTHING STORE R 4 A $350 1217 BURLINGAME AVE UESCAPE SPA BEAUTY SERVICE S 3 A $300 303 PRIMROSE RD LETS GO!WIRELESS PHONE STORE R 1 A $350 329 PRIMROSE RD#106 LIBERTY HOME CARE PROVIDER NURSING PROVIDER P 1 A $200 333 LORTON AVE LILY'S NAIL&FOOT SPAS BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 B $100 1420 BURLINGAME AVE LINDAMOOD-BELL LEARNING PROCESSES TUTORING P 10 A $350 1199 HOWARD AVE#102 LITE FOR LIFE INC WEIGHT LOSS CENTER P 2 B $100 340 LORTON AVE#205 LITTLE SCHOLARS TUTORING P 2 B $100 10 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#402 LIVING DESIGN HOME DESIGN P 1, A $ZOO 1348 BURLINGAME AVE LOFT INC CLOTHING STORE R 3 r A $350 1290 HOWARD AVE#325 LOUIS A LIBERTY/A PROFESSIONAL LAW LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 327 LORTON AVE LUCAS PARKING CORP PARKING SERVICE S 2 B $100 1344 BURLINGAME AVE LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES STORES INC CLOTHING STORE R 6 A $600 1208 BURLINGAME AVE#37 LUCY ACTIVEWEAR,INC.DBA LUCY CLOTHING STORE R 8 A $600 1111 HOWARD AVE#A LUSCIOUS DESIGN&RESEARCH INC GRAPHIC DESIGN P 2 B $100 330 PRIMROSE RD#302 LYNN HILL&CO JEWELRY STORE ffR 1 B $250 1201 HOWARD AVE M H PODELL CO CONTRACTOR 12 B $300 251 PARK RD MAAK&SULLIVAN INTERIOR DESIGN 2 A $200 1241 BURLINGAME AVE MACGERAGHTY'S JEWELRY STORE R 1 A $350 214-216 LORTON AVE#27 MAHALAXMI LLC HOTEL S 2 A $200 287 LORTON AVE MAHALAXMI LLC HOTEL S 2 A $200 1100-C HOWARD AVE MAISON SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 6 B $300 1426 BURLINGAME AVE MALOUF'S CLOTHING STORE R 9 A $600 264 LORTON AV MANIJE CLOTHING STORE R 2 A $350 1201 HOWARD AVE#208 MARDOLLA MORTGAGE MORTGAGE BROKER P 1 B $100 263 PRIMROSE RD MARGARET O'LEARY INC CLOTHING STORE R 6 A $600 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#15 MARIE COCHRAN STUDIOS MUSIC INSTRUCTION P 1 A $200 405 PRIMROSE RD#310 MARK JURASIN ADVERTISING DESIGN ADVERTISING AGENCY P 1 B $100 1200 HOWARD AVE#106 MARLINDA'S SKIN&BODY CARE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 B $100 405 PRIMROSE RD#209 MARSHA JURASIN&ASSOC INTERIOR DESIGN P 2 B $100 405 PRIMROSE RD#204 MARTIN J REITINGER CPA ACCOUNTANTS P 1 B $100 1410 BURLINGAME AVE MARY NOBRIGA BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#T MASTERPIECE PRODUCTS WHOLESALE SUPPLY P 1 A $200 345 LORTON AV 205 MCGUIGAN&MCGUIGAN,CPA ACCOUNTANTS P 8 B $250 405 PRIMROSE RD#312 MELISSA HAZEN PSYCHOTHERAPY OFFICE PSYCHOTHERAPIST P 1 B $100 308 LORTON AVE IMEYER-BUNJE, LLC CLOTHING STORE R 2 A $350 11 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL, F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL, P -- PROFESSIONAL, S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 249 PARK RD#B MINS PLACE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1419 BURLINGAME AVE MICHAEL SULPIZIO,CPA ACCOUNTANTS P 1 A $200 253 PARK RD MICHAEL'S JEWELERS JEWELRY STORE R 1 A $350 1440 CHAPIN AVE#385 MILLENNIUM STAR LLC WHOLESALE SUPPLY P 4 B $150 1350 BURLINGAME AVE MIMI MATERNITY#1107 CLOTHING STORE R 3 A $350 401 PRIMROSE RD#A MODA SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 B $100 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#21 MONA KARAM HAUTE COIFFURE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#205 MONDI HAIR SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 38 A $400 309 PRIMROSE RD MORIZONO HAIR DESIGN BEAUTY SERVICE S 6 A $400 1436 BURLINGAME AVE MORNING GLORY CLOTHING STORE R 6 A $600 405 PRIMROSE RD 314 MORRIS&ASSOCIATES BUSINESS BROKER P 1 B $100 1231 BURLINGAME AVE. MR.Z'S STAMPS&COINS COLLECTIBLES STORE R 2 A $350 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#503 MURPHY WOOD INCORPORATED REAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT P 1 A $200 1325 HOWARD AVE#528 N SQUARE INCORPORATED MARKETING CONSULTANT P 2 B $100 329 PRIMROSE RD#107 NAILS BY DENISE DESOTO BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 256 LORTON AVE NAILS BY RENATA BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 231 PARK RD NARIN THAI CUISINE RESTAURANT F 1 A $350 1375 BURLINGAME AVE NATURE AT PLAY TOY SALES R 1 A $350 345 LORTON AVE#304 NEAL LITMAN COMPANY IMPORT/EXPORTS P 1 B $100 1123 BURLINGAME AVE NELSON'S COFFEE SHOP/RESTAURANT RESTAURANT F 4 A $350 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#D NICKY'S CLOTHING STORE R 1 A $350 1152 BURLINGAME AVE NOAH'S NEW YORK BAGELS#2114 RESTAURANT F 10 A $600 330 PRIMROSE RD#600 NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO TITLE COMPANY B 18 B $550 1200 HOWARD AVE#204 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA APPRAISAL APPRAISAL P 1 B $100 1152 HOWARD AVE NUANCE DESIGN JEWELERS JEWELRY STORE R 1 B $250 330 PRIMROSE RD#201 O'CONNOR MORTGAGE COMPANY MORTGAGE BROKER P 6 B $250 1409 CHAPIN AVE OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY TITLE COMPANY B B $550 330 PRIMROSE RD#402 OLDE ST. NICK DISTILLERY INC WHOLESALE SUPPLY P 3 B $150 12 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF UAL N AN ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA SUB 2004-2005-2005ASSEANNUAL EES 330 PRIMROSE RD#510 OUTSELL INC MARKETING CONSULTANT P 4 B $150 1150 HOWARD AVE P.K.S.CLEANERS&ALTERATION DRYCLEANERS S 2 B $100 1480 BURLINGAME AV PACIFIC BELL-ATTN SBC TAX DEPT PUBLIC UTILITY S 68 A $400 1325 HOWARD AVE#109 PACIFIC COAST RESIDENCES REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT P 1 B $100 246 LORTON PADDY FLYNIN'S RESTAURANT F 3 A $350 1424 CHAPIN AVE PAGANO&MCKINNEY,LLP LAW OFFICE P 3 B $150 222 LORTON AVE PAMELA ANN BELMONT BEAUTY SERVICE S A $200 1450 CHAPIN AVE#6 PAMELA G KRELL PH.D. PSYCHOLOGIST P 1 B $100 1204 BURLINGAME AVE.#5 PAMELA RUDD PHD. PSYCHOLOGIST P 1 A $200 1453 BURLINGAME AVE PANDA EXPRESS RESTAURANT F 12 A $600 1442 BURLINGAME AV PAPER CAPER STATIONERY STORE R 9 A $600 1227 BURLINGAME AVE PAPER PANACHE STATIONERY STORE R 4 A $350 1290 HOWARD AVE#325 PARTCO WORLDWIDE IMPORT/EXPORTS P 1 B $100 340 LORTON AVE#211 PARTEE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR S 1 B $100 405 PRIMROSE RD#300 PARTNERS MORTGAGE MORTGAGE BROKER P 12 B $250 1440 CHAPIN AVE#330 PASSPORT HOLDING INC INVESTMENTS P 2 B $100 314 LORTON AVE PATRONIK DESIGNS JEWELRY STORE R 2 A $350 1234 HOWARD AVE PAUL BOLOGNA,D.C. CHIROPRACTOR P 2 B $100 405 PRIMROSE RD#306 PAULA ZIMMERMAN,MFCC FAMILY COUNSELOR P 1 B $100 330 PRIMROSE RD#208 PAZCO FUNDING MORTGAGE BROKER P 1 B $100 1309 BURLINGAME AVE PEETS COFFEE&TEA RESTAURANT F 19 A $600 348 LORTON AVE PELUCHE CLOTHING STORE R 3 B $250 1316 BURLINGAME AVE PENINSULA BEAUTY SUPPLY INC BEAUTY SUPPLIES R A $350 330 PRIMROSE RD#408 PENINSULA FINANCIAL PLANNING INVESTMENTS P 1 B $100 345 LORTON AVE#104 PENINSULA PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE PSYCHIATRIST P 1 B $100 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#9 PENINSULA SPEAKERS SERIES INC SPEAKERS BUREAU P 2 A $200 301 CALIFORNIA DR#4-8 PHILLIP GOODMAN ACCOUNTANCY CORP ACCOUNTANTS P 2 A $200 405 PRIMROSE RD#307 PHOENIX PROGRAMS INC COUNSELING P 1 B $100 13 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1410 BURLINGAME AVE PHUONG TRUONG BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1209 HOWARD AVE PHYSIFIX BODY THERAPY FITNESS S 2 B $100 321 PRIMROSE RD PIAZZA ITALIA CAFE RESTAURANT F 4 A $350 1209 HOWARD AVE#204 PILATES FAMILY INC FITNESS S 2 B $100 1220 HOWARD AVE#250 PIPER PAINTING CO CONTRACTOR S 4 B $200 1429 BURLINGAME AVE PLAZA DEPAWS PET SUPPLY R 2 A $350 1410 BURLINGAME AVE#B POINT CLICK N GO INC IT CONSULTANTS P 4 A $250 226 LORTON AVE POSTAL INSTANT PRESS(PIP) MAIL SERVICE S 3 A $300 1460 BURLINGAME AVE POT-POURRI ARTS STORE R 3 A $350 1218 BURLINGAME AVE POTTERY BARN HOME FURNISHINGS R 38 A $600 330 PRIMROSE RD#614 PREMIERE PROPERTIES, INC. REALTOR P 1 B $100 1300 BURLINGAME AVE PRESTIGE WINES&LIQUORS LIQUOR STORE R 3 A $350 339 PRIMROSE RD PRIMROSE CLEANERS DRYCLEANERS S 31 A $300 337 PRIMROSE RD PRIMROSE FLORAL DESIGN FLORIST R 1 A $350 1475 BURLINGAME AVE PRIMROSE TAILOR CLEANERS TAILOR SHOP S 1 A $200 1325 HOWARD AVE#306 PR031 GAMES GAME DEVELOPER P 2 B $100 329 PRIMROSE RD#203 PUTTIN'ON THE RITZ BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 346 LORTON AVE QUENT CORDAIR ARTS STORE R 1 B $250 1201 HOWARD AVE#304 QUEST REAL ESTATE REALTOR P 1 B $100 205 PARK RD#208 R.M. BARROWS,INC ADVERTISING AGENCY P 1 B $100 256 LORTON AVE RACHEL&CO BEAUTY SERVICE S 7 A $400 236 LORTON AVE RADIO SHACK#3891 ELECTRONICS STORE R 3 A $350 j 1440 CHAPIN AVE#360 RE/MAX DOLPHIN REAL ESTATE REALTOR P 1 B $100 320 PRIMROSE RD RE/MAX TODAY REALTOR P 1 B $100 1345 HOWARD AVE REAL PROPERTY SALES, INC. REALTOR P 15 B $250 1409 CHAPIN AVE RED OAK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS P 3 B $150 251 CALIFORNIA DR REDLINE MOTORSPORTS AUTO PARTS STORE R 1 B $250 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#1 REGENT APPAREL, INC DISTRIBUTOR P 2 A $200 14 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL, F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL, P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1210 DONNELLY AVE RENDA ZA'AROUR SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 6 B $300 226 LORTON AVE RENNER GROUP/SURVEY'G&ENGINEER'G ENGINEERS P 4 A $250 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#R RESOURCE MORTGAGE CORP. MORTGAGE BROKER P 4 A $250 401 PRIMROSE RD#J RICHARD OF BURLINGAME BEAUTY SERVICE S 4 B $200 1375 BURLINGAME AVE RITUALS AESTHETIC SKIN CARE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1419 BURLINGAME AVE. RMC PROPERTIES REALTOR P 4 A $250 1290 HOWARD AVE#321 ROBERT A DELIA, INC. MANUFACTURER REP P 1 B $100 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#4 ROBERT E PISANO,ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICE P 1 A $200 330 PRIMROSE RD#408 ROBERT J.LOVEJOY,CFP FINANCIAL PLANNER P 2 B $100 1325 HOWARD AVE#106 ROBERT LOUTH CONTRACTOR S 1 B $100 1375 BURLINGAME AVE-2ND FL ROBERTA SALMA STUDIO ARTS STORE R 1 A $350 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#1 ROBERTS JEWELERS JEWELRY STORE R 1 A $350 329 PRIMROSE RD#204 ROBIN MELLO ELECTROLYSIS BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1243 HOWARD AVE ROCKY COLOGNE'S COMEDY TRAFFIC SCHOOL TRAFFIC SCHOOL S 1 B $100 1220 HOWARD AVE#230 ROLANDO PASQUALI,ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 1207 BURLINGAME AVE ROUND TABLE PIZZA RESTAURANT F 14 A $600 1209 BURLINGAME AVE R-SLICE LTD. GENERAL OFFICE P 4 A $250 329 PRIMROSE RD#200 RUBEN'S BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 228 LORTON AVE S L GRIFFITHS INC INSURANCE BROKER P 1 A $200 1450 HOWARD AV SAFEWAY STORES, INC.#948 GROCERY STORE R 89 B $500 240 PARK RD SAKAE RESTAURANT RESTAURANT F 8 A $600 1199 HOWARD AVE#103 SALON 1199 BEAUTY SERVICE S 2 B $100 222 LORTON AV SALON 222 BEAUTY SERVICE S A $200 329 PRIMROSE RD#206 SALON SANFORD/WILLIAM BEAUTY SERVICE S 2 A $200 1290 HOWARD AVE#309 SAM FERDOWS-ATTORNEY AT LAW LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 297 CALIFORNIA DR SAM'S ITALIAN SANDWICH CO. RESTAURANT F 3 A $350 1200 HOWARD AVE SANDRA BRUNICARDI BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 B $100 1447 BURLINGAME AVE SAPORE ITALIANO DBA MAMME INC RESTAURANT F 8 A $600 15 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL, S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1325 HOWARD AVE#416 SAVVY TRAVEL TRAVEL AGENCY S 1 B $100 1319 HOWARD AVE SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS P 1 B $100 330 PRIMROSE RD#660 SCHREURS&SCHREURS BUSINESS CONSULTANT P 2 B $100 1319 HOWARD AVE SCOTT DESIGN ASSOCIATES DESIGN P 2 B $100 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#300 SEABURY VENTURE PARTNERS INVESTMENTS P 2 A $200 1205 BURLINGAME AVE SEPHORA USA LLC BEAUTY SUPPLIES R 15 A $600 1214 BURLINGAME AVE SERENE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 205 PARK RD 211 SHANNON GREEN TALENT AGENCY TALENT AGENT P 1 B $100 311 CALIFORNIA DR SHEAR MAGIC BEAUTY SERVICE S 6 A $400 1220 HOWARD AVE#220 SHERYL BURSLEY-SKIN CARE BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 B $100 1410 BURLINGAME AVE SHIRLEY BROWN MAKE-UP S 1 A $200 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#K SHOE DOCTOR&IRENE ALTERATION SHOE REPAIRIALTERATIONS S 1 A $200 248 PRIMROSE RD SHOE-CLINIC SHOE REPAIR S 1 A $200 1205 HOWARD AVE SHOUT CREATIVE INC PRODUCTION CONSULTANTS P 3 B $150 329 PRIMROSE RD#214 SKIN BASICS STUDIO BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 1375 BURLINGAME AVE SLEEP OUTLET SHOP HOME FURNISHINGS R 1 A $350 220 PRIMROSE RD SNEAK PREVIEW VIDEO STORE R 5 A $350 1201 HOWARD AVE#103 SOUTH BAY HEARING AIDS HEARING AID STORE R 2 B $250 1215 DONNELLY AVE ST CLAIR'S RESTAURANT F 3 A $350 361 CALIFORNIA DR. STACKS RESTAURANT RESTAURANT F 15 B $500 1160 BURLINGAME AVE STARBUCKS COFFEE CO#523 RESTAURANT F 15 A $600 1410 BURLINGAME AVE STEPHENS OF BURLINGAME COSMETOLOGIST S 2 A $200 1140 HOWARD AV STERLING CLEANERS,INC. DRYCLEANERS S 4 B $200 345 LORTON AVE STRAND GENOMICS PRIVATE LTD BIOINFORMATICS DEVELOPMENT P 1 B $100 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#211 STRATEGOS BUSINESS CONSULTANT P 4 A $250 401 PRIMROSE RD#K STUDIO 401 BEAUTY SERVICE S 3' B $200 1111 BURLINGAME AVE SUMMIT BICYCLES BICYCLE STORE R 9 A $600 401 PRIMROSE SUNKISSED TANNING SALONS TANNING STUDIO S 2, B $100 16 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1403 BURLINGAME AV SUSAN OF BURLINGAME CLOTHING STORE R 9 A $600 1118 BURLINGAME AVE SW BELL MOBILE SYSTEMS/CINGULAR WIRELESS PHONE STORE R 3 A $350 1121 BURLINGAME AVE SWEET TREATS CANDY/ICE CREAM STORE F 5 A $350 1200 HOWARD AVE#105 SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER-BURLINGAME TUTORING S 28 B $300 251 PARK RD#150 SYNACTIVE LLC SOFTWARE DEVELOPER P 4 A $250 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#P2 TAZA INVESTMENTS&REALTY INC REALTOR P 2 A $200 401 CALIFORNIA DR TCI CABLE TELEVISION S 23 B $300 1100 HOWARD AVE#D TEA PLUS NOODLE RESTAURANT F 3 B $250 1402 BURLINGAME AVE TEHRANI FAMILY GALLERIES ARTS STORE R 1 A $350 220 LORTON AVE THE ALIBI BAR F 4 A $350 311 CALIFORNIA DR THE ART OF NAIL BY TOM BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 251 CALIFORNIA DR#B THE BENZ DOCTOR AUTO REPAIR S B $100 1440 CHAPIN AVE THE BODY SHOP CORPORATE OFFICE P 26 B $250 1223-1225 BURLINGAME AVE THE BOMBAY COMPANY#475 CLOTHING STORE R 4 A $350 1345 HOWARD AVE#101 THE BURLINGAME BARBER BARBER SHOP S 2 B $100 1308 BURLINGAME AVE THE CAKERY BAKERY R 11 A $600 1310 BURLINGAME AVE THE CREPEVINE RESTAURANT F 12 A $600 218 LORTON AVE THE CUT BARBER SHOP S 1 A $200 329 PRIMROSE RD THE GALLERY ARTS STORE R 1 A $350 311 PRIMROSE RD THE GROCERY STORE CLOTHING STORE R 3 A $350 1202 BURLINGAME AVE THE GYMBOREE STORES INC#409 CHILDRENS STORE R 11 A $600 1199 HOWARD AVE#300 THE HILLSDALE GROUP REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT P 1 B $100 1325 HOWARD AVE#104 THE IMPRINT AGENCY MANUFACTURER SALES P 1 B $100 1200 BURLINGAME AVE THE LUGGAGE CENTER LUGGAGE STORE R 5 A $350 II 257 PRIMROSE RD THE PERSONAL TOUCH GIFT STORE R 2 A $350 I 345 LORTON AV 301 THE RIGGS COMPANY INVESTMENTS P 1 B $100 1111 HOWARD AVE THE RIGHT START INC CHILDRENS STORE R 7 B $500 1375 BURLINGAME AVE THE SHARPER IMAGE GIFT STORE R 8 A $600 17 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1475 BURLINGAME AVE#D THE SKIN CARE CLINIC/CLAUDIA PANITTO - BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 A $200 277 PRIMROSE RD THE STATUS THIMBLE ARTS STORE R 4 A $350 1103 BURLINGAME AVE THE STUDIO SHOP FRAMING STORE R 3 A $350 1462 BURLINGAME AV THE TALBOTS CLOTHING STORE R 7 A $600 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#Y THE TRIMM-WAY WEIGHT LOSS CENTER P 3 A $250 1209 HOWARD AVE. THE UNIQUE BRIDE CLOTHING STORE R 16 B $500 1325 HOWARD AVE THE UPS STORE#2354 MAIL SERVICE S 4 B $200 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#400 THE ZEKA GROUP INC. REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT P 4 A $250 1325 HOWARD AVE#506 THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION INC CONTRACTOR P 10 B $250 1401 CHAPIN AVE TIP N TOE SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 B $100 305 PRIMROSE RD TIP TOP SHOE SERVICE SHOE REPAIR S 1 A $200 1325 HOWARD AVE#519 TOM C.DRYDEN INVESTIGATIONS PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR P 1 B $100 1101 HOWARD AVE TOMOKAZU JAPANESE CUISINE RESTAURANT F 25 B $500 405 PRIMROSE RD TONI H.DE MARCO,MFCC PSYCHOTHERAPIST P 1 B $100 1375 BURLINGAME AVE TOO CUTE CHILDRENS STORE R 1 A $350 1401 BURLINGAME AVE TOWLES CAFE LLC RESTAURANT F 15 A $600 266 LORTON AVE TRAPEZE RESTAURANT RESTAURANT F 2 A $350 220 PARK RD TRAVEL QUEST TRAVEL AGENCY S 1 B $100 200 PARK RD TRAVEL WIZARDS INC TRAVEL AGENCY S 8 B $300 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#G TREJERD MEMORIES DBA PAPER&PETALS FLORIST R 2 A $350 205 PARK RD#203 TRG ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTS P 2 B $100 1444 BURLINGAME AVE TRIBECA HOME FURNISHINGS R 5 A $350 333 LORTON AVE TRIO SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 21 B $300 1221 DONNELLY AVE TU SALON BEAUTY SERVICE S 9 A $400 1214 DONNELLY AVE TURNER DALE ASSOCIATES INC(TDA) INVESTMENTS P 10 B $250 1410 BURLINGAME AV U.K.HAIR BEAUTY SERVICE S 24 A $400 1115 HOWARD AV UNITED PROPERTY SALES REALTOR P 1 B $100 345 CALIFORNIA DR#106 UTTERLY GUTTERS CONTRACTOR S 2 B $100 18 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL, S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF SUB 2004-2005 ANNUAL ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA ASSESSMT EES 1217 BURLINGAME AVE VALENTINOS BEAUTY SERVICE S 2 A $200 228 LORTON AVE#8 VALET BY THE BAY PARKING SERVICE S 1 A $200 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE VALET ORGANIZERS,INC CONTRACTOR S B $100 1375 BURLINGAME AVE VCPR INC ADVERTISING AGENCY P 1 A $200 301 CALIFORNIA DR#10 VICTORIA SEDAN&LIMOUSINE SERVICE LIMOUSINE SERVICE S 7 A $400 329 PRIMROSE RD#109 VISAGE MAKE-UP S 1 A $200 1314 BURLINGAME AVE VITALITY HOUSE/NATURES CUPBOARD HEALTH FOOD STORE R 3 A $350 355 CALIFORNIA DR VIVAAA FOR HAIR BEAUTY SERVICE S 1 B $100 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#106 VR EXPERIENCE ELECTRONICS STORE R 2 A $350 1420 HOWARD AV WALGREEN'S VARIETY STORE R 56 B $500 275 PRIMROSE RD WARM THINGS INC HOME FURNISHINGS R 2 A $350 1430 CHAPIN AVE WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK BANK B 25 B $550 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#202 WATCH GALLERY WATCH STORE R 1 A $350 1460 BURLINGAME AVE WATER SOUNDS WHOLESALE SUPPLY P 0 A $200 1435 BURLINGAME AVE WELLS FARGO BANK BANK B 25 B $550 345 LORTON AVE WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL PARTNERS INVESTMENTS P 4 B $150 1304 BURLINGAME AVE WESTERN POLO RETAILERS,LLC CLOTHING STORE R 6 A $600 1118 BURLINGAME AVE WESTERN STATES WIRELESS DBA PCS SMARTMART PHONE STORE R 2 A $350 359 PRIMROSE RD WHISTLING SWAN ANTIQUES ANTIQUE STORE R 1 A $350 274 LORTON AVE WHITE DOVE JEWELRY EXCH. _ JEWELRY STORE R 1 A $350 1402 BURLINGAME AVE WILLA GIFT STORE R 1 A $350 345 LORTON AVE#204 WILLIAM L NAGLE SPECIAL MASTER/MEDIATOR MEDIATION SERVICE P 4 B $150 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#17 WILLIAM PATCHETT INC DBA TREESCAPE TREE CARE S 2 A $200 1315 BURLINGAME AVE WILLIAM PENN DISTRIBUTORS INC WHOLESALE SUPPLY P 9 A $350 1290 HOWARD AVE#311 WINGES ARCHITECTS INC ARCHITECTS P 4 B $150 345 LORTON AVE#101 WINTERS,KRUG&DELBON LAW OFFICE P 11 B $250 330 PRIMROSE RD#203 WOODSTOCK DEVELOPMENT INC REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT P 1 B $100 1318 BURLINGAME AVE WORLD WRAPPS NORTHWEST INC RESTAURANT F 11 A $600 19 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S -- SERVICE MARCH 20, 2004 DRAFT #OF ANNUAL AN ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS BUSINESS DESCRIPTION CATEGORY EMPLOY AREA SUB 2004-A2005 2005 AN T EES 180 PARK RD YF INTERNATIONAL IMPORT/EXPORTS P 4 B $150 224 PRIMROSE RD YIANNI'S RESTAURANT RESTAURANT F 5 A $350 238 PARK RD YVES DELOREM INC HOME FURNISHINGS R 5 A $350 1200 HOWARD AVE#201 ZANZINGER&JOHNSTON LAW OFFICE P 1 B $100 1325 HOWARD AVE#131 Z-COM TECHNICAL SERVICES TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE P 3 B $150 248-250 LORTON AVE ZEYNO MEDITERRANEAN GRILL RESTAURANT F 4 A $350 $143,150 20 of 20 B -- FINANCIAL; F - RESTAURANT; R -- RETAIL; P -- PROFESSIONAL; S --SERVICE NOTICE OF PROPOSED BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.6 and PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSAL Merchants and business owners in the Burlingame Avenue Area have asked the City of Burlingame to begin the steps to form a Business Improvement District in the Burlingame Avenue Area. Enclosed you will find the resolution of intention that the City Council adopted on April 5, 2004. The resolution explains the process that will be followed, the manner in which protests of aspects of the proposal can be made, the proposed area of the District, the proposed programs the District would fund, and the proposed assessment formula. Under the proposal,you would be classified as . According to City records,you have and are located in Subarea of the proposed district. This would mean that your assessment for the 2004-2005 year would be $ If you have any questions regarding the District,you are welcome to call Jesus Nava at City Hall at 650 - 558-7222, or Sam Malouf, an Area businessperson, at 650 - 347-2191. The City Council will be holding a public meeting on the proposed district on April 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA, and a public hearing on the proposed district on May 3, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. The Council will hear from all interested persons who wish to testify at those meetings, and persons are also welcome to make written comments by mailing them to the City Clerk, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. However, persons wishing to protest part or all of the District should read the resolution of intention and follow the process described in the resolution. BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 17, 2004 I. Call to Order President Catherine McCormack called the meeting to order at 4:30pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Dave Carr, Cecile Coar, Mary Herman, Catherine McCormack, Carol Rossi Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously agreed_ to approve the warrants. M/S/C (Carr/Herman) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the January 20, 2004 meeting. M/S/C (Coar/Rossi) V. Correspondence and Attachments A. Peninsula Community Foundation - Al Escoffier, City Librarian, will attend the investment reporting meeting for fund holders to be held on March 11, 2004. B. January Statistics - Trustee Rossi inquired as to the reason there were so many directional questions at the lower level desk. She suggested that perhaps improved signage to assist patrons in finding materials would reduce staff time spent on this type of inquiries. VI. From The Floor - None 48o Primrose Road•Burlingame•CA 94010-4083 Phone (650) 558-7474'Fax (650) 342-6295 VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report 1 . Easton Renovation - It is possible that the maple floor can be saved. Dry rot was found in the west wall. 2. Security Cameras - Three security cameras will be installed in the library. Two cameras will be placed in the main entry and one will be located on the upper level near the fireplace. Signage will be provided to advise the patrons that security cameras are being used. B. Foundation Report Book Sale- The book sale will be held Friday, February 27th from 4:00 - 8:45pm and Saturday, February 28thfrom 10:00am - 4:00pm. Heidi Kenney is Chairperson of the event. C. Budget Review - The City Librarian reviewed the following budget matters. 1 . Proposed New Schedule- Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 9:00pm; Friday - Saturday 10:00am - 5:00pm, Sunday closed. 2. Budget Reductions - Closing Sundays would reduce the budget by $50,000 per year. An all day Friday closure would also produce a $50,000 per year savings. Closing weekday mornings would affect the continuance of the children's story hour program and would not produce sufficient savings to make it worthwhile. 3. Golden Handshakes - Golden Handshakes may be offered to those staff who are 50 years of age, have at least 5 years of service with the City, and are in the categories which may be affected by necessary budget cuts. Those categories are Librarian I, II , III and Library Assistants I, II, and III 4. Book Budget - Monetary reduction of the book budget is $50,000 which results in 2,500 fewer titles. This is the same reduction as last year and amounts to a total reduction of 40% over a two year period. 5. Trustee Comments - Trustee Rossi expressed concern about the effect of other library closures on our staff and as to whether more staff might actually be needed due to increased usage. Trustee Rossi also noted her preference to remain open Sunday providing patrons with usage of the materials on hand rather than no access at all. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 February 17, 2004 VIII. Unfinished Business A. Workshop Opportunities - Trustee Rossi will attend the CALTAC workshop; Trustee McCormack will attend the Workshop for Library Supporters as well as the CALTAC event. B. Service Highlights - The Trustees requested that City Council members receive a copy of this document. IX. New Business X. Announcements XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:00pm. The next meeting of the Library Trustees will be held March 16, 2004 at 4:30pm in the Library Conference Room. M/S/C Herman/Carr Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Esco Fier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 February 17,2004 C MEETING MINUTES 4 o u r C4*1 Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, March 18, 2004 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Larios at 7:56pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Heathcote, Lawson, Larios, Muller Commissioners Absent: Dittman, Erickson, Kahn, Youth Commissioner Webb Staff Present: Parks &Recreation Director Schwartz Others Present: None MINUTES Minutes of the Commission's February 19, 2004 regular meeting were approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS —None PUBLIC COMMENTS -None NEW BUSINESS - None REPORTS A. Parks & Recreation Department Report — In addition to the attached report, Director Schwartz reported on two items: 1. Staff is working with BYBA to construct a new batting cage at Bayside Park 2. The Capital Improvement Project list and the impacts of the upcoming budget reductions will be presented at the next meeting. B. Commissioners 1. Commissioner Muller asked about the priority of use for the baseball and softball fields on Sundays. 2. Commissioner Heathcote commented on how well the Washington Park playground renovation is coming and that the facility will be open for use in the next few weeks, weather permitting. 3. Chairman Larios asked about the use of the Burlingame High School track and if there are groups scheduled for use that preclude the public from �.. using the facility. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes March 18, 2004 — page 2 C. Hand-outs 1 . March 2004 Parks & Recreation Department Monthly Report 2. Letter from San Mateo County Supervisors Jerry Hill and Mike Nevin inviting Commissioners to a meeting on Monday, March 29, 2004 regarding the potential formation of a special County-wide park district. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be held on Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 7: 00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 13pm. Respectfully submitted, Randy Schwartz Director of Parks & Recreation CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL STUDY SESSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA Monday, March 22, 2004 Conference Room A I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojues called the March 22, 2004, special meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Auran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The Commission noted that on Page 5 of the minutes of the March 8, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, regarding the application at 1261 Balboa Avenue, a statement should be added that "given the mass and bulk of the house proposed it would be difficult to approve the lot split." There were no other changes and C. Osterling made a motion to approve the March 8, 2004 regular meeting minutes with the change noted. C. Keighran seconded the motion. The motion to approve the March 8, 2004 minutes passed on a 6-0-1(C. Auran absent) voice vote. tV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Since this is a special study session, the chair determined that the public comment should be moved to after the study session, and noted that comments would be limited to the subject of the study session. There were no other changes to the agenda. V. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION 1 . NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN — STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE DRAFT NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN (279 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe introduced Tom Ford with Design, Community and Environment, project consultant, who presented a brief summary of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the workshops and subcommittee meeting decisions which led to the Draft Specific Plan. He noted that there had been five public workshops and three meetings of the Planning Commission subcommittee. He then reviewed each of the plan subareas and highlighted some of the concepts proposed. He noted that there had been a comment in an earlier study session regarding bike lanes at the northern gateway on Rollins Road, and explained why they were not included; this concept was reviewed with Fehr and Peers, the traffic engineer working on the project, and it was determined that there is not enough right-of-way on the northernmost end of Rollins Road to include bike lanes and parking. Commission noted that California Drive, which runs parallel to Rollins Road, also connects to the BART/Caltrain station and useable bike lanes are proposed there. The traffic engineer suggested the use of what is called a "sharrow", which is markings in an auto travel lane showing that the lane is intended to be shared by bicycles and cars. The twelve-foot width proposed for the travel lanes on Rollins Road are a standard and required given the truck traffic on that street, it would not be appropriate to consider narrower travel lanes. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 22, 2004 To show how a planning concept works through the plan document,CP Monroe introduced a discussion of the Adrian Road Auto District and the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor. This also demonstrated how a -� staff member or developer would use the plan to determine if a given project were appropriate in these areas. Commissioners made comments and asked for clarification as follows: El Camino Real North Area: • There is a strong pattern of residential uses along El Camino Real in Burlingame, this should be continued. • Like the idea of having narrow setbacks with raised residential entrances and front stoops on California Drive. • Is the first floor retail component along the east side of El Camino Real viable,will there be a market for the small, service retail space proposed, does it introduce a strip commercial experience that Burlingame has avoided; where will customers park, and if off-street, how will the parking be managed? • When referring to the BART station,it should be called an intermodal station,there are CalTrain and SamTrans services there as well. • Would like to see a plan view illustration of the El Camino Real/Trousdale intersection as proposed. • Would like to see more thought given to what happens on the west side of El Camino adjacent to the Burlingame Plaza shopping center, if the frontage road area is to be developed, it needs to be something that the owners of the shopping center would like to see there; if frontage road is to be abandoned and the entrance to the shopping center reconfigured, would like to see how it would look. • Need to have a visual simulation and plan view with aerial photo base comparing existing versus .� proposed improvements for the El Camino Real right-of-way in this corridor. • Think that the block east of the hospital along El Camino Real should be treated differently than the block to the north, should encourage medical uses or institutional uses such as convalescent hospitals; the California frontage of the block could continue residential. • In Subarea B-4,north of Trousdale,could there be an additional incentive for affordable housing if someone were to offer to keep the units affordable in perpetuity? • Subarea B-4 should also be considered for Senior Housing/Assisted Living opportunities. • Could a policy be added that would require that the sidewalks on El Camino Real in the planning area be connected with the pedestrian network on El Camino Real to the south. • Bicycle access should be encouraged along California Drive rather than El Camino Real. • Can El Camino Real in the planning area be narrowed even more, to four lanes, like the rest of El Camino Real in Burlingame? o Staff and the consultant noted that in meetings with Caltrans,it did not appear that they would be amenable to a change in the lane configuration or willing to give up right-of-way. • Will people actually use the parking proposed along the west side of El Camino Real in front of the Plaza shopping center, could that parking be eliminated to further narrow the street? • The illustration of the Magnolia/Trousdale intersection should be modified to reflect the revised hospital entrance (when revised plans are submitted). Rollins Road Area: • In some cross-sections,the sidewalks are shown as 5'wide,why are they so narrow? o Consultant noted that the sidewalks on Rollins Road are shown as 5'wide because that is the existing width, there is substantial cost in replacing all the sidewalks and there is not enough right-of-way to provide wider sidewalks without narrowing the roadway(which would eliminate either parking or make the travel lanes too narrow for trucks). 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 22, 2004 • Need to revise the plan to show that the road connection between Rollins and Adrian Roads is a "floating"road,with the location to be determined as the area develops/redevelops and opportunity presents itself. �— • The plan needs to include a map of the proposed pedestrian trail system in the Rollins Road area;this could also include bicycle routes and paths; • Should look at the spur track right-of-way and drainage area between the Caltrain tracks and the Guittard properties,it would be a great area for a trail,path or dog run,can we provide incentives to developers to encourage them to incorporate a trail along this section. • Alternatively,a bike trail could be provided west of the Caltrain tracks along California Drive in the old street car right-of-way,which runs from Burlingame Avenue to the Millbrae border,this might be more accessible and continuous than the area east of the tracks. • There should be incentives provided for the properties at the Broadway/Rollins Road entry to make a gateway statement,taller buildings could provide an architectural statement if we give direction on design elements which would be acceptable; one of the parcels on the west side already has a building about 100 feet tall,could extend the statement to both sides of Rollins Road,perhaps allow a 50' height and greater density than is now proposed; gateway statement should also include a landscape element, need incentives to aggregate these parcels to get a safer access and circulation system and a more pleasing design with on-site parking. • Don't see that the Broadway/Rollins intersection is a gateway,when coming into town,can't see the building on the corner now, don't think just having a big boxy building there will be a gateway statement, need to define better what we mean by gateway. • Live/work option in northern Rollins Road Area should be kept,there is a need to provide a different type of housing,most people who are attracted to this type of housing do not have children,so it is not essential that the area be integrated with the rest of the city and the school system; still would preserve the economic base if only allowed live/work on a limited basis; • Need to be careful with the live/work option,how do we define what types of businesses would be allowed and how do we maintain the live/work use and not see it abused as housing only or for businesses not allowed in the industrial area;there is a very limited market for this type of housing associated with manufacturing or fabrication uses. • concerned with signage on Adrian Road,want to make sure the design guidelines establish that the types of sign lighting that are appropriate as well as the size and design. o Staff noted that the sign provisions in the guidelines are meant to be general and establish intent, the specifics will be worked out with an amendment to the sign code for the area. • concerned with the trees and other landscaping on the private property along Adrian Road,want to make sure species,location and management,both on private property and along the freeway edge are addressed carefully. • Need to add maximum height regulations and amend the maps and figures for the Rollins Road/Adrian Road areas, should be kept similar to existing heights, 35 feet review line. General: • Add titles to the graphic illustrations in the design guidelines to key them to the text. VI. FROM THE FLOOR Chair Bojues asked if anyone wanted to speak from the floor. John Ward,792 Willborough Place,noted that he had submitted a letter on behalf of the owners of property at Broadway and Rollins Road, was encouraged by the ommission's discussion of this area and the possibility of offering incentives for land use,height and density in exchange for creating a gateway statement at this intersection; suggested that the Commission look at examples of 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 22, 2004 live/work projects which have been built along El Camino Real in San Mateo to determine if that approach is feasible, there were conditions attached to those approvals that placed limitations on the live/work use, maybe it -� would be possible to see how effective they have been. Bruce Balshone,Pacific Resources,500 Airport Boulevard,indicated that the live/work concept has been a disaster in San Francisco,residential lofts and industrial uses have turned out not to be compatible,negatively affecting the industrial area; in San Francisco residential went into industrial area because the land was cheap,but there was no use relationship between the lofts and the rest of the area, and the industrial base is being lost; in addition the redevelopment sponsored concept of mixed storefronts and apartments has also had mixed success in San Francisco, many of the retail spaces built remained vacant,now have either been used by non-profits or converted to residential use; there has not been the demand for the small space retail of the type included in these projects. There were no further comments and Chair Bojues closed the public comments. VII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojues adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ralph Osterling, Vice-Chair SAMINUTES\unapproved Minutes 03.22.04.doc 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 29, 2004 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojues called the March 29, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojues, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: C. Keele left at 11:00 p.m. Staff Present: City Planner,Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney,Larry Anderson; Senior Engineers Phil Monaghan and Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 22, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with revisions on page 3 that the east side of the gateway at the south end of Rollins Road should extend north,up to the P G and E substation; that the Broadway interchange will be rebuilt in the future to be an urban interchange which may affect the gateway properties and design, and that the southern gateway area should include the properties on both sides of Rollins Road at Broadway. The minutes were approved with these revisions. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 7, 1537 Drake Avenue, was moved to the last action item because the applicant's representative had a conflict which was scheduled before this meeting was moved to the fifth Monday. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1861 EL CAMINO REAL,ZONED C-1—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FITNESS AND WEIGHT LOSS CENTER (CHARLOTTE HOLLAND, APPLICANT; STEVE AND MERRY-LEE MUSICK PROPERTY OWNERS)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Will any classes or group instruction be offered at this site; • Concerned with the increase in the number of customers expected at the site from 30 when the business opens to 150 customers in two years and 170 customers in five years,applicant should explain the large increase; • Applicant should explain why the number of employees is not expected to increase while the number of customers will increase so significantly; • Will disabled accessible facilities be provided, such as bathrooms, showers or a laundry facility; • What is the maximum number of people allowed in this tenant space at one time, provide building occupancy; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 • The applicant's letter notes that massage and other related services will be provided,please provide a detailed explanation of these services; • The staff report indicates that 13 parking spaces are required for this use and that a total of 59 spaces are required on this site, how was the total number of required spaces for this site calculated, what was it based on; and • Concerned with customer safety for this business, is one door at the front and one door at the rear enough, will the rear door also be used as an entrance for customers. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. 1080 HOWARD AVENUE,ZONED C-2,SUBAREA D—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE(FOOD ESTABLISHMENT)(RINO BETTI,APPLICANT; NORTHBAY RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT & DESIGN, DESIGNER) CITY OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C.Auran recused himself because has a business relation with the applicant,and stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • What percentage of the business will be take-out compared to on-site consumption; • Is there any historic significance of this building; • Does the applicant intend to remove the existing greyhound signage/logo as part of the changes for their business; • Provide the number of customers per day at the existing location,this calculation could be based on daily receipts; • Will there be many deliveries and how will deliveries to this site be handled; and • Provide the number of seats available in the outdoor seating area and a plan showing their location. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. C. Auran returned to the dias. 3. 1704 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE (BATTING CAGES) (TERRY WHITFIELD, APPLICANT; PETER VALENTI,PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Why did the batting cage business close at the previous location; • Provide a more detailed schedule of people on site during the day and evening hours; • Will there be a waiting list for people to use the batting cages and what is the average wait time; • Will the batting cage facility be open to the public or only for user of the Prime Time Athletic Club next door; 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 • How many customers are anticipated to come to the site by carpool; • Provide a detail description of what activity will occur at this site, describe activities such as washing machines, showers, locker rooms, etc.; • The previous batting cage facility was located on a site twice as big,did the previous location have any parking problems, were there any complaints; • Provide the number of customers who are under driving age,will kids come in groups; • Applicant indicates that he anticipates five additional customers in five years, is this correct; • Will a bicycle rack be provided and if so, where; and • Commercial Application is not complete,please provide employee and customer data for business in five years. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 4A. 123 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TADHG CANNIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 1---413. 1318 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDALL AND KATHRYN KARP, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Boju6s asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from voting Item 4b, 1318 De Soto Avenue, because he lives within 500'of the property. C. Brownrigg moved approval of items 4a and 4b on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,commissioners'comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the projects at 123 Dwight Road and 1318 De Soto Avenue. The motion passed 7-0 for the project at 123 Dwight Road and 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining) for the project at 1318 De Soto Avenue. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5. 1341 LAGUNA AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(RENE ARIAS,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CESAR SIFUENTES, DESIGNER) (82 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER �. Reference staff report March 29,2004,with attachments. Plr.Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Rene Arias, architect, was available to answer questions. Commission pointed out that the note on sheet 1 of the plans indicating"relocated sewer meter" should be -� "relocated water meter". Commission noted that the plans indicate new non-fruit trees to be planted along the right side of the house and asked what type of trees will they be? Architect noted that he did not know at this time but would follow the Commission's suggestion. Commission expressed a concern with the increased amount of hardscape now proposed with a two-car garage and asked why is a two-car garage needed and why is it set back two feet from the side and rear property lines. Architect noted that the property owners wish to have a two-car garage for their vehicles and that he understood that the garage had to be set back from the property lines. The Commission pointed out that a detached garage in the rear 30% of the lot is exempt from setback requirements and that it can be as close as one foot from the property line without requiring a survey. Commission noted that its unfortunate that the with the two-car garage there will be more paving,two trees will have to be removed and the rear yard will be reduced in size. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there is no reason why the garage can't be shifted further back so that it is located one foot from the side and rear property lines, can be added as a condition of approval; should also add a condition that the new trees to be planted along the right side of the house be chosen from the Burlingame Tree List and that the City Arborist shall approve the tree species to be planted, conditions should also include protection of the existing trees. C.Keighran noted that the proposed changes are consistent with the design of the house and that the two-car garage was appropriate in this case,and moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 24,2004 sheets 1 through 5 (Revised Drawings), site plan, floor plans and building elevations;and that the detached two-car garage shall be relocated further back so that it is built F-0"from the left side and rear property lines;2)that the four,new trees to be planted along the right side of the house as shown on the Site Plan date stamped February 24,2004, shall be chosen from the Burlingame Tree List and that the species chosen shall be approved by the City Arborist;the existing trees at the front of the property shall be protected based on protection measures recommended by the City Arborist;that the tree protection measures for the existing trees at the front of the lot shall be installed and that the protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit;3)that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors,or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4)that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal's memos dated June 30,2003 shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 6)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame ..\ Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9)that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flue 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 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 before a Building permit is issued;and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 6. 1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BURAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE,TRG ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT)(60 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the project. She stepped down from the dial and left the chambers. Reference staff report, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Project was represented by Randy Grange,architect,205 Park Road and Mark Buran,property owner. Neighbors Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake;Carol Oushani, 1527 Drake;Janet Garcia, 1557 Drake;- Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake; Denise Balestieri, 414 Cost Rica/1550 Bernal; Jerry Deal 1228 Paloma; Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake spoke. Applicant noted revised plans took out square footage affecting closet, laundry room, affects mass and bulk,tried to keep the building one and a half stories with dormers to reduce impact,feel that addressed the volume of the house,that more important that square feet; this would be the third house on the block that is shingle clad, felt it would balance the other two,but could make stucco if you want;three key elements,the house is only three bedrooms,the basement which is 700 SF does not count in FAR but has no effect on mass and bulk because completely below grade; and the garage may require one car but two cars will better address the parking on the street issue,has two-car garage now. Commissioners asked is there a reason that you did not have a hydrology report prepared to evaluate the impact of the basement on the drainage in the area;are the windows true divided lights;how many 4,000 SF houses are there on this block;is fireplace gas or wood burning? Applicant responded:did not know who would do such a drainage study, water table in area moves up and down depending upon rainfall, did drawing to show water would flow into drain rock on site and then into street and the city's storm drain; windows will be true divided lights; do not see this as a 4,000 SF house, only is that big if add garage and basement area which is only a game room,not a bedroom;do not know how many 3,500 SF houses there are on this block; fireplace is gas. Applicant noted would pump water to curb and go through gutter to closest catch basin which is toward the dead end of the street. Neighbors commented: represent 9 different properties and their owners,at the last meeting the commission asked that this house be"downsized",only 114 SF were removed,the FAR of the house is still 125%of the original,design does not reduce mass and bulk,does not fit in neighborhood;should not grant unless 700 SF is taken off the top of the house, the principle of the basement is good if it reduces mass and bulk by relocated square footage;concerned about the lack of drainage study,live across street,the off flow from the basement will go into her driveway,want studybefore go forward with project;average size house on block is 1,800 SF,this is 70%larger;there are 22 houses on the street which are stucco,counter productive to add shake to solve problem at 1553 Drake;there are five new houses to be built on this dead end block,send this �. back it's almost identical to the original. Concerned about drainage,have small cellar with sump,runs all the time when it rains,the water will go to the properties on the sides or across the street,this is a charming 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 house it could be remodeled; feel that house at 1529 Drake on streetscape is in error, it is shorter than her house,driveways appear to provide more space between buildings than they really do;applicant's tend not to -� provide requests that commission makes, should not go forward without drainage study; not just abou, getting what allowed,neighbors are being hammered with proposals for big houses on this block;down size was only to remove less than 3%, when commission suggested 5 to 10 percent; did not assign to design reviewer last time thought they would be responsive and sorry that they weren't. Drainage may go to basement area but it will not be directed when it is pumped out so will affect neighbors. Water ends up in my front yard, compacting the soil at 1537 increased water flow, plugged new drain, water flowed over straw, this project is going to increase the problems, both Tredwell ROC and URS engineers do such hydrology/drainage studies and can answer these questions,this house is just too big, the current cellar on the site is 5'x 8'. Amin favor of project,applicant is property owner,pays taxes,is following the guidelines of the city; purpose of design review in 1998 was to help design houses to build not to reduce size, more people work from home, need bigger houses. When the 700 SF was added for basements it was to be completely below ground,not as a trade off for SF above ground;understand that the number of new houses in a row can create a problem,but this house is not bulky,put garage at rear, architect did things to reduce the mass of the second floor; water in the basement will be addressed by putting in a drain designed for greater than the flow generated, will not deflect water on to adjacent property; would like legislation to prevent multiple new houses in a row but it would penalize individual property owner, can't just address size, because could take it all off the back and the smaller house would look the same from the front; professionals would all say the same about drainage, take water from soil and roof to the street gutter at front, not need to hire an expert, not provide any new information and cost $5,000; people want larger houses now,not double up kids as used to. Neighbors have rights, every project does not need to be built to maximum,that's what the guidelines are for;this block is under siege,this is the cutest house on the block, some intent should be made to retain that character. Applicant responded they are willing to remove the 700 SF basement area;do not agree that the design is the same,this house is one and one-half stories,not massive,prepared the streetscape as close to scale as could, houses are shown in perspective,the giant yellow house for example looks smaller,but this was done to one eighth scale,and field measured the distance between the houses. Commissioner noted help neighbors more to take 700 SF off the top of the house and retain the basement, could only do by reducing one of the dormers and put a bedroom in the basement. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: two issues basement and water/drainage; same water issue in my neighborhood, sumps run day or two after rain, three new houses behind actually reduced the surface flow across his lot because required to take drainage to the street at front;water will follow the path or least resistance.Asked Sr. Eng is city drainage system adequate? Will the larger basement(40 SF to 700 SF)increase flow in the storm drain? Front of this lot flows toward the dead end of the street and the creek, ground water will rise and fall in this area; might get a lot of water in the basement but can engineer around,this neighborhood has problem with tree debris blocking drains and resulting water backup so can flow down driveway at end of street at creek; the larger basement at 8 feet will affect drainage because there is ground water most of the year, major change will be during storms. Will it make a design difference if the basement is a bedroom? Staff noted that a separate door and stair would probably be required. Don't know much about water,but persuaded by testimony, that given drainage problems in the area now, proximity to the creek, and the increased density of use in the area, commission should have information/data on soils from a hydro- geologist to determine the impact on the neighborhood; at the time design guidelines were developed di not contemplate seriatim development in a neighborhood, but design criteria seems to address this when speaking of intensity of use, increase in size relative to what is there now;this house is too large for the lot 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 and neighborhood, the reduction in size, footprint and FAR was not enough given the commission's direction at study. Feel that the architecture is very well done, respect the choice of variety when using shingles, that type of variety happens on almost every block. C. Boju6s made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: problem is that have five applications on this block,not one,would challenge the applicant, don't know what the square footage the block can take, that is what "discretion" means, think design is fine,know it is bigger,less than maximum height,26/27 feet from grade and looks like a story and a half house; basement water issue is unknown, don't know if design review would help, should consider approving. Agree don't know if sending to design review would fix, it is well designed given the impact is on the total neighborhood, the cumulative impact is significant; need to see more work done; suggested design reviewer for a third party to expedite process;don't think design review proper place,many options discussed for change,better to let applicant. C.Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to send the item to a design reviewer suggesting that the house size be reduced by looking at the bathroom in the second bedroom,reduce size of dormer,pull the second floor back from the front. Chair Boju6s asked for a roll call vote. The motion failed 2-3-1 (Cern. Auran, Brownrigg, Keele,Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining). C. Vistica moved to continue this item for the applicant to revise the plans given the direction given including a redesign including the idea of putting a bedroom and bath room in the basement in order to reduce the mass and bulk above grade. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: should a hydrology report be required? Maker of motion added a condition that it was all right to come back without a hydrology report,but applicant should be aware that the site drainage issue would have to be addressed when they applied for a building permit. Second accepted added condition. Commissioner pointed out given the circumstances of the area need some expert information regarding hydrology. Chair Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue with conditions. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C.Keele dissenting,C.Keighran abstaining). It was noted that this action to continue is not appealable and the item will be renoticed when it returns to the Planning Commission. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. C. Keighran took her seat on the dial. 7. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU,CHU DESIGN&ENGR.INC.,DESIGNER(60 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNERS:MEG MONROE/RUBEN HURIN A. LOT 11 —APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE AND AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW �.,. TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 B. LOTS 9 AND 10 — APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FOR ADDITIONAL -� TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. Item 7A and 713, 1537 Drake Avenue, was moved to the last action item because the applicant's representative had a conflict which was scheduled before this meeting was moved to the fifth Monday. 8. 137 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CLEMENT HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 29,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal,designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue,Burlingame,noted the copy of roof plan included in the staff report was not highlighted to show the locations of the installed story poles, submitted a highlighted copy of the roof plan, the gable ends were replaced with hip roofs as suggested by the Commission and neighbor,ridge will be lower than the house on the right,will now be less bulky. Commission asked if the next door neighbor is present;no,the designer noted that he agrees with the change in roof design. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg 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 February 17, 2004, sheet 1,date stamped January 8, 2004, sheets 2 through 4, G-1 and L-1, and date stamped March 17, 2004, sheets 5 and 6; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3)that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners,set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type, etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 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 the conditions of the--� City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's January 12, 2004; memos shall be met; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and 11)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. C.Keele noted that he was originally not in support of the project,but the applicant has worked well with the neighbor to address his concerns and after reviewing the revised roof design and storypoles on site he is now in support of the project. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 9. 2711 MARTINEZ DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM CARRUBBA, SQUARE THREE DESIGN STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MONIQUE AND LEO REDMOND, PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 29,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that the was an error made when the story poles were installed,they were installed showing the roof ridge one foot taller than proposed. Commission asked if the neighbors were notified of this error;no. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Leo Redman,property owner,was present and noted that he bought the house in September, 2000, with the idea to remodel the house to accommodate his family and three children, so far has invested$35,000 in designs for this project,intent is to blend in with the neighborhood, tried to minimize the impact on views with this design, like the rear yard but is willing to reduce the yard space by 10'to place the addition at the rear instead of adding on the second floor in order to have the least impact on neighbors, spoke to eight neighbors including Mr. Wong at 2720 Martinez Drive, looked out of neighbor's window and verified that there will be minimal view loss,will not lose view of the bay,visited the next door neighbor on five occasions after the story poles were installed but was not home;the proposed design is within the height limit,only increasing the height by P-9"where the code allows an increase of up to 5'-0", neighbor at 2707 Martinez Drive completed a major remodel in 2001, this addition is smaller in scale;would like to build before the rainy season,if not may reconsider the whole project;consider it a tacit approval from Mr. Wong since he is not present at the meeting; family has been involved with the community, school and fundraising, would like to remain and Burlingame and ask that the Commission approve the project. Commission asked if the project was discussed with the uphill neighbor at 2715 Martinez Drive and did they have any complaints? The property owner noted that he spoke to them and they shared no issues with the project. Commission suggested that the property owner add more windows in the kitchen since there are nice view from this part of the house; owner thanked the Commissioner for the suggestion and will seriously consider it. Tom Carrubba,architect, Square Three Design Studios,clarified that the story poles as installed are in their correct location, discrepancy was in the civil engineering data and the way the drawings for the original house were prepared,initial survey showed the roof pitch to be 4:12,the actual roof pitch is very odd and is �.- more like 4%2:12,contractor correctly installed story poles based on points shown on the plans and survey. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January --� 29,2004, Sheets EC1 through ECS, Al through A3.4, and sheet Cl, site plan, floor plans, roof plan and building elevations,with a maximum height of 25'3"(elevation 122.77')as measured from average top of curb elevation at the front of the house; 2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's and Fire Marshal's January 30, 2004 memos, and the City Engineer's February 30,2004 memo shall be met; 4)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; 5) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 7) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 9) 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; 10) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 11) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 12) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: wanted to note for the record that it doesn't appear that Mr.Wong is in support of the project;visited the site and the view from neighbors house,don't think view will be obstructed;disagree, think there will be some view blocked, can easily address by altering the roof,will not support the project; visited the neighbors houses today,have full panoramic view,only the bottom of some trees will be blocked, addition is modest, overall distant views will be maintained. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29,2004 10. 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;JAMES CITU,CHU DESIGN& ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 29,2004,with attachments. Plr.Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Robert Gilson,property owner, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue,was present and noted that the design of the house is not changing,the additional square footage is being requested at the rear of the house,the roof configuration will also change in some areas,master bathroom will be extended out an additional five feet,noted that the existing house is five to seven feet taller and therefore the proposed new house will be less of an impact, large existing trees surrounding the house will provide screening and reduce the impact on the street, there will be no visible change from the street since the added area is at the rear of the house. Commission asked what is the reason for adding 284 SF? Property owner noted that the previously approved floor plan seemed cramped,the family room,master bathroom and closest is too small. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the originally approved project was a package,two houses in one project,when a single house is demolished and replaced with two new houses, the idea is to make each house smaller to reduce the cumulative impact,if the floor plan doesn't meet your needs,the changes should be made within the interior of the house,not by adding more square footage; feel that the proposed changes are acceptable, house is within the allowable FAR,other new house has been reduced,house is located on the downhill side of the street,proposed height is at 25',houses across the street on the high side are much taller,the large oak tree and a 70' tall Redwood tree at the front of these properties will screen the houses, the house is well designed and articulated throughout, front right side of the house will be screened by the existing Oak tree, lot slopes downward and therefore mass and bulk will go away; we need to be careful when reviewing two houses simultaneously as one project,do not want to be nickel and dimed later with changes,the house was previously revised by reducing the size of the house by 3 to 4 percent off the maximum FAR,this is not an issue if the lot can accommodate this size house,but that an agreement was reached at a certain house size and now the property owner want to add more; there were a number of comments when the project was originally reviewed,there was more flexibility at that time,owner addressed a number of issues,came back to the Commission with revised plans and those plans were approved,now want to make changes to increase the size of the house,this is not acceptable,Commission's original decision based on the applicants proposal should be respected; with present proposal also concerned with the increase in lot coverage from 34% to 39.7%, reduction in front setback from 22'to 20',reduction in the side setback from 5'-6" to the minimum required 5'-0", need to look at the principal and philosophy, a decision was made and the property owner needs to abide by the decision, not in support. Continued discussion:this is a tough decision,feel like the process has been abused,in principal the request should be denied,was submitted as one application for two new houses,there were criteria for both houses, now the property owner would like to make changes to one of the houses,does not satisfy the design review criteria addressing the impacts on the neighborhood or the interface of the two structures. CA noted that the property owner asked staff how to process this application for changes to the project,based on staff direction he submitted the application to make changes to one house rather than resubmitting the entire project for two �-' new houses. Commission suggested that another option is to submit a new application for reconsideration of both new houses. Commission asked if the current request for a design review amendment is denied,will Il City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 the approval of the original application still stand? CA noted that the original approval would still stand and that they have a certain timeline in which to have building permits issued. -� C.Brownrigg moved to deny the application for design review amendment without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion:wanted to make it clear that the Commission did not interpret any malice with this request after the project was approved, comments focus on the changes and how that affects the mass and bulk of the project. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Auran dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 11. 1132 DOUGLAS AVENUE, ZONED R-4 — APPLICATION FOR CONDOMIl41UM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING FOR A NEW THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM(DALE MEYER,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (99 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP C.Vistica recused himself because he owns property within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Reference staff report March 29,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked SrE. Monaghan if a curved driveway at grade at the front could be installed given that the driveway is sloping downwards to the garage from the curb level. SrE. noted that a curved driveway is possible,but that you would end up with a cross-sloping driveway and that it would eliminate one more on-street parking space. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer,architect,851 Burlway Road,Burlingame,noted that the tree species was changed to evergreen as requested by the Commission at the study meeting,considered adding a space for delivery vehicles, provided a drawing to show what it would look like in front of the building,would have a double slope because the ramp slopes down to the below-grade garage,considered a circular driveway but would lose one on-street parking space, felt that it was more important to provide the front setback landscaping rather than the delivery vehicle space,would be better for the street, don't think there would be many deliveries to the site with a three-unit building. Commission noted that the Leyland Cypress trees to be planted along the left side property line are very messy,suggest replacing these with one of the other tree species proposed. Commission asked if true divided light windows will be used, yes; concerned with the west elevation, can the long expanse on this side of the building be articulated more? Architect noted that the rear one-third of this site faces the new multi-family residential project to be built at 512 Primrose Road, feel that this wall is not broken up,carried the chimney up at the front of the building, have bay windows towards the back of the building. Commission asked if the architect read the letter dated March 29, 2004, submitted by Mr. Jacobson? No, did not see that letter, staff then provided a copy of the letter to architect. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Matt Jacobson, 1137 Douglas Avenue,spoke in opposition of the project,noted that the variance for delivery vehicle space is unjustified, the lot is not problematic, this lot is not big enough to accommodate a project this large, approximately half of the neighborhood is multifamily residential, the rest are single family �- houses,there are a number of lots in this neighborhood which are too small to handle multifamily residential buildings, have several concerns with the project: concerned with safety, project is located close to downtown,have many traffic problems with large intersection at Primrose Road and Douglas Avenue,traffic on Douglas Avenue is heavy and fast,delivery trucks double parking on street creates a dangerous situation; parking on the street is terrible,on-street parking is limited to two hours,not enough on-street parking,the library, City Hall and dental office are located within the same area and add to on-street parking, parking requirement is not realistic;need to consider the structure being demolished and what will replace it,a small Victorian house will be demolished, this is the signature house on the block, City needs to define the area and arrive at a good balance between single family and multifamily uses, small house will be replaced with very large multifamily structure,too much concrete with this project,existing multifamily projects are less massive and bulky, more articulated, project will change the feel of Burlingame, ask that the project be denied as proposed,project needs to provide a parking space for a delivery vehicle,project should comply with all of the city's development requirements without exceptions, project should be compatible, the neighborhood character should not be changed. Dale Meyer,architect,noted that the property and surrounding area is zoned R-4,there are ways to design in the delivery vehicle parking space but that there are trade-offs,it would take away from the front landscaping if the delivery space is provided at the front of the lot, on-street parking would be reduced if a curved driveway is proposed, feel that with a small project such as this there will be fewer deliveries made to the site, proposed project complies with the parking requirement based on the number of bedrooms per unit, provides the required amount of landscaping within the front setback, project is not oversized, the design will be an asset to the neighborhood,could have designed a building with more units but decided to keep the project small. Commission asked what is the size of each unit; approximately 3,200 SF per unit. Commission asked the architect to explain the hardship on the property to justify the variance for delivery vehicle, why not make the units smaller? Architect noted that if the unit size is reduced, the number of required parking spaces would not changes since parking is based on number of bedrooms per unit, the sloping ramp to the below-grade parking would create difficulties for the back-up space for the delivery vehicle,there will be a double slope in the back-up area,because the lot is narrow a curved driveway would require two curb cuts and therefore eliminate on-street parking, feel that the front setback landscaping is more important to the community than the delivery vehicle parking space. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: seem to have trade-off between the front setback landscaping and delivery vehicle parking space,could have landscaping on the site full-time and also lose a full-time on-street parking space, prefer landscaping to off-street parking;agree,could use turf-block for the delivery space but in this case the ramp slopes down and requires a wall parallel to the driveway for safety, hardship on this lot is the width; don't see this as a trade-off,this is a function of design and unit size,can have both parking and landscaping since this is a new project, feel confident that the architect can figure out a design that would provide both landscaping and a delivery vehicle space,there is no hardship on the property for new construction;not sure if reducing the size of the units would provide enough space for a delivery vehicle, prefer to keep the landscaping,eight parking spaces are provided for the three dwelling units including a guest parking space, this is more than enough parking for the units,don't know if there is a high demand for the delivery vehicle, see the hardship as being the narrow width of the lot and the double-slope on the driveway, but see the neighbors concern with the design of the project,concerned with the west elevation,no articulation,there is 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 room for improvement, the front and rear are well articulated but the side elevations need to be more articulated. C. Osterling made a motion to approve the condominium permit and variance for vehicle delivery parking, by resolution,with the amended condition that the Leyland Cypress trees along the left side property line be replaced with another species taken from among the other trees proposed on the site. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion:the neighbors concern have been thoroughly stated,the problem is that their house is located in an R-4 zoning district,surprised with some of the projects which have been approved and built in this area, see no hardship for not provided a space for a delivery vehicle, would like to see a design without a variance,project would work better without variances,would like to see a no variance design,this is a landmark area in the downtown area, cannot support the project. Chair Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit and variance for delivery vehicle parking. The motion failed 2-4-1 on a roll call vote(Cers.Boju6s,Brownrigg,Keighran and Keele dissenting, C. Vistica abstain). C. Brownrigg made a motion to continue the project based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission to come back with a no variance design alternative. The motion was seconded by C.Boju6s. Comment on the motion: not sure if there is a better answer to this problem, will know when the revised project returns, architect needs to pursue a no variance design alternative. Chair Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue the project with the direction provided by the Commission. The motion passed 5-1-1 on a roll call vote(C.Auran dissenting,C.Vistica abstain). This item concluded at 9:54 p.m. C. Vistica took his seat on the dias. 12. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS (STEVEN FLANAGAN, W.L. BUTLER, APPLICANT; JASON BELL, CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS,INC.,ARCHITECT;GRANT RIGGS,THE WESTYE GROUP WEST INC.,PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 29,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that condition#1 has been amended to include the following:with 19,60-degree on-site parking spaces with 12 to 16 foot back-up space where 18 feet is required for the parking spaces along the north side of the building. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Steven Flanagan, applicant, 204 Franklin Street,Redwood City, noted that they would like to add more landscaping along the north side property line, new trees in landscaping pockets next to the parking spaces would screen the view of trucks parked on the street,because the City is requiring that a new sidewalk be installed along the same property line the landscaping and parking spaces had to be shifted, in order get the additional landscaping in, the parking configuration wil' change from perpendicular to angled parking,the angled parking will make maneuvering easier for vehicles and will allow more landscaping to be added, the existing perpendicular parking configuration is 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 nonconforming. Commission noted that the plant materials were not provided on the plans. Applicant noted that plant and irrigation details are still being worked and will be shown on the construction plans submitted for a building permit. Commission asked if the parking variance is approving the nonconforming parking count or just the nonconforming back-up? CP noted that the variance only applies to the nonconforming back-up dimension of the spaces identified. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: support the project as proposed, most landscaping of the buildings in this area is marginal,this is an improvement,clarified that the parking variance only applies to the nonconforming back- up space and not the nonconforming number of on-site parking spaces. C.Vistica moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 24, 2004, sheets A1.0 and L0.1, site plan and landscape plan; with a total of 56 on-site parking spaces and 11,030 SF of on-site landscaping, with 19, 60-degree on-site parking spaces with 12 to 16 foot back-up space where 18 feet is required for the parking spaces along the north side of the building; 2)that the building shall have 65,888 SF of warehouse,8,083 SF of office and 10,000 SF of showroom,any change to this configuration shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and may require Planning Commission approval; 3)that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 50 persons; 4)that all the existing and new landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system that shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 5)that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 1, 2004 memo shall be met; and 7)that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was �. seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bcjues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve noting that the parking variance only applies to the nonconforming back-up space and not the nonconforming number of on-site parking spaces. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. 7. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU,CHU DESIGN&ENGR.INC.,DESIGNER(60 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNERS:MEG MONROE/RUBEN HURIN A. LOT 11 —APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE AND AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of this site. She left the chambers. City Attorney Anderson also recused himself from advising the Planning Commission because of California State Law and he left the chambers. Reference staff report for 1537 Drake Avenue,Lot 11,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. 36 conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked are the issues raised in the Levinson report attached to the neighbor's letter; addressed in the conditions of approval for lot 11. CP Monroe responded that they were in the amended conditions.Does this apply to the conditions for Lots 9 and 10 tonight as well. CP noted yes; in those conditions all previously 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 11 approved were brought forward,those no longer in effect were shown as strike outs,and the amendments to --� the others shown in italics to reflect what is known so far,knowledge is evolving on Lots 9 and 10. Is it the consensus of the arborist that it is all right to build on Lot 11 and the staging area on Lot 10? CP Monroe responded yes, there is a comment to that effect from the City Arborist in the staff report. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak,216 Park Road represented the project. Long process to arrive here, the result of much compromise by all involved,hope not to re-do entire; only reason here is unfortunate error by grading subcontractor;not here to apply for anything new,want to break Lot 11 from 9 and 10, and proceed as originally approved, except to build the house one foot taller; we will return with Lots 9 and 10 later. All three arborists agree that there are no significant roots on Lot 11;only want to raise the house on Lot 11 one foot to bring it into better aesthetic alignment with the houses on Lots 9 and 10;on Lot 9 need to know compaction of fill soil, test was done, compaction will allow roots to grow; have proceeded with foundations,investigated roots as were able given conditions,investigated location of each pier within the root zone,when done will come back to the Commission for final approval of houses on Lots 9 and 10, findings suggest raising foundations one to two feet to avoid grade at back of the lot. On Lot 11 would like Commission to remove condition 12 regarding the water line being installed before foundation inspection, in discussion with City Engineer,may want to relocate line to the center of the street on Drake, would like to delay until before the city issues a certificate of occupancy on Lot 11. Also to cleanly break Lot 11 from Lots 9 and 10 do not want mitigations for Lots 9 and 10 tied to Lot 11 could create a legal problem if wish to sell Lots 9 and 10,so would like conditions 4, 16,25-33 and 35-36 removed from Lot 11. These same conditions are proposed to be added to Lots 9 and 10, so are redundant and create technical problems for Lot 11, all protections for Lot 9 and 10 are in place and we will be back in 30-45 days with final foundations for these two lots. Commissioners asked: If someone buys Lot 11 couldn't the buyer and seller address the reservation and indemnity.Hudak,no way out from obligations,only like to indemnify against things one can control. From economic point of view understand cash flow reason for breaking off Lot 11,but doesn't it raise questions about the redevelopment of the other lots, foreclosing options if you build a smaller house on Lot 11. Hudak, independent arborist more confident after foundation investigation, has looked at ways to build driveway on Lot 9, owner believes it will evolve in the way he intended within the modifications and mitigations the arborist's will insist on, pretty confident they are going to do what they agreed to. What time lapse do you expect between Lot 11 and Lots 9 and 10? Lot 11 is ready now,house could be occupied this year; 30-45 days before sure on Lots 9 and 10,then back to the Commission,don't know if we can do it this year,possible. Neighbors spoke: Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake; Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake; Mark Thomas, 1520 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1556 Drake; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Sean Abshire, real estate attorney; Denise Balestra, 414 Costs Rica. It is unclear how the arborist report is evolving, seems applicant is trying the change Mr. Levinson's report; the compaction analysis has been done, OK; now he wants to break off development contrary to the Commission's request to see the whole as one picture;two years ago expressed concern about the Redwood Grove, have attended 12 meetings, he keeps coming back about the trees, this process is dragging out in the absence of data, it is on the agenda without data; last time he asked to separated the conditions the City Arborist was not here and he is not hear tonight,the 20 foot staging area does not agree with the arborist report of March 23; should not decide on Lot 11 without information and don't know if Lots 9 and 10 are buildable. All tried for a workable plan,one issue keep the Redwood trees,no one knows how to build around asked for an independent arborist,first few days property owner worked on the site put the trees in jeopardy, he is very casual, want to be sure that he is supervised. There is an application for a 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 11 fourth lot, 1551 Drake, next to Lot 11, applied for a permit to demolish and rebuild; these lots should be looks at in their totality, 4 parcels, asked City Attorney before if the standards are stricter for four lots, he said yes,not get full picture if you take Lot 11 out,premature. There are photos to show how extensively the roots were ripped up; developers behavior indicates he does what he pleases; deny all applications, City Attorney said that council would be provided the Planning Commission for the revocation of all permits, here is a newspaper article to show the Mark Hudak also has a conflict of interest. First issue is the Redwood Grove, on December 8 commission's direction was independent arborist is not obliged to accept project, he notes that development could result in a decline in the Redwoods over the long term; now applicant is back making changes to Lot 11,wants to increase the height one foot,and the roofs of the other houses 2 feet taller,this is a bate and switch pattern,rather it returns us to ground zero,and discussion of a 4 lot development. Public Comment continued: Represent the neighbors who wish to preserve the Redwood trees,concerned about the General Plan and the goals in the Housing Element,project proposed by Miller threatens to impact the neighborhood, I would suggest a process like that of a subdivision, and process all lots as a single unit, evaluate as one project under CEQA,General Plan and impact on neighborhood;now the developer is back and wants to parcel off,this is a process to amend the conditional use permit,is it in accord with the General Plan;the conditions protect the city,by dividing he increases his opportunity and city decreased his risk;he needs to protect his investment to divide off Lot 11 and has taken advantage of the emerging lots. Commission has not asked if the conditional use permit should be revoked,to do that the Commission must provide notice and proper findings; the project cannot be built as originally designed, he has done detrimental damage to the property,he has not preserved the trees and has violated city ordinance,the project needs to be changed, he may not come back with Lots 9 and 10 for a year. Live behind this project; all property owners all have rights,Miller owns the trees,neighbors simply looking for loop holes to stop him from developing; property was on the market for 9 months as a development project. C. Keele left the dais and chambers at 11:00 p.m. Public Comment continued with applicant's response: Comment made that applicant wishes to piecemeal development, staff is actually adding conditions; remind that city holds a $120,000 cash bond against damage to the Redwood Grove; at the last meeting asked the City Planner the number of times this developer had been in trouble with the city,she answered none noting he had taken over a problem property; grading done in December was unintentional,still have a red tag on Lot 11,developer has a right to proceed. On Lots 9 and 10, even conditions as currently approved expected additional investigation, this has not changed, it is what you intended. There were no further comments from the floor and public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: can the approvals on Lots 9 and 10 be revoked later?CP noted that she believed so particularly based on the situation of the tree roots or needs of the trees or site cause the applicant to make changes to the structures; applicants requests for changes to the conditions of approval,plus any we might add,makes it appear that we should discuss and bring back the conditions of approval before acting on this request;part of the problems is the three lots, this house on Lot 11 is a good design,modest size,contributes to the neighborhood, that is not the fact of all three houses; the root investigation report indicates concern about trenching within 30 feet from the Redwood trees, that is well into the second half of the Lot 10; availability of Lot 11 during construction may facilitate options for building on Lots 9 and 10,there may be �-- some risk that Lots 9 and 10 may not be developable as approved without Lot 11 available during construction—is Lot I 1 a part of the solution for Lots 9 and 10? No ordinary family is going to be able to 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 11 live up to and around these trees, not inclined to break this project up. Agree that applicant is requesting a lot of modifications to the conditions;could continue and look at revised conditions,by then may know more about two lots and determine the impact on Lot 11;report indicates that in this case roots have grown in an unusual pattern, location of piers and cantilevers will be key. All arborists have agreed it is all right to use the 20 feet of Lot 10 for staging;need to look at conditions,there is a clear read from the City Arborist.Key issue is permission to separate Lot 11 or look at the development as a whole. What has been approved?Are there three lots? CP Monroe responded there are presently three lots. Chair Bojues made a motion to approve the revised conditions for Lot 11 which separates it from Lots 9 and 10 with all the conditions in the staff report and by resolution. C. Auran seconded the motion with the addition to condition 12 that to insure a continuous water source from the distribution line to the required soaker hose irrigation in the Redwood Grove the property owner maintain and continue to use the existing water line along the rear of the three lots or replace it as required by the City Engineer and add a condition that when the certificate of occupancy is granted for Lot 11 and the construction fence along the 20 foot construction zone is removed, Lot 11 shall no long be responsible for any conditions which apply to Lots 9 and 10 and these conditions shall become void. The maker of the motion accepted the additional conditions. The amended conditions of approval for Lot 11 are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 9,2004,sheets A.1 through A.5 and L1; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 10; 3) that when the certificate of occupancy is granted for Lot 11 and the construction fence along the 20 foot construction zone on Lot 10 is removed,Lot 11 shall no long be responsible for any conditions of approval which apply to Lots 9 and 10 and these conditions shall become void; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 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 and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been --� met including appropriate removal of the construction staging area fence on Lot 10; 18 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 11 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 Engineers March 15,2004,May 31,June 4,August 30,and October 15, 2002, memos, the City Arborist's April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's March 10, 2004 memo shall be met; 8) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist,and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 9) that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 11;use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 10) that no construction equipment,construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site or in the construction staging area during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lots 9 and 10; 11) that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 12) that the existing water line at the rear of the properties shall be retained and maintained in operable condition to supply the required soaker hose irrigation system for the Redwood tree grove on Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2-inch water line as approved by the City Engineer to provide to water source for the required soaker hose irrigation system to serve Lots 9 and 10 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and that all new utility connections to serve Lot 11 and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems any increase in capacity required shall be at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department; 13) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit shall not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 14) that the new sewer connection to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 15) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 16) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 19 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 11 17) that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supply the maintenance -� irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 1 I and prior to receiving a building permit,the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners;the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval,noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 20) that the development on this site shall comply with Burlingame Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 21) that the property owner shall comply with Burlingame Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 22) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction,work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 23) that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan for approval by the -� City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued; the plan shall address the landscaping, flat work, driveway design and materials, and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, retaining walls, soil deposits and driveway construction details; landscaping shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist before the City shall issue an occupancy permit for the house; 24) 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 or edition in effect at the time a building permit is issued; 25) that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather-proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 26) that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist and the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 27) that the property owner shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing -� line past lot 9; 20 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 11 28) that at the south property line of lot 9 the property owner shall extend a temporary, above ground, water line as approved by the City Arborist from the new 2-inch copper water pipe in the public easement to provide at least 250 feet of dry weather soaker hose irrigation to the redwood groves, there shall be no excavation for the temporary water line on lot 9; 29) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 11, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered,moved or removed during construction;no materials,equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped,even temporarily, within. this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on lots 9, 10 and 11 has been finaled and the removal authorized by the City Arborist; 30) that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 11, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 31) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11,the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 32) that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch(not bark) and a two- inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist;installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist;the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 33) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing;irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist;this area shall be soaked overnight,at least once every two weeks,until the upper 24- inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 21 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 11 34) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11,the property owner shall affix at least four (4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a"Tree Protection Fence", "Do Not Alter or Remove" and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 35) that the property owner shall establish a twenty-foot wide staging area strip along the north property line of Lot 10 by installing a permanent six-foot tall, chain-link fence at the location shown on the Site Plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 9, 2004, according to the specifications of the City Arborist; this fence shall be posted with the same laminated waterproof warning signage as used on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing at the same intervals;at no time during the construction on Lot 11, including installation of landscaping, shall this fencing be moved, removed or relocated without the approval of the project arborist and City Arborist; this fencing shall be removed prior to any construction activity on Lot 10; 36) that all protective fencing, staging area fencing on Lot 10 and Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 11; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 37) that before issuance of a building permit,the property owner shall deposit$7,500 with the Planning Department to fund,on an hourly basis,a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to -� assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 11 and in the 20 foot staging area on Lot 10 to support construction on Lot 11 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a$7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on-going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account,the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and 22 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 11 e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences,irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and ff, that this same account may be used for the City Arborist's selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9 and 10. Comment on the motion: have not had much time to review arborist report, assume modified conditions reflect these findings so am uncomfortable changing staff proposed conditions tonight, realize that the conditions for Lots 9 and 10 will come back to the commission later;its OK to separate Lot 11,it's a good idea to ease into construction, will reduce impact on the neighborhood, like seeing consensus of the three arborists,report contains a clear set of modified conditions. Independent arborists concerns are on Lots 9 and 10,he agreed that Lot 11 is OK as well as using the 20 feet on Lot 10,I agree professionally that its OK as well. What is the issue regarding the location of the water line? Sr. Engineer commented that there is a 10 foot wide right-of-way at the rear of the houses where the water line is presently located,plan to move the water line to the front in the street,the line will come off Adeline and down Drake. Does commission want to consider allowing the property owner to use the rear of Lot 10, out of the area affected by the Redwoods for additional staging area so long as the proposal is endorsed by all three arborists. Commissioners determined that they did not want to add this option as a condition at this time. Chair Bcjues called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the conditions as amended for Lot 11 which would allow Lot 11 to be developed independently of Lots 9 and 10. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-1-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:45 p.m. 7B. LOTS 9 AND 10 — APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FOR ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. C.Keighran continued to abstain because she lives within 500 feet of this project. CA Anderson continued to recuse himself. Both were not present in the chambers. CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that these conditions although separated into two sets,one for Lot 9 and one for Lot 10, remain the same as those approved by the Commission on May 27,2003,except for being amended to require additional Redwood Grove maintenance and protection for the term of construction on all three lots and the placement of a barrier fence on Lot 10 for the 20 foot construction staging area to be used while building on Lot 11. CP noted that the conditions which have already been completed are shown by strike through and the changes are shown in italics. Although the initial studies of root location and impact areas and probing at specific locations for foundation piers have been done, the applicant still has foundation design and other work to complete and get approved by the arborists before these conditions are complete to cover construction. As a result the project proposals and conditions of approval will return to the Planning Commission again. Commissioners asked if the chain link fence protecting the trees should be expanded immediately. CP noted that Lots 9 and 10 would be protected from all construction on Lot 11 by the fence placed along the inner edge of the 20 foot staging area on Lot 10 and �. by the continued supervision of the Redwood Grove maintenance including proper placement and ongoing fence inspection by the arborist. There were no other questions of staff. 23 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Chair Bojues opened the public hearing for Lots 9 and 10. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, represented the applicant. Shean Abshire,attorney for the neighbors,Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake;Ann Thomas, 1512 Drake, -� spoke. Applicant noted that there is an existing water source on the site that the applicant can use for the soaker irrigation on Lot 9; agree with the way the process is evolving,believe as the independent arborist becomes more familiar with the site and more work is done on the foundation design,the lots will be found to be buildable;view these conditions on Lots 9 and 10 to be interim,know that they will be finalized later. Other comments from the floor: No question given the Levinson report in the record that the projects on Lots 9 and 10 do not comply; do not like the implication of Mark Hudak that the independent arborist is coming around "to our way"; foundation as designed is not buildable so there is no project to attach conditions to; can't find that it is not detrimental to the property based on the record here, if it has been revised need to deny the application. Report which was given to her was not in the staff report or any finding from Mr. Levinson, a February 20 report was referred to; don't know if the conditions of approval include;the three arborists agree on the 20 foot construction staging area on Lot 10 but based on what? CP Monroe noted that there was a staff comment from the City Arborist in the Commission packet. Have been asking for two years for an independent arborist report to be put into the record, have denied due process, outrageous. Applicant submitted his arborist's report stating that there were no significant roots affected, also regarding the pier locations only 2 were affected based on site investigation on February 4,2004. This is not a new approval for Lots 9 and 10, there are amendments to the existing report based on additional study,now the conditions as presented reflect what city wants as interim. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in the original 32 conditions it notes that location of the pier and beam foundation are yet to be determined and these conditions represent no change from that; on that basis should move to -� approve the amendment to the conditional use permit to separate the conditions of approval for Lot 9 and Lot 10. Staff was asked if these conditions are more stringent than the original? CP responded yes, these conditions provide more protection for the trees during the entire time of any construction on the lots; also more investigation will need to occur for the foundation locations,for that reason the arborist report is still being prepared, an arborist analysis/report will accompany any resubmitted plans for Lot 9 and/or Lot 10, including revised conditions. C. Auran moved approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit to separate the conditions of approval including mitigation monitoring for Lots 9 and Lots 10 at 1537 Drake Avenue, including additional conditions to address the on-going maintenance of the Redwood Tree Grove during construction on all three of the originally merged lots. C. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. The conditions for Lot 9 are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheet L-1; and that any changes to the structure including but not limited to foundation design, height, building materials,exterior finishes,footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan or to tree trimming shall require review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to this permit; 24 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 9 2) 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;and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27,2003,because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 10 and 11 shall be subject 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 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 and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineers April 8, May 31, June 4, August 15 , August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshals September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; 7) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist,and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 8) that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 9;use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 9) that no construction equipment,construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 9; 25 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 9 10) that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in -• effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code;there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 11) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 12) that the existing water line at the rear of the properties shall be retained and maintained in operable conditions to supply the required soaker hose irrigation system for the Redwood Tree Grove on Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards; and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department; and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 13) that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 14) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the -� City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 15) that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site,the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 16) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals,water or gas connections to the site,the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17) that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit,the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners;the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval,noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19) that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall -� be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed) 26 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 9 20) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 21) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22) that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; 23) that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 24) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction,work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 25) that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until the timing, design, method of construction and materials have been approved by the City Arborist, and a licensed arborist shall be on the site continually to supervise the installation of the driveway and to make adjustments based on any root impacts identified during the process of construction; the construction activity shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist during construction compliance with the approved materials and method of installation; it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the City Arborist when construction of the driveway on Lot 9 is to begin; 26) A. that the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at anytime during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 27) A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones,including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; 27 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 9 B. that a licensed arborist, selected by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the -� construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist; D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City Arborist shall also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 28) A. that under the observation of a certified arborist,all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on-site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 29) A. that,based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site,the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root,the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 28 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 9 30) that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 31) A. that the fence post holes shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered,the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 32) Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project,the propertyowner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four(4)Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist;upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project,the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist,to cover any necessary removal costs,and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees;nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 33) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 29 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 9 34) that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit,the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four(4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways,foundations,roofs, yards,and other improvements on the property;however,those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees,must be done in consultation with a certified arborist,and if any damage to the trees occurs,will result in penalties and-possible criminal prosecution; 35) 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; 36) that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site (completed); 37) that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather-proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 3 8) that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division,work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 39) that the property owner shall receive an encroachment permit from the City and shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line south lot 9; and a connection provided to Lot 9 at a location approved by the City Arborist; 40) that at the south property line of lot 9 the property owner shall extend a temporary, above ground, water line as approved by the City Arborist from the new 2-inch copper water pipe in the public easement to provide at least 250 feet of dry weather soaker hose irrigation to the redwood groves, there shall be no excavation for the temporary water line on lot 9; 41) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 9, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered,moved or removed during construction;no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped,even 30 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 9 temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for the development on Lot 9 has been finaled and an occupancy permit issued;except for modification of the protective fencing as approved by the City Arborist in order to install the driveway on Lot 9; 42) that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 43) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9,the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 44) that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch(not bark) and a two- inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist;installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist;the project arborist shall inform the �— City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 45) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing;irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist;this area shall be soaked overnight,at least once every two weeks,until the upper 24- inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 46) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9,the property owner shall affix at least four(4),8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a"Tree Protection Fence","Do Not Alter or Remove"and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 47) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 9; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 31 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 9 48) that before issuance of a building permit,the property owner shall deposit$7,500 with the Planning --� Department to fund,on an hourly basis,a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 9 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a$7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on-going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account,the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences,irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account maybe used for the City Arborist's selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9, 10 and 11. Conditions of approval for Lot 10 are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 and A.6,date stamped April 2,2003,sheets A.2,A.3 and A.5, and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheets A.4 and L1 for Lot 10; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11 shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 2) 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; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, -� because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11; 32 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 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 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 and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineers'May 31,June 4,August 30,and October 15,2002,memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3,2002 memo,the Chief Building Inspector's August 5,2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27,2002 memo,and the City Arborist's April 3 and May 21,2003 memos shall be met; 7) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist,and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 8) that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 10;use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 9) that no construction equipment,construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 10; 10) all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame,and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 11) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 33 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 12) that the existing water line at the rear of the properties shall be retained and maintained in operable -� conditions to supply the required soaker hose irrigation system for the Redwood Tree Grove on Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City;and all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department; and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 13) that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 14) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 15) that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site,the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 16) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17) that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit,the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners;the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval,noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19) that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed) 20) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 21) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22) 'that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or tc address new issues which may arise during construction; 34 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 23) that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 24) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction,work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 25) that the driveway and the detached garage it serves for the proposed house on Lot 10 shall be shifted to the north side of the lot within 5 feet of the north side property line and the driveway shall be designed to be pervious material as approved by the City Arborist, and installed according to approved plans with the supervision of a licensed arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist; 26) A. that the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 27) A. that driveway on Lot 10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand,with a maximum cut below grade of 10 inches and a base compaction determined by a certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to cutting any roots; C. that if at any time the certified arborist on site or the City Arborist feels the number of roots to be cut to install the driveway on Lot 10 is significant,a stop work order shall be issued for the site until the City Arborist determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway; 35 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 28) -� A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones,including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, selected by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist; D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 29) A. that under the observation of a certified arborist,all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on-site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 30) A. that,based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site,the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; --� 36 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root,the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 31) that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 32) A. that the fence post holes shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered,the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 33) Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as such additional recommendations as the property owner shall receive from a certified arborist; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project,the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four(4)Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist;upon submittal of the appraisal,a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project,the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist,to cover any necessary removal costs,and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees;nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 37 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 34) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International —, Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 35) A. that the fence post holes shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered,the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 36) Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction –� on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project,the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four(4)Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist;upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project,the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist,to cover any necessary removal costs,and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees;nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 37) that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit,the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four(4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways,foundations,roofs, yards,and other improvements on the property;however,those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; 38 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees,must be done in consultation with a certified arborist,and if any damage to the trees occurs,will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; and 38) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition or the edition approved by the City and as amended by the City of Burlingame at the time a building permit is issued; 39) that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site; (completed); 40) that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather-proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 41) that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 42) that the property owner shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer;this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line past lot 9 and a connection provided to Lot 10 shall be provided at a location approved by the City Arborist; 43) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lots 9, 10 and 11,and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered,moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on lots 9 and 10 has received an occupancy permit and the City Arborist has approved removal of the protective fencing; 44) that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 39 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 45) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10,the property owner shall install --� a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 46) that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two- inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist;installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist;the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 47) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to anactive hose bib from the temporary waterline on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing;irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist;this area shall be soaked overnight,at least once every two weeks,until the upper 24- inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to --� ensure proper irrigation; 48) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10,the property owner shall affix at least four (4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a"Tree Protection Fence", "Do Not Alter or Remove"and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 49) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 10; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 50) that before issuance of a building permit,the property owner shall deposit$7,500 with the Planning Department to fund,on an hourly basis,a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 10 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a$7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available -� to cover this on-going inspection function; and 40 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Lot 10 b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15`}' of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account,the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences,irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account maybe used for the City Arborist's selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9, 10 and 11. Comment on the motion: asked are these conditions more stringent than the original? CP responded yes, these conditions add requirements to both Lots 9 and 10 for maintenance and protection of the Redwood Grove for the time of construction on Lot 11 and through the completion of whatever construction to be determined on Lots 9 and 10. CP also noted that more investigation will need to take place for the foundations of structures and driveways on these lots, depending on the design and location proposed so the arborist report is evolving and will continue to be worked on since no foundation or driveway submittals have been made yet. Whatever the proposal is made it will be brought back to the commission with a full arborist report. Feel that this is a bad policy at this time,however the conditions are more restrictive, and will not be harmful, but this is not a good habit for processing. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to amend the conditional use permit by separating the conditions of approval for Lots 9 and 10 and amending them for additional maintenance of the Redwood Tree Grove. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent). IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 13. 312 HOWARD AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM AND TRISH NICHOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ROBERT MEDAN,ARCHITECT)(69 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Robert Medan, architect, noted that the applicant's family has three children and that they need more space,proposing to add a third bedroom. Commission asked if the �. top of the roof was cut to stay within the 30'height limit?Yes, tried to stay within the height limit and did not want to change the roof pitch to lower the height,changing the roof pitch would have altered the overall 41 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 design envelope. Commission noted that a special permit to exceed the height limit would be appropriate in the case of this architectural style in order to have the roof terminate at a point. Architect noted that he would make the suggested changes to the roof as long as it would not delay the review process. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions to the roof have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on motion: Commission requested that the architect provide information on how the chimney will be stabilized with the next submittal. Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised for the roof and chimney stabilization as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 a.m. 14. 1125 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MAURISSA HEFFRAN,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;MICHAEL MOYER,ARCHITECT) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RU13EN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the 100-year flood flow limit is shown on the plan. Plr.Hurin noted that the 100-year flood flow limit is indicated by the thick,black line on the Site Plan and that the it was determined by hydraulic calculations as required by the City Engineer. Commission asked if the proposed"L"foundation footing near the existing 48-inch oak tree,as proposed in the arborist report,was reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. Plr.Hurin noted that the City Arborist reviewed and accepted the recommended mitigations in the arborist report. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Dion Heffran,part owner and designer, and Maurissa Heffran, property owner, were available to answer questions. Submitted three letters of support from neighbors, noted that the proposed design is not bulky,primarily single story with a high pitched roof,will be using a stone slate roof,design is French Normandy,will have little impact on the existing landscaping which will be retained. Commission noted that this is a great design and that two of the existing nonconforming conditions have been eliminated with the new project. The Commission asked the applicant if he was positive that a slate roof is going to used,asked if this is a real slate product and not a simulated material,do not want to see it changed during construction. Applicant verified that a real slate product roof will be used for the roofing, feels that this is an important aspect of the structure, the roof structure was designed to handle 13 lbs/SF,proposed slate roof weighs 11 lbs/SF,and therefore the roof structure has been designed to handle the loads of the proposed slate roof. Commission expressed a concern with the proposed construction near the existing 48-inch oak tree and asked if the house and roof will encroach into the canopy of the oak tree,have seen other projects get too close to tree canopies,do not want to see major tree limbs cut for the addition. Applicant noted that the oak tree is located on an upward slope and several feet higher than the finished floor of the house. In addition,the house is single-story at that point and the roofpitches away from the tree,the house and roof will not encroach into the canopy and no tree limbs will have to be cut,recently trimmed the tree to remove dead limbs. The area adjacent to the existing oak tree is currently paved so there will be no additional impact to the tree roots from construction. Commission commented that the designer has done a great job,appreciates that the applicant also approached the neighbors on Easton Drive who will 42 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 look down on this property, it was a good idea to contact them. Commission noted that it appears that a small portion of the house will remain, why not just make this a new house? Applicant noted that some existing walls and foundation will remain to preserve a nonconforming rear setback, existing house sits awkwardly on an odd-shaped lot and it would negatively affect the floor plan if it had to conform at that section. Denise Balestieri,414 Costa Rica Avenue,San Mateo,spoke in favor of the project,has seen the applicants' work and they do a very nice job. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as proposed with no changes. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on motion: Commission discussed if a single pole was necessary near the oak tree to verify that the addition will not encroach into the canopy,because the oak tree is located on an upward slope and the roof pitches away from the tree, it was determined that a story pole would not be necessary. Chair Boju6s called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C.Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:30 a.m. 15. 1608 MONTE CORVINO WAY,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELIZABETH QUINTO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BEVERLY CHEN AND S.J. XIONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Elizabeth Quinto,architect, 1212 Beattie Lane,Sebastopol,and Beverly Chen,property owner, 167 San Pablo Avenue, San Francisco,were available to answer questions. Noted that the owners bought the property because they like the neighborhood,the property has a large rear yard,wanted to add to the house and also preserve the rear yard space,also would like to change the look of the house. Commission asked if true divided light windows will be used?Architect indicated that because of the high cost,true divided light windows are not proposed,could possibly add them to the front of the house. Property owner asked if the Commission would have to review any changes to the interior of the house after approval? No, only changes to the exterior would have to be reviewed as an amendment to the design review. Owner asked if converting the existing den into a bedroom,making it a fourth bedroom would be a problem? No, since the existing single-car garage meets the requirement of a four bedroom house. Commission noted that access to the laundry room and backyard is provided from the garage,but don't see access directly into the house from the garage,please explain. The architect noted that direct access from the garage to the house is provided by a stairway located in the left rear corner of the garage. Commission commented that the 12' x 15' laundry room is very large and recommended that this area be used for additional storage. Architect noted that the laundry room is existing and larger because it contains a washer/dryer, storage area, furnace, and water heater all within one room. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is proposed with no changes. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. 43 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 Comment on the motion:would like to add a condition that requires true divided light windows be used on the front elevation. Make of the motion and second agreed. —� Chair Boju&s called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with a condition that true divided light windows be used on the front elevation. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:40 a.m. 16. 1544 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(KATHY PHENGRASAMY,JAIDIN CONSULTING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PETER LIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter dated March 29, 2004, was submitted by Amit Chopra, 1547 Los Montes Drive,was submitted after preparation of the staff report.The letter expresses concern with possible view obstruction from the proposed addition. Commission asked staff to clarify where encroachment into the declining height envelope occurs, it is not clear on the plans. Plr. Hurin reviewed the plans and noted that the declining height envelope was not drawn on the building elevations. Staff sketched it in and determined that an exception is required for the proposed addition and noted that the existing house encroaches into the declining height envelope. Staff will have the architect correctly show the declining height envelope on the revised plans. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Barbara Roczniak-Kugay, architect, was available to answer questions. She noted that she will resubmit plans showing the declining height envelope,also wanted to add a 5'x 5'window in the family room along the left side of the house to meet light an ventilation requirements, will also show on revised plans for the next meeting. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commission asked since a letter of concern was submitted by a neighbor regarding view obstruction, should story poles be installed to view potential impacts? Commission agreed that story poles should be installed and their location and height surveyed. Commission also requested that a phone number for the concerned neighbor be provided in the staff report so that the Commission can make an appointment to view the story poles from his dwelling. C.Boju6s made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the plans have been revised to show the declining height envelope,added window in the family room,and story poles installed and surveyed). This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Boju6s called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed and story poles installed and surveyed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:50 a.m. 44 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 29, 2004 X. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2004. �-- CP Monroe briefly reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of March 15, 2004. - FYI -CHANGES TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AT 1504 ARC WAY Commission had no comment on the proposed changes and approved the request. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojues adjourned the meeting at 1:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary UNAPPROV EDMINUTES3.29.04 45 03- 17-04 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: FEBRUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Change % Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 0 2 0 2 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 2 0 2 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 0 0 3 0 3 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 1 3 -2 -66 . 67 Assault - Hands, Fists , Feet 0 0 2 1 1 100 . 00 Assault - Other (Simple) 19 0 39 18 21 116 . 67 Burglary - Forcible Entry 4 0 9 10 - 1 -10 . 00 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 6 0 17 4 13 325 . 00 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Shoplifting 3 0 3 4 - 1 -25 . 00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 25 0 61 17 44 258 . 82 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 1 0 6 12 -6 -50 . 00 Larceny Bicycles 1 0 1 5 -4 -80 . 00 Larceny From Building 2 0 6 0 6 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 3 0 5 3 2 66 . 67 Larceny All Other 16 0 45 19 26 136 . 84 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 4 0 23 8 15 187 . 50 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 0 0 1 - 1 - 100 . 00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 1 0 1 0 1 85 0 226 105 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 85 0 226 105 03-17-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change % Change All Other Offenses 32 0 74 51 23 45.10 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 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 0 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 Child Neglect/prot custody 1 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Death Investigation 2 0 4 2 2 100.00 Disorderly Conduct 0 0 2 3 -1 -33.33 Driver's License Violations 0 0 1 0 1 Driving Under the Influence 10 0 18 8 10 125.00 Drug Abuse Violations 3 0 11 4 7 175.00 Drug/Sex Registrants 0 0 1 0 1 Drunkeness 4 0 12 5 7 140.00 Embezzlement 4 0 5 2 3 150.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 5 0 9 4 5 125.00 Found Property 5 0 18 8 10 125.00 Fraud 0 0 4 3 1 33.33 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 7 0 11 3 8 266.67 Hit and Run Accidents 7 0 13 2 11 550.00 Impersonation 0 0 0 0 0 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 1 0 1 0 1 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 1 0 1 0 1 Liquor Laws 2 0 2 3 -1 -33.33 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 2 0 6 3 3 100.00 Mental Health Cases 6 0 18 12 6 50.00 Missing Person 3 0 9 1 8 800.00 Missing Property 2 0 10 13 -3 -23.08 Municipal Code Violations 9 0 13 1 12 1,200.00 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 1 0 1 03-17-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Offenses Against Children 0 0 1 0 1 Other Assaults 19 0 39 18 21 116.67 Other Juvenile Offenses 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 Other Police Service 7 0 13 7 6 85.71 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 1 0 1 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 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 1 0 1 0 1 Prowling 0 0 0 0 0 Resisting Arrest 0 0 0 0 0 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 0 1 0 1 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 0 0 0 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 0 0 0 0 Suspended License 5 0 11 5 6 120.00 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Temp Restraining Orders 4 0 7 4 3 75.00 Terrorist Threats 2 0 4 0 4 Towed Vehicle 25 0 54 66 -12 -18.18 Trespassing 0 0 0 4 -4 -100.00 Truants/incorrigible Juvs 0 0 1 0 1 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 12 0 34 25 9 36.00 Vehicle Code Violations 5 0 7 8 -1 -12.50 Violation of Court Order 2 0 2 3 -1 -33.33 Warrants - Felony 1 0 4 2 2 100.00 Warrants - Misd 8 0 12 6 6 100.00 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 198 0 442 285 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 198 0 442 285 03-17-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 3117 3 , 397 7, 107 7, 144 Moving Citations 369 214 688 445 ------- ------ ------- ------- 3486 3 , 611 7, 795 7, 589 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 3486 3 , 611 7, 795 7, 589 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 03/17/2004 at 04 : 03 : 12 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 02/01/2004 to 02/29/2004 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids % All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVIS 190 1033 34.65 14 28.57 98.66 DAZA-QUIROZ 634 280 9.39 1 2.04 99.64 GARRETT 501 844 28.31 14 28.57 98.37 HARRISON 506 821 27.54 20 40.62 97.62 MORAN 201 3 0.10 0 0.00 100.00 Total 2981 49 Page 1 of 1 BAY AREA February 27,2004 ` AIR QUALITY Mr. Jim Nantell MANAGEMENT City Manager D I S T R I C T City of Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road ALAMEDA COUNTY Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Roberta Cooper Scott Haggerty Dear Mr.Nantell: (Chairperson) Nate Miley Shelia Young I want to thank your city for your continuing support of the Spare the Air program in the Bay Area. Together,we have made a significant impact on reducing smog in the Bay Area. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Mark DeSaulnier Now I urge your city to take the next step in improving air quality and people's health in your Mark Ross community by adopting the Air District's model wood smoke ordinance. The goal of the Gayle Uilkema ordinance is to reduce pollution from burning wood in fireplaces, including particulate matter, (Secretary) carbon monoxide and toxics. The model ordinance does not ban woodburning; it simply MARIN COUNTY reduces woodsmoke pollution from new and renovated housing. As of February 2004,six counties Harold C. Brown,Jr. and 27 cities in the Bay Area have adopted the ordinance. The ordinance can be adopted as written, or modified to fit your community's needs. NAPA COUNTY Brad Wagenknecht A woodbuming fireplace emits almost a half-pound of particulate pollution in just one evening. Infants,children,seniors and anyone with a pre-existing lung problem such as asthma or SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY emphysema are particularly susceptible. Chris Daly Jake McGoldrick In the attached packet you will find: Vacant . A copy of the model woodsmoke ordinance SAN MATEO COUNTY • A fact sheet of questions and answers about the model ordinance Jerry Hill • A fact sheet and a compilation of health studies on woodsmoke Marland Townsend • The Air District's Woodburning Handbook and related information (Vice-Chairperson) • The ordinance adopted by the city of Sebastopol after extensive community input SANTA CLARA COUNTY Air District staff is available to offer you technical support,testimony before your city council or Liz Kniss Patrick Kwok collaboration with interested parties. Please direct questions to Emily Hopkins,Public Julia Miller Information Officer,at(415)749-4796 or by email at ehopkins( baagmd.gov. Dena Mossar SOLANO COUNTY The Air District also has free,colorful Woodburning Handbooks available to help educate the John F.Silva public about reducing woodsmoke pollution. We can provide the enclosed handbooks, in quantity,to you at no cost. To order the handbooks,please call the Public Information office at Tim Smmithith soN (415)749-4900. Tim Pamela Torliatt Sincerely, Jack P. Broadbent EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ p APCO 1. Jack P. Broadbent, Executive Officer/APCO 939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 • 415.771.6000 • wu,w.baagmd.gov 1 A MODEL ORDINANCE PERTAINING 2 TO THE REDUCTION OF AIR POLLUTION BY REGULATING THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OR REPLACEMENT OF WOODBURNING APPLIANCES 3 4 s BE IT ORDAINED BY the City or County of 6 [ ] 7 B WHEREAS,the State Air Resources Board(ARB)adopted a particulate matter(PM 10)Ambient 9 Air Quality Standard(AAQS)in December,1982,and levels for the PMI 0 AAQS were selected to pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 17 Section 70200 to protect the health of people 11 who are sensitive to exposure to fine particles;and 12 13 WHEREAS,research indicates that woodsmoke is a significant contributor to PM10levels that 14 pose significant health risks;and 15 16 WHEREAS,the[ ]desires to lessen the risk to life and property from air 17 pollution from woodbuming appliances;and 1B 19 WHEREAS,the[ ]finds that the proposed regulation will significantly reduce 20 the increase in particulate emissions from future installation and construction activities;and, 21 22 WHEREAS,the[ ]finds a need exists to adopt regulations which apply to 23 woodbuming combustion emissions;and 24 2s The[ ]Code shall be amended by adding the following_ 26 Bay Area Air 0 lity Management District i i 1 APPLICABILITY: This ordinance shall apply within the limits of the [city, county] of 2 [ j as specified herein. 3 a All wood burning appliances installed in new residential units or woodbuming appliances being s added to or replacing woodburning appliances in existing residential units shall comply with this 6 ordinance. 7 a All woodburning appliances installed in new commercial buildings or woodburning appliances 9 being added to or replacing woodburning appliance in existing commercial buildings shall comply to with this ordinance. Commercial buildings shall include,but not be limited to,hotels and 11 restaurants. 12 13 Gas fireplaces shall be exempt from this ordinance. However, the conversion of a gas fireplace to la bum wood shall constitute the installation of a woodburning appliance and shall be subject to the is requirements of this ordinance. 16 v A woodburning appliance shall comply with this ordinance if(1)it is reconstructed, (2) additions, 1a alterations, or repairs are made to the appliance that require opening up immediately-adjacent 19 walls, or (3)the residential unit or commercial building in which the appliance is located is 20 renovated, and the renovation includes opening up walls immediately adjacent to the appliance. 21 22 DEFINITIONS: 23 1. `Bay Area Air Quality Management District"means the air quality agency for the San za Francisco Bay Area pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40200. zs 2. "E.P.A."means United States Environmental Protection Agency. 26 3. "E.P.A. certified wood heater"means any wood heater that meets the standards in Title 40, Bay Area Airality Management Distnct 2 r Part 60, Subpart AAA, Code of Federal Regulations in effect at the time of installation and 2 is certified and labeled pursuant to those regulations. 3 4. "Fireplace" means any permanently installed masonry or factory-built woodbuming 4 appliance, except a pellet-fueled wood heater, designed to be used with an air-to-fuel ratio s greater than or equal to 35 to 1. 6 5. "Garbage means all solid, semi-solid and liquid wastes generated from residential, 7 commercial and industrial sources, including trash, refuse,rubbish, industrial wastes, e asphaltic products, manure, vegetable or animal solids and semi-solid wastes,and other 9 discarded solid and semi-solid wastes. i o 6. "Gas fireplace"means any device designed to burn natural gas in a manner that simulates ii the appearance of a woodburning fireplace. 12 7. "Paints"means all exterior and interior house and trim paints, enamels, varnishes, lacquers, 13 stains, primers, sealers, undercoatings, roof coatings, wood preservatives, shellacs, and 14 other paints or paint-like products. is 8. "Paints solvents"means all original solvents sold or used to thin paints or to clean up 36 painting equipment. 17 9. "Pellet-fueled wood heater"means any woodbuming appliance that operates exclusively ie on wood pellets. 19 10. "Solid fuel'means wood or any other non-gaseous or non-liquid fuel. 20 11. "Treated wood"means wood of any species that has been chemically impregnated, painted 21 or similarly modified to improve resistance to insects or weathering. 22 12. "Waste petroleum products"means any petroleum product other than gaseous fuels that 23 has been refined from crude oil, and has been used, and as a result of use, has been 24 contaminated with physical or chemical impurities. 25 13. "Woodbuming appliance" means fireplace,wood heater, or pellet-fired wood heater or any 26 similar device burning any solid fuel used for aesthetic or space-heating purposes. Say Area Air Qlity Management District 3 1 2 GENERAL REQ- TTRFMENTS: It shall be unlawful to: 3 1. Use any woodbuming appliance when the Bay Area Air Quality Management District a issues a"Spare the Air Tonight'warning and when an alternate approved heat source is s available. 6 2. Install a woodbuming appliance that is not one of the following: (1) a pellet-fueled wood 7 heater, (2) an EPA certified wood heater, or, (3) a fireplace certified by EPA should EPA s develop a fireplace certification program. 9 3. Use any of the following prohibited fuels in a woodburning appliance. 10 a) Garbage g) Paint solvents 11 b) Treated wood h) Coal 12 c) Plastic products I) Glossy or colored papers 13 d) Rubber products j) Particle board 14 e) Waste petroleum products k) Salt water driftwood is f) Paints 16 17 ENFORCEMENT: Any person who plans to install a woodbuming appliance must submit 1B documentation to the [building department of city or county] demonstrating that the appliance is a 19 pellet-fueled wood heater, an EPA certified wood heater, or a fireplace certified by EPA should 2o EPA develop a fireplace certification program. 21 Any person violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a 22 misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punishable as provided by law. 23 24 IF ANY SECTION, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word of this ordinance is for any 25 reason held to be unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not 26 affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The [ ] of Bay Area Air 0 j slity Management District 4 1 the [ ] hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this 2 ordinance and all provisions thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provision 3 be declared unconstitutional. 4 5 6 INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Published this [ ] day of[ ]_ 7 ADOPTED this [ ] day of[ ], by the following vote: e AYES: s NOES: to ABSENT: 11 ABSTAIN: 12 13 14 15 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 16 17 18 19 pAgeneral\boardmem\modord 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Bay Area Air ality Management District 5 Chapter 15.70 15.070.030 Findings 1. The State Air Resources Board(ARB) INSTALLATION OF WOOD BURNING adopted a particulate matter(PM 10) APPLIANCES,REMOVAL AND Ambient Air Quality Standard(AAQS) OPERATION OF NON-CERTIFIED WOOD in December 1982,and levels for the HEATERS PM 10 AAQS were selected pursuant to California Code of Regulations,Title Sections: 17,and Section 70200 to protect the 15.70.010 Title health of people who are sensitive to 15.70.020 Purpose exposure to particulate matter. 15.70.030 Findings 15.70.040 Definitions 2. Research indicates that wood smoke is a 15.70.050 Exemptions contributor to PM 10 levels and poses 15.70.060 Education Program significant health risks to the public. 15.70.070 Voluntary Curtailment 15.70.080 New Installation or 3. The City Council desires to lessen the Replacement for non- risk to human health and environment Compliant Appliances caused by pollution from wood-burning 15.70.090 Removal of Non-Certified appliances. Wood Heaters Upon Removal 4. A need exists to adopt regulations that 15.70.100 Non-Operation of Non- apply to wood-burning combustion Certified Wood Heater emissions. 15.70.110 Building Permit Requirements for New 5. The proposed ordinance will minimize Installations or Replacement the increase in particulate emissions of Wood-Burning Appliances from future installation of certain wood- 15.70.120 Required Removal of Non- burning appliances,and will decrease Certified Wood Heater Upon particulate emissions by the removal of Sale/Transfer of Property certain wood-burning appliances at the 15.70.130 Prohibited Fuels time of remodel.The ordinance further 15.70.140 Violation provides for removal of certain wood- 15.70.150 Severability burning appliances at the time of 15.70.160 Effective Date property sale. 15.70.170 CEQA 15.070.040 Definitions (a)'Bay Area Air Quality Management 15.70.010 Title This Ordinance shall District' Is the air quality agency for the San be known as the Installation of Wood Burning Francisco Bay Area pursuant to California Appliances Appliance Ordinance of the City of Health and Safety Code. Sebastopol (b)`EPA' Is the United States Environmental 15.070.020 Purpose Protection Agency The purpose of this chapter is(1)to improve air quality within the City of Sebastopol by (c)`EPA Certified Wood Heaters' educating the public with regard to impacts of Is any wood heater that meets the standard in burning wood and the various types of wood- Title 40 Part 60.530 Subpart AAA Code of burning appliances;(2)to regulate the type of Federal Regulations in effect at the time of wood-burning appliances that may be installed installation and is certified and labeled pursuant and maintained within the City,and(3)ban the to those regulations. An EPA certified wood use of non-certified burning appliances after heater may be freestanding,built-in,or is an June 1,2005. insert within a fireplace. (d) `Fireplace' Is any permanently installed masonry or factory-built wood-buming appliance designed to be used with an air-to- (o) `Wood-Burning Appliance' is a fireplace, fuel ratio greater than or equal to 35 to 1. wood heater,or pellet-fired heater or similar device burning solid fuel used for aesthetic or (e)`Garbage' Is all solid,semi-solid and liquid space-heating purposes. wastes generated from residential,commercial and industrial sources,including trash,refuse, (p)`Wood Heater'is an enclosed,wood- rubbish, industrial wastes,asphalted products, burning appliance capable of and intended for manure,vegetable or animal solids,and semi space heating that meets all the following solid wastes. criteria. 1 An air-to-fuel ratio in the combustion (1)`Gas Fireplace' Is any masonry or factory- chamber averaging less than 35-10-I as built fireplace in which a device that has been determined by the test procedures designed to bum natural gas or liquefied prescribed and approved by the petroleum gas in a manner that simulates the Building Official. appearance of burning wood has been 2 A usable firebox volume less than 20 permanently installed so the bumer pan and cubic feet(0.57 cubic meters); associated equipment are affixed to the masonry 3 A minimum bum rate less than 11 lb/hr or metal base of the fireplace. (kglhr);and 4 A maximum weight of less than 1,760 (g) 'Insert' Is any wood heater designed to be lbs(800kg).For the purpose of this installed in an existing masonry or factory built ordinance,fixtures and devices that are fireplace. normally sold separately,such as flue pipe,chimney and masonry components (h) `Paints' Are all exterior and interior house that are not an integral part of the and trim paints,enamels,varnishes,lacquers, appliance or heat distribution ducting do stains,primers,sealers,under-coatings,roof not count as part of the appliance coatings,wood preservatives,shellacs,and other weight. paints or paint-like products. 15.70.050 Exemptions (i)`Paint Solvents' Means all original solvents Any wood-burning appliance specifically sold or used to thin paints or clean up painting designed for cooking and all gas appliances, equipment. except for non-permanently installed or dedicated gas log fireplaces, shall be exempt (j)`Pellet-Fueled Heater' Is any appliance that from all provisions of this chapter operates exclusively on solid fuel pellets. 15.70.060 Education Program (k) `Solid Fuel' Is wood or any other non-gases The City shall establish and maintain an on- or non-liquid fuel. going program to educate the public on the provisions of this ordinance and the health (I) 'Temporary Sole Source' impact of wood smoke.The education Is the use of a wood burning appliance determined to be tem as determined b the program shall also identify the various types Im�Y y of wood burning appliances and gas Building and Safety Department of the City of fireplaces,and instruct residents how to bum Sebastopol. fires more cleanly.The City will educate the public,that fireplace and woodstove (m)`Treated Wood' Is wood of any species maintenance are also effective in that has been chemically impregnated,painted or minimizing and reducing wood burning similarly modified to improve resistance to emissions,and encourage cleaner-burning insects or decay. alternatives such as gas-fueled devices; (n)`Waste Petroleum Product' is an proper wood burning technique to build y homer,more efficient fires. The City will petroleum product other than fuels that has been investigate ways to assist the public with refined from crude oil,and has been used or has replacement or removal,through programs been contaminated with physical or chemical or services. impurities 15.70.070 Voluntary Curtailment The ordinance requires the City to provide 15.70.100 Non-Operation of Non-Certified public notification requesting that residents Wood Heater curtail the burning of wood during poor air Effective June 1, 2005, it shall be unlawful to quality episodes as determined by the Bay use, all non EPA or Northern Sonoma County Area Air Quality Management District. Pollution Control District certified wood heaters, Methods to notify the public could include a freestanding or insert, on any property within the written notice published in local City of Sebastopol. The Chief Building Official newspapers, email notification by the Bay may grant an exception to this section in case of Area Air Quality Management District, and hardship. Hardships include the following: oral notices presented by radio or television. (these hardship exemptions sunset June 1, 2007.) 15.70.80 New Installation or 1 A residential sole source of heat Replacements for Non-Compliant 2 A temporary sole source of heat Appliances 3 An inadequate alternative source of heat This section applies to both residential'and commercial properties. In new construction, 15.70.110 Building Permit Requirements remodel, additions, or alterations, only one for New Installations or Replacement of wood heater is allowed per housing unit. Wood- Burning Appliances Any person who plans to install or replace a It shall be unlawful to install or replace a wood burning appliance or wood heater must wood-burning appliance or wood heater that submit documentation to the Building and Safety is not one of the following: Division, with a building permit application, demonstrating that the appliance is in I A pellet-fueled appliance compliance with this ordinance. 2 An EPA Phase II-certified wood appliance manufactured after 1990 15.70.120 Required Removal of Non- 3 A solid fuel burning appliance certified Certified Wood Heater Upon Sale/Transfer of for use by the Northern Sonoma County Property Air Pollution Control District No person shall sell or transfer any real property 4 A dedicated gas log fireplace or gas located within the City of Sebastopol, which stove contains a wood heater without first assuring that each wood heater included in the real property is The conversion of a gas fireplace to burn either EPA or Northern Sonoma County wood shall constitute the installation of a Pollution Control District certified or a pellet wood-burning appliance and shall be subject fueled wood heater, or is permanently rendered to the requirements of this section. inoperable, or removed. (City will inspect the wood heater to determine compliance with this section. The Building and Safety Division 15.70.090 Removal of Non-Certified Effective date June 1, 2004). Upon request, the Wood Heaters Upon Remodel may approve other means of verification of A non-EPA or Northern Sonoma County Air compliance with this section. Pollution Control District certified wood heater, freestanding or insert, shall be 15.70.130 Prohibited Fuels removed or replaced with a compliant Use of any of the following fuels in a wood- appliance, when all three of the following burning appliance is prohibited conditions occur; I Garbage 1 Interior remodel or renovation work 2 Treated wood which requires a building permit, and 3 Plastic products. 2 The valuation of the remodel or 4 Rubber products renovation work exceeds 53,500, and 5 Waste petroleum products 3. The remodel or renovation work is in 6 Paints the same room as the wood appliance. 7 Paints solvents 8 Coal 9 Glossy or colored paper 10 Particleboard 1 1 Salt water driftwood This section shall not apply to products designed specifically for use as fuel in a wood-burning appliance. 15.70.140 Violation Every person who violates any provision of this Chapter will receive a"Notice of Violation" from the Building and Safety Division of the City of Sebastopol after it has been determined that a violation has occurred.The"Notice of Violation"shall inform the persons or property owner violating this Chapter that they are in violation of the Chapter and shall direct them to stop all activity in violation of this Chapter.Only one(1)"Notice of Violation"will be issued to each person/s or property owner in violation of this Chapter.Subsequent violations of this Chapter will be considered a separate violation and will be subject to the provisions for a second violation as outlined in this section. Every person who violates any provision of this chapter a second time is guilty of a misdemeanor. 15.70.150 Severability If any article,section,subsection,subdivision, paragraph,sentence,clause,phrase,or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid by a corm of competent jurisdiction,such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part thereof.The City Council of the City of Sebastopol hereby declares that it would have adopted each article, section,and sentence thereof,irrespective of the fact that any one or more of said provision be declared unconstitutional or invalid. 15.70.160 Effective Date This ordinance shall take affect on the 31—day following its adoption. 15.70.170 CEQA This ordinance is a California Environmental Quality Act Class 8 Exemption–Action by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment. Fact Sheet — Woodsmoke Model Ordinance What is the model ordinance? The model ordinance was developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as a recommended ordinance for cities and counties that have woodsmoke problems and wish to regulate the installation of new woodbuming stoves and fireplaces. Why did the BAAQMD develop the model ordinance? Burning of wood is a significant source of fine particulate pollution. Fine particles are those with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (about 1/20th the diameter of human hair). In the Bay Area, this pollution, known as PM,.S, is primarily a problem in the winter months,particularly on cold, clear nights. Studies of U.S. cities show that areas with higher particulate pollution have higher death rates. Other studies for many areas, including Santa Clara County, show that when particulate pollution is higher, deaths increase and hospital admissions and emergency room visits related to respiratory illness also increase. In 1997, the mounting scientific evidence of a link between particulate pollution and increased mortality and other health risks prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to adopt a national PM,., air quality standard. Beginning in 2004 or 2005, those localities with PM2.5 levels above the standard will have to take steps to reduce PM,.5 emissions. It is not yet known whether the Bay Area will achieve the new health standard, but several studies show that higher death rates and other health effects persist even at PM2_5 levels below the national standard. Why regulate woodburning? Woodsmoke is the largest single source of PM2,5 pollution in the Bay Area. On an average winter day, about 40% of Bay Area PM2 5 pollution comes from woodsmoke. At locations in the South Bay and North Bay, the woodsmoke contribution is over 50% on an average winter day. How would the model ordinance work? If adopted by a Bay Area locality, the model ordinance would prohibit the installation of a woodbuming device unless it is a pellet stove or an EPA-certified woodstove. Natural gas fireplaces and inserts are not affected by the ordinance, and the BAAQMD encourages their installation as the clean alternative to woodburning stoves or fireplaces. Traditional woodburnmg masonry fireplaces and factory-built fireplaces, which have much higher PM,.5 emission rates than pellet stoves and certified woodstoves, would not be allowed. These restrictions are easily enforced through the local building permit process, since the installation of a stove or fireplace already requires a permit. The model ordinance also includes two optional provisions that would require an enforcement mechanism other than the local building department. One is a restriction on Bay Area Air Quality Management District woodbuming when the BAAQMD calls a Spare the Air Tonight alert. Under this voluntary program, the BAAQMD asks Bay Area residents to refrain from burning wood on nights when particulate levels are expected to exceed the health-based standards. Adoption of this provision of the model ordinance by a community would make these voluntary restrictions mandatory in that community. The BAAQMD's current voluntary program may be changed in the future to include mandatory restrictions, but such a change would require adoption of a regulation by the District's Board of Directors. A second optional provision prohibits the burning of certain fuels, such as garbage and plastics. What devices would be legal to install? In a community adopting the ordinance, any fireplace or fireplace insert that bums natural gas would be permitted; many models are available from hearth product dealers. In addition, pellet stoves and EPA-certified wood stoves would be permitted. Although open masonry and factory-built woodbuming fireplaces would not be permitted, EPA- certified woodbuming inserts (often called "EPA fireplaces") would comply with the ordinance. Would the ordinance affect existing fireplaces and stoves? No. The ordinance applies to new installations. However, it would apply to the conversion of an existing gas-burning fireplace to bum wood. Such a conversion would be treated as a new installation under the ordinance. Would the ordinance impose any costs on consumers? The ordinance would impose minimal costs since it applies only to new installations. Builders would probably install natural gas fireplaces and would pass on the minor costs of additional gas plumbing to new home buyers. What other areas have restrictions like these? Petaluma has had an ordinance like the model ordinance since 1992. Los Gatos imposes similar restrictions. Outside the Bay Area, many areas of California—including Placer County, Shasta County, and most of the counties in the Central Valley—prohibit the installation of any woodstove not certified by EPA (EPA only prohibits sale of non- certified woodstoves). In at least two areas - San Luis Obispo County and northern Sonoma County— installation of conventional fireplaces is also prohibited. Outside California, localities in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington impose various restrictions. Where can I get more information about the model ordinance? Contact the BAAQMD public information office at (415) 749-4900. Bay Area Air Quality Management District FACT SHEET Health Effects from Wood Smoke/Particulate Matter PM10(Particulate Matter 10 microns or less in diameter) is a heterogeneous mix consisting of both fine particles(PM2.5 or particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter)and coarse particles (2.5 to 10 microns in diameter). Fine particles result from fuel combustion(from motor vehicles,power generation, and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces and wood stoves, construction, food preparation (grilling and barbecuing) and agricultural burning. PM10 is health concern because it can pass through the nose and throat and lodge deep in the lungs.Children and infants can be more susceptible to PM 10 and its health effects because of greater activity levels and breathing rates, higher doses per body weight and lung surface area, and potential irreversible effects on children's developing lungs. They can also spend greater amount of time spent outdoors therefore increasing their risk factor. Scientific studies show that rising PM levels correlate with serious health effects, such as asthma symptoms, decreased lung function, increased hospital admissions and even premature death. Meteorological conditions—cold, stagnant winter evenings—can cause surface based radiation inversions which in turn causes PM levels to rise rapidly. Wood smoke is the largest area-wide stationary source of particulate matter in the Bay Area. Wood smoke is responsible for an average of one-third of the PM10 in the air basin during the winter months. That number rises to about 70 percent of the PM 10 in Santa Rosa. Wood burning generates carbon monoxide and toxic air pollutants such as benzene and dioxin. WOOD BURNING APPLIANCES: National PM emission standard for woodstoves at 7.5 grams per hour set by The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Unregulated or non-EPA certified woodstoves average 60 grams of PM in an hour • Natural gas fireplaces are the cleanest air quality option.Natural gas fireplaces generate a fraction of a gram of PM per hour. • EPA certified wood heaters,with a particulate emission standard of 7.5 grams per hour, incorporates combustion controls--generally a secondary combustion zone, or use catalysts akin to the catalytic converters used in motor vehicles. • Pellet-fueled wood heaters burn cleaner because they control the mixing of fuel and air more tightly than conventional woodstoves.Emissions of virtually all pellet stoves are substantially lower than EPA standards. • Fireplaces certified by EPA . EPA does not have a certification program for hearth-type fireplaces. Currently no fireplace manufacturers have submitted data to indicate they can meet the 7.5-gram per hour PM standard set for wood heaters. North American Studies on the Health Effects of Woodsmoke Indoor Air Quality Table 1. Studies of symptoms associated with households using wood heat. Reference Findings JT Zelikoff, The toxicology of inhaled woodsmoke,"Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B,5:101- et al, 2002. 114,2002. This is a "mini-review article(which)brings together many of the human and animal studies performed over the last three decades in an ttempt to better defined the toxicological impact of inhaled woodsmoke on exposed children and adults..." Kjallstrand Phenolic antioxidants in wood smoke. Phenolic antioxidants are scavengers of oxygen radicals and should be J, Petersson considered when health hazards of small-scale incomplete biomass burning are estimated.Sci Total Environ. G. Sept.28, 2001 Sep 28;277(1-3):69-75. PMID: 11589408 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE] 2001 Schauer JJ, Measurement of emissions from air pollution sources.3.C1-C29 organic compounds from fireplace et at, May combustion of wood. Environ Sci Technol.2001 May 1;35(9):1716-28. PMID: 11355184 [PubMed- indexed 2001 for MEDLINE] Kjallstrand Phenols and aromatic hydrocarbons in chimney emissions from traditional and modem residential wood J, Petersson burning. Environ Technol.2001 Apr;22(4):391-5. PMID: 11329802 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE] G. Apr 2001 Pintos J, et Use of wood stoves and risk of cancers of the upper aero-digestive tract: a case-control study. Int J Epidemic]. at, Dec 1998 Dec;27(6):936-40. PMID: 10024184 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE] 1998 Leonard Wood smoke particles generate free radicals and cause lipid peroxidation, DNA damage,NFkappaB activation SS,et at and TNF-alpha release in macrophages. PMID: 10996671 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE] Sept 2000 Dennis RJ, Woodsmoke exposure and risk for obstructive airways disease among women. Chest. 1996 Jan;109(1):115-9. et al, Jan PMID: 8549171 [PubMed-indexed for MEDLINE] 1996 Honicky et Moderate and severe respiratory symptoms were significantly greater(P<.001) in 34 children, aged 1-7 years at., 1985 in houses with woodstoves than in 34 children houses without.Conclusion: "Present findings suggest that indoor heating with wood-burning stoves may be a significant etiologic factor in the occurrence of symptoms of respiratory illness in young children."Michigan, US. Butterfield, Significant correlation(P401), between woodstove use and frequency of wheeze, severity of wheeze, et al., 1989 frequency of cough and waking up at night with cough,based on 59 subjects aged 1 to 5.5 years. Lipsett et Presence of woodstove or fireplace in the home was associated with shortness of breath in females and both 1 al., 1991 shortness of breath and moderate or severe cough in males(p<0.01 for all cases). 182 asthmatics living in Denver,Colorado. Betchley et Forest firefighters had significant declines in lung function(FEV(1)).Average declines,pre-shift to mid-shift al., 1997 of 0.089 L,0.190 L,and 0.439 L/sec in TVC, FEV(1)and FEF(25-75). The use of wood for indoor heat also was associated with the declines in FEV(1). Morris et 58 Navajo children under 2 years with diagnosed pneumonia or bronchiolitis were compared with matched al., 1990 control children.Use of a wood burning stove was associated with a 4 times higher risk of lower respiratory tract infection(P<.00I). Janigan DT, Bronchiolitis obliterans in a man who used his wood-burning stove to burn synthetic construction materials. et al Apr CMAJ. 1997 Apr 15;156(8):1171-3. PMID: 9141990 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE] 1997 Hogg JC Bronchiolitis obliterans and wood-burning stoves. CMAJ. 1997 Apr 15;156(8):1147-8.No abstract available. Apr 1997 PMID: 9141985 [PubMed-indexed for MEDLINE] Robin et al., Matched pair analysis revealed an increased risk of Acute Lower Respiratory Infection(ALAI)for children 1996 living in households that cooked with any wood (odds ratio 5.0;95%confidence interval 0.6 to 42.8. Cooking with wood-burning stoves was associated with higher indoor air concentrations of respirable particles and with an increased risk of ALRI in Navajo children. Studied 45 children under 2 years. Tuthill, Risk of respiratory symptoms increased by 10%, but this was not statistically significant. Study of children 1984. aged 5-11,258 with woodstoves, 141 without. Exposure to formaldehyde from any source,including wood burning,significantly increased risk. Daigler et A comparison of patients in New York with physician-diagnosed otitis media(n= 125, 74%response),and al., 1991 controls(n=237,72%response)showed exposure to a woodburning stove was significantly associated(P<.05 with increased otitis(an inflammation of the middle ear marked by pain, fever,dizziness,and abnormalities of hearing.) Hogg, 1997 The author comments on the case report by Dr. David T. Janigan and colleagues of classic Ebronchiolitisobliterans in a man who used a wood-burning stove to dispose of construction materials in Ostro BD, Indoor air pollution and asthma. Results from a panel study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1 et al Jun Jun;149(6):1400-6. PMID: 8004290[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] 1994 Dean et al., Case of methemoglobinemia,sudden onset of cyanosis. irritability, metabolic acidosis,and a lethal 1992 methemoglobin level of 71.4%in a 10 week old infant Famil) history revealed a wood-burning stove which emitted pine tar fumes as the potential environmental methemoglobin-producing source.The infant's cradle was situated five feet from the stove. The baby was treated and recovered. Ramage et Case study of 61-yr-old woman suffering shortness of breath on exertion and interstitial lung disease. al., 1996 Bronchoalveolar lavage revealed numerous carbonaceous particulates and fibers,as well as cellular and immunoglobulin abnormalities. Inflammation and fibrosis were found surrounding them on open biopsy. The particle source was traced to a malfunctioning wood-burning heater in the patient's home. van Houdt "The use of wood stoves caused an increase of indoor mutagenicity in 8 out of 12 homes." et al., 1986 Boone et "Woodsmoke prove to be a major source of indirect genotoxins in homes. The increase is probably due to 2 al., 1989 higher concentrations of polvcyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the wood smoke aerosol ..."USA. Alfheim et "Whereas wood heating in an"airtight'stove was found to cause only minor changes in the concentration of al, 1984 PAH and no measurable increase of mutagenic activity of the indoor air, both these parameters increased considerably when wood was burned in an open fireplace,yielding PAH concentrations comparable to those of ambient urban air. Woodburning in the closed stove did,however,result in increased concentrations of mutagenic compounds and PAH on particles sampled in the vicinity of the house." Ambient Air Quality Table 2. Studies relating outdoor concentrations of woodsmoke to adverse health effects in the whole population. Reference Findings Schwartz J. Air pollution and blood markers of cardiovascular risk. Environ Health Perspect.2001 Jun;109 Supp) 3:405-9. Jun 2001 PMID: 11427390 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE] Utell MJ, A strong and consistent association has been observed between adjusted mortality rates and ambient particle winter 2000 concentration. The strongest associations are seen for respiratory and cardiac deaths,particularly among the elderly. Particulate air pollution is also associated with asthma exacerbations, increased respiratory symptoms, decreased lung function, increased medication use, and increased hospital admissions. J Aerosol Med. 2000 Winter;l3(4):355-59. PMID: 11262441 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE] Glovsky M, Particulate air pollution: possible relevance in asthma. Allergy Asthma Proc. 1997 May-Jun;18(3):163-6. et al, May- Jun 1997 PMID: 9194943 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE Schwartz, Significant association between visits to 8 hospital emergency departments in Seattle for asthma and PM 10 1993 pollution. In 1993, wood burning was found to be the dominant source of PM 10 pollution in Seattle in all seasons of the year,ranging from 60%in summer to 90%in winter. Koenig et Significant association in Seattle(where the majority of particulate air pollution originates from woodsmoke) al., 1993 between outdoor fine particle pollution and decreased lung function(measured by spirometry)in asthmatic children aged 8-11. Heumann et Children with the highest exposure to wood smoke had a significant decrease in lung function, measured by al., 1991 FEV I and FVC. 410 children aged 8-11 in Klamath Falls,Oregon. Johnson, Particle pollution from woodsmoke in the air was associated with significant decreases in lung function in 1990 children aged 8-11. 495 subjects in Montana. Browning, No statistically significant differences, but a pattern of increased symptoms and chronic illness in children aged et al., 1990 1-5 in the area with high wood smoke. Lipsett et Conclusion from abstract: "These results demonstrate an association between ambient wintertime PM 10 and al., 1997 exacerbations of asthma in an area where one of the principal sources of PM 10 is Residential Wood Combustion."Santa Clara County,California. Betchley, et Forest firefighters had significant declines in lung function (FEV(1)).Average declines,pre-shift to mid-shift of al., 1997 0.089 L,0.190 L, and 0.439 L/sec in TVC,FEV(I)and FEF(25-75).).The use of wood for indoor heat also was associated with the declines in FEV(1). 3 Lewtas et Mutagenicity testing of air containing smoke emitted from woodheaters in Boise,Idaho,US,using the Ames al., 1991 test on salmonella and tumor initiation assays in mice found that woodsmoke was 12 times more carcinogenic than an equal concentration of cigarette smoke. Larson& "We conclude that the preponderance of the data suggest a causal relationship between elevated wood smoke Koenig, levels and adverse respiratory health outcomes in young children" 1994. Laboratory evidence Table 3.Laboratory studies of physiological responses to woodsmoke. Reference Findings Ho CY, Mechanisms of wood smoke-induced increases in nasal airway resistance and reactivity in rats. Eur J Kou YR. Pharmacol.2002 Feb 1;436(1-2):127-34.PMID: 11834256 [PubMed- indexed for MEDLINE] Feb 2002 Tesfaigzi Health effects of subchronic exposure to low levels of wood smoke in rats. Toxicol Sci. 2002 lan;65(1):115-25. Y, eta]Jan PMID: 11752691 [PubMed-indexed for MEDLINE] 2002 Hsu TH, Airway hyperresponsiveness to bronchoconstrictor challenge after wood smoke exposure in guinea pigs. Life Kou YR. Sci.2001 May 18;68(26):2945-56. PMID: 11411794 [PubMed-indexed for MEDLINE] May 2001 Stone, 1995 Mice were exposed for 6 hours to wood smoke, emissions from an oil furnace or no pollution(control)and then an aerosol of the bacterium Streptococcus zooepidemicus,which causes severe respiratory infections.After 2 weeks,5%of the mice in the control group exposed to air and bacteria had died,along with a similar percentage of the mice breathing the oil fumes. But 21%of the wood-smoked mice were felled. Stone, 1995 Rats were exposed to no pollution or 800 ug/m3 wood smoke for I hour, then to golden staph bacteria. The bacteria were more virulent in animals which breathed the woodsmoke. This was attributed to a suppression in activity of the rats' macrophages,immune cells that roam the body, looking to engulf and destroy foreign particles. Kou et al. , "These results suggest that an increase in OH. burden following smoke inhalation is actively involved in 1997 evoking the acute irritant effects of wood smoke on breathing in rats." Rao et al., Metabolites of woodsmoke condensate accumulate in cultured rat eye lenses, compromising ability to 1995 accumulate rubidium-86(mimic of K)and choline. Says may explain implication of smoke in cataract. Lal et al., Rats exposed to woodsmoke suffered"bronchiolitis, hyperplasia and hypertrophy of bronchiolar epithelial 1993 lining cells, some necrosed lining cells desquamated into lumens,congestion of parenchymatous blood vessels, oedema,hyperplasia of lymphoid follicles,peribronchiolar and perivascular infiltration of polymorphonuclear cells,and mild emphysema"Conditioned worsened with accumulated exposure ."The results indicate progressive pathomorphological pulmonary lesions with subsequent exposure to wood smoke in controlled conditions." Churg et Autopsies were carried out of lung tissue from 10 never-smoking long-term residents of Vancouver. Retained al., 1997. particles in human lung parenchyma were counted, sized,and identified by analytical electron microscopy. 96% 4 of particles had aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5microns. Godleski et Rats with bronchitis were exposed for 6 hours per day to 272ug/m3 PM2.5. 37%of rats exposed to particles al., 1996 died, compared to none exposed to filtered air. Bibliography Some of the more recent citations in this document reference PubMed at MEDLINE. PubMed is a service of the National Library of Medicine,provides access to over 12 million MEDLINE citations back to the mid-1960's and additional life science joumals. PubMed includes links to many sites providing full text articles and other related resources. PubMed can be found at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/. Alfheim 1, Ramdahl T, Contribution of wood combustion to indoor air pollution as measured by mutagenicity in Salmonella and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentration,Environ. Mutagen 1984;6(2):121-130 Betchley C., Koenig J.Q., Vanbelle G., Checkoway H.. Reinhardt T., Pulmonary Function and Respiratory Symptoms in Forest Firefighters,American Journal of Industrial Medicine,31(5):503-509, 1997 May Butterfield,P,LaCava, G. Edumunston E, Penner, J. 1989. Woodstoves and indoor air, the effects on preschooler's upper respiratory symptoms.J Environ. Health 52:172-73. (L&K,Ref 14) Boone PM, Rossman TG, Daisey JM. The genotoxic contribution of wood smoke to indoor respirable suspended particles. Environment International 1989 15:361-368. Browning KG, Koenig JQ,Checkoway H, Larson, TV,Peirson WE., A questionnaire study of respiratory health in areas of high and low ambient wood smoke pollution,Pediotr. Asthma All. Immuno!. 4:183-91, 1990 Churg A., Brauer M.,Human Lung Parenchvma Retains PM2.5,American Journal of Respiratory& Critical Care Medicine, 155(6):2109-2111, 1997 June. Dangler G.E,Markello S.J, Cummings K.M,The effect of indoor air pollutants on otitis media and asthma in children,Laryngoscope 1991 Mar,101(3):293-296 Department of Pediatrics, State University of New York, Buffalo. Dean BS,Lopez G, Krenzelok EP, Environmentally-induced methemoglobinemia in an infant,J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1992;30(1):127-133 Pittsburgh Poison Center,Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-2583. Godleski J., Sioutas C., Katler M.,Koutrakis P.,Death from inhalation of concentrated ambient air particles in animal models of pulmonary disease, Proceedings of the Second Colloquium on Particulate Air Pollution and Human Health, Utah, 1996 May Heumann M., Foster L.R., Johnson L, Kelly L.,Woodsmoke Air Pollution and Changes in Pulmonary Function Among Elementary School Children,Air& Waste Management Association 84th Annual Meeting& Exhibition, Vancouver,British Columbia, 1991 June. Hogg J. C, Bronchiolitis obliterans and wood-burning stoves, Canadian Medical Association Journol,1997 Apr 15;156(8):1147-1148 Editorial,Comments on: Can Med Assoc J 1997 Apr 15;156(8):1171-3 Honicky RE, Osbome JS 3d, Akpom CA,Symptoms of respiratory illness in young children and the use of wood-burning stoves for indoor heating, Pediatrics 1985 Mar;75(3):587-593 5