Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2004.03.01 (SWI-1 K NEWBURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY City of Burlingame BURLING�kmr= Regular Meeting - Monday, March 1, 2004 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 1 of 1 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Public Hearing and Resolution authorizing sale of bonds Public Hearing/Action and execution of documents in connection with sale 5. 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 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. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Resolution Authorizing Deposit of Bond Proceeds from Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2004 with State Local Agency Investment Fund b. Resolution Amending Finance Authority Conflict of Interest Code to update positions 7. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 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.burlinyame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY ITEM# 4a aV I A. MTG. A �"9-.--. DATE March I,2004 TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS SUBMITTED i BY DATE: February 24, 2004 APPROVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Treasurer & Controller BY If 650-558-7222 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Sale of Bonds and Execution of D currents in Connection with Sale RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution. BACKGROUND: The City Council is being asked to reaffirm the actions taken on January 5, 2004 because the Notice of Public Hearing was not published in the newspaper. The City Council has conducted a public hearing and approved a resolution authorizing the sale and issuance of the subject bonds. The information regarding the bond issue is contained in the Council's staff report. Copies of relevant agreements are filed with the City Clerk. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS OF THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE PROCUREMENT OF BOND INSURANCE FOR THE BONDS; APPROVING THE FORMS OF A TRUST AGREEMENT AND INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENTS; APPROVING FORMS OF AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF AN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE,A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL BONDS, AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT DESCRIBING SAID BONDS; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING OF ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame (the "City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burlingame (the "Agency")have heretofore executed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of May 15, 1995 (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), by and between the City and the Agency, which Joint Powers Agreement creates and establishes the Burlingame Financing Authority(the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California(the "Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985") and the Joint Powers Agreement, the Authority is authorized to issue bonds for financing public capital improvements whenever there are significant public benefits; and WHEREAS, the Authority desires to issue bonds for the purpose of financing the construction of certain improvements to the water and wastewater systems of the City (collectively, the "Projects"); and WHEREAS, this Board of the Authority hereby determines that there are significant public benefits, including through demonstrable savings in the effective interest rates and bond issuance costs expected to be paid for the Bonds issued to finance the Projects, and that it furthers the public purpose to assist in such financing; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve such significant public benefits and public purpose,this Board of the Authority desires to authorize the issuance and sale by public sale of not to exceed $23,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of its Burlingame Financing Authority Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2004 (the 'Bonds"); and WHEREAS,there have been submitted and are on file with the Secretary of the Authority proposed forms of an Official Notice of Sale of Bonds, a Notice of Intention to Sell 4- Bonds, and an Official Statement, all with respect to not to exceed $23,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Bonds proposed to be sold; and WHEREAS, this Authority now desires to approve the form and authorize the publication of said Notices, and the distribution of a preliminary form of said Official Statement describing the Bonds and a final Official Statement for the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority desires to enter into a Trust Agreement(the "Trust Agreement")with BNY Western Trust Company(the "Trustee"), for the purpose of securing the Bonds; and WHEREAS, in order to finance the Projects, the Authority desires to enter into an installment sale agreement (water system) and an installment sale agreement(wastewater system) (collectively, the "Installment Sale Agreements")with the City; and WHEREAS, there have been presented to this meeting proposed forms of the Trust Agreement, Installment Sale Agreements, Official Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; NOW THEREFORE, the Governing Board of the Burlingame Financing Authority hereby finds, determines, declares and resolves, as follows: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and the Authority hereby so finds and determines. Section 2. The issuance and sale of the Burlingame Financing Authority Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2004, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $23,000,000, are hereby approved. Section 3. (a) The proposed form of Trust Agreement by and between the Authority and Trustee, on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved. The Executive Director of the Authority (or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority,to execute and deliver a trust agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance as set forth in Section 9 hereof), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. The date, maturity date or dates (not to exceed April 1, 2033), interest rate or rates (not to exceed a true interest cost of five and one-half percent (5.5%) per annum), interest payment dates, series, denominations, forms, registration privileges, manner of execution, place or places of payment,terms of redemption and other terms of the Bonds shall be as provided in said Trust Agreement, as finally executed. -2- (b) BNY Western Trust Company is hereby approved and appointed as Trustee of the Authority with respect to the Bonds, and shall be authorized to act as Trustee in accordance with the terms of the Trust Agreement. (c) The Treasurer and Controller of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed to hold the funds and accounts created under the Trust Agreement and specified therein to be held by the Treasurer and Controller of the Authority, in trust as a fiduciary for the owners of the Bonds as set forth in said documents. Section 4. The proposed form of 2004 Installment Sale Agreement(Water System), by and between the City and the Authority, on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved. The Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority, to execute and deliver an installment sale agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance as set forth in Section 9 hereof), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof, provided, however, that the term of said installment sale agreement shall end no later than April 1, 2033. Section 5. The proposed form of 2004 Installment Sale Agreement(Wastewater System), by and between the Authority and City, on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved. The Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Authority,to execute and deliver an installment sale agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officer may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance as set forth in Section 9 hereof), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof; provided, however, that the term of said installment sale agreement shall end no later than April 1, 2033. Section 6. The form of proposed Official Notice of Sale inviting bids for the Bonds, in substantially the form submitted to this Board and on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved, subject to such corrections, revisions or additions as deemed necessary by the Executive Director of the Authority. Kelling,Northcross &Nobriga, Oakland, California(the "Financial Advisor"), is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be mailed to prospective bidders for the Bonds copies of said Official Notice of Sale in the form finally approved by the Executive Director of the Authority. Section 7. The form of proposed Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds, in substantially the form submitted to this Board and on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved, subject to such corrections, revisions or additions as deemed necessary by the Executive Director of the Authority. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause said Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds to be published once at least fifteen days before the date of sale in THE BOND BUYER. -3- Section 8. (a) The Executive Director, or his designee, is hereby authorized and directed to entertain bids for the Bonds, and to accept the lowest true interest cost bid, provided that(i)the true interest rate on the Bonds shall not exceed five and one-half percent(5.5%)per annum, and (ii)the price to be paid for the Bonds shall not be less than ninety-nine percent (99%) of the par value thereof(without taking into account the premium, if any, for a policy of municipal bond insurance with respect to the Bonds), plus accrued interest, if any,to the date of delivery. If such true interest cost and price are acceptable to the Executive Director, the Executive Director is hereby authorized to award the sale of the Bonds to the maker of the best responsive bid for the Bonds; if no bid for the Bonds is acceptable,the Executive Director is requested to reject all bids for the Bonds and to re-bid the Bonds or, if the Executive Director shall deem it necessary, to sell the Bonds by negotiated sale as permitted by law. (b) The Authority hereby consents to obtaining a bid for the Bonds from the Financial Advisor. Section 9. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized to negotiate with providers of bond insurance for the Bonds, and, if the Executive Director determines it is in the best interests of the Authority and the City, to commit to purchase or enter into or approve agreements providing for bond insurance for some or all of the Bonds. Section 10. The proposed form of Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), on file with the Secretary of the Authority, is hereby approved, subject to such corrections, revisions or additions as deemed necessary or desirable by the Executive Director of the Authority. The Financial Advisor is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be printed and mailed to prospective bidders for the Bonds copies of the Preliminary Official Statement in substantially the same form of Official Statement approved and adopted as the Official Statement describing the Bonds, as so added to, corrected or revised, and to supply to the accepted bidder or bidders for the Bonds copies of the final Official Statement, completed to include the interest rate or rates, principal amounts, and final sale information. The Executive Director(or other officer designated by the Executive Director) is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the final Official Statement(the "Official Statement") and to execute a certificate confirming that the Preliminary Official Statement has been "deemed final" by the Authority for purposes of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. Section 11. The officers and directors of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed,jointly and severally,to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents and certificates which they deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and otherwise to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby. -4- Section 12. The officers and board members of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed,jointly and severally,to execute and deliver any Certificate of the Authority or Written Request of the Authority required to be delivered pursuant to the Trust Agreement. Section 13. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption and supersedes and replaces Resolution No. 1-2004. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the Burlingame Financing Authority at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1 st day of March, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: BOARDMEMBERS NOES: BOARDMEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: Secretary SECRETARY'S CERTIFICATE I, ANN T. MUSSO, Secretary of the Burlingame Financing Authority, do hereby certify as follows: The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by a vote of a majority of the members of the Governing Board of said Authority at a special meeting of the Governing Board of said Authority duly and legally held at City Hall, Burlingame, California, on March 1, 2004, of which meeting all of such members had due notice, as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of said resolution appeared on said agenda. -5- I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full,true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes. Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect. Dated: March , 2004. Secretary of the Burlingame Financing Authority -6- C!2 MyL'ist Print Page Page 1 of 1 Click here to go back. Category: Classifieds Home Description: Legals Govt City NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Burlingame (the "City") will conduct a public hearing (the "Public Hearing") at its regular meeting on Monday, March 1, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. , or as soon thereafter as the matters may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Council, City Hall, 501 Primrose Lane, Burlingame, California. Pursuant to Section 6586.5 of the California Government Code (the "Code") , the purpose of the hearing is to consider: (i) approval of the issuance by the Burlingame Financing Authority (the "Authority") of its Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds Series 2004 (the "Bonds") in an amount not to exceed $23,000,000 for the purpose of financing (1) City-wide water system improvements including replacement of water distribution/transmission mains, valves, pump station improvements, storage tanks and reservoirs, SCADA improvements, water quality studies and related improvements, and (2) City- wide sewer system improvements including studies, design and construction of replacement/rehabilitation of sewer pipelines, manholes, cleanouts, laterals, and a wastewater treatment plant and outfall line, and (ii) whether there are any significant public benefits to the City, such as savings in effective interest rates, as a result of assistance from the Authority. Interested persons wishing to comment on the proposed issuance of the Bonds, the use of the proceeds, and whether there are any significant public benefits to the City from the issuance and sale of the Bonds, may be present and be heard at the Public Hearing, or may submit written comments and questions not later than 4:00 p.m. on the business day preceding the Public Hearing to the City Clerk, City Hall, 501 Primrose Lane, Burlingame, California 94010-3997 . Due to time constraints and the number of persons wishing to give oral testimony, time restrictions may be placed on oral testimony at the Public Hearing regarding this proposal. You may wish to make your comments in writing to assure that you are able to express yourself adequately. Date: February 18, 2004 CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME San Mateo County Times, #333110 February 24, 2004 Location: CA Date: 2/24/2004 Source: San Mateo County Times http://alameda.abracat.com/c2/mylist/print.xml?marked=326271441DELIMITIANNIDELIMITIsmt& 2/25/2004 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA ITEM# 6a ti MTG. DATE 3/1/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY — DATE: February 25,2004 AP OVE FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Deposit of Bond Proceeds and Investment Monies with State Local Agency Investment Fund RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution. BACKGROUND: When the bond proceeds are received,the construction fund needs to be placed in a liquid account to insure that funds are available to meet progress payments and other expenses. The State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) offers a special account for bond proceeds that the city has historically used for this purpose. The yield in LAIF averages about the same as a two-year Treasury Bill, so it tends to be the best place to invest construction fund proceeds. This will prevent us from returning to Council for future approvals on each Bond Issue. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION OF THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEPOSIT OF BOND PROCEEDS AND INVESTMENT MONIES WITH STATE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND RESOLVED,by the Governing Board of the Burlingame Financing Authority: WHEREAS,pursuant to Chapter 730 of the statutes of 1976 Section 16429.1 was added to the California Government Code to create a Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury for the deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors does hereby find that the deposit and withdrawal of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated therein are in the best interests of the Financing Authority; and NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Board of Directors does hereby authorize the deposit and withdrawal of Authority monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 16429.1 for the purpose of investment as stated in this resolution, and verification by the State Treasurer's Office of all banking information provided in that regard. 2. The following Authority officers or their successors in office are hereby authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of monies in the State Local Agency Investment Fund: MARY ASTURIAS LINDA FREITAS SHARI JACKSON Assistant Controller Deputy Treasurer Assistant Deputy Treasurer 3. These authorizations and designations shall be in effect until the Authority notifies the Local Agency Investment Fund in writing of any changes. CHAIR 1 I,ANN T. MUSSO, Secretary of the Burlingame Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Governing Board of the Burlingame Financing Authority held on the day of , 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: SECRETARY C:\FILES\FinancingAuthority\investment2004.res.wpd 2 CITY AGENDA 6b ITEM# GURU GAME BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY MTG. DATE 3/1/2004 STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Board Members SUBMITT BY DATE: February 18, 2004 APPROVE BY- FROM: Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, Counsel SUBJECT: AMEND FINANCING AUTHORITY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE TO UPDATE POSITIONS RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution updating the Conflict of Interest Code for the Burlingame Financing Authority to add the position of Assistant Deputy Treasurer. DISCUSSION: The Financing Authority is in the process of issuing a series of bonds to fund improvements to the water and wastewater systems. The Assistant Deputy Treasurer will be involved in the issuance and investments, and this resolution will affirm that the position is included in the Authority's Conflict of Interest Code. Attachment Resolution Copy to: Finance Director BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE RESOLVED,by the Governing Board of the Burlingame Financing Authority: WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame ("City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burlingame("Agency") have heretofore executed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated May 15, 1995 ("Agreement"), by and between the City and the Agency, which creates and establishes the Burlingame Financing Authority("Authority"); and WHEREAS, the Authority adopted a Conflict of Interest Code in Resolution 1-1995, amended in Resolutions 2-1998 and 3-2003,pursuant to the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 and following; and WHEREAS, it should be clear that the position of Assistant Deputy Treasurer is included in the Authority's Conflict of Interest Code as shown in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the filing of Statements of Economic Interests as officers and employees of the City of Burlingame, where otherwise required, shall satisfy the filing requirements as officials of the Authority, NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The addition of the position of Assistant Deputy Treasurer in the Authority's Conflict of Interest Code is affirmed as shown in Exhibit A. CHAIR I,ANN T.MUSSO,Secretary of the Burlingame Financing Authority do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Governing Board of the Burlingame Financing Authority held on the day of .2004,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: SECRETARY APPENDIX A DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES The following Authority officials are designated for filing statements of economic interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code and the Political Reform Act: Disclosure Category Executive Director I Counsel I Secretary I Treasurer and Controller I Assistant Controller I Deputy Treasurer I Assistant Deputy Treasurer I DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES: I — Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category I shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; b) Income; and c) Interests in real property within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Designated employees in Category I shall complete Schedules A through F 2 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME Regular Meeting - Monday, March 1, 2004 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 1 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 CLOSED SESSION: 6:15 Conference Room A a. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code §54956.8: Property: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission right-of-way along Caltrain right-of-way; Agency negotiators: Jim Nantell, Larry Anderson, George Bagdon;Negotiating parties: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission; Under negotiation: Purchase of property. b. Threatened Litigation(Government Code §54956.9(b)(1),(3)(c)): Claim of Diane Johnson, et. al. (continued from February 17, 2004) 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Immediately following Finance Authority Meeting 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 17, 2004 Approve 5. PRESENTATION a. Presentation of Arbor Day Proclamation Presentation b. Presentation to Veolia Wastewater America Operating Presentation Services (formerly U.S. Filter) for sponsoring "Music in the Park" 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a design Hearing/Action review and special permits for an attached garage and for declining height envelope for a new single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue b. Adoption of Ordinance amending the zoning code required Hearing/Action in the Broadway Commercial Area to allow financing institutions on the first floor for 24 months C. Adoption of Ordinance to amend the Zoning Code required Hearing/Action for the 2"d unit amnesty program d. Public Hearing and Resolution authorizing sale of bonds Hearing/Action and execution of documents in connection with sale eR@NrG,A,ME BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting - Monday, March 1, 2004 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 1 jk 0 Page 2 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 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 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. Introduction of Ordinance to amend Chapters 11.04 and Introduce 12.12 to restore obligation to property owners for maintenance and repair of sidewalks pursuant to state law b. Resolution supporting the Local Taxpayers and Public Discuss/Accept Safety Protection Act C. Traffic, Safety, & Parking Commissioner Resignation Discuss/Action 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. (i)Resolution awarding Marsten Pipeline Station upgrade and outfall pipeline project to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction; (ii) Resolution approving transfer of funds to Marsten Pump Station budget b. Resolution acknowledging the change of name for Wastewater Treatment Plant operation to Veolia Wastewater America Operating Services (formerly U.S. Filter) C. Resolution approving the increase in police officer hourly pay rate for outside work details d. Appoint interim Advisory Board for formation of Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Council input on joint Planning Commission/City Council Discuss study session 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Beautification, February 5, 2004; Planning, February 23, 2004; Library Board, January 20, 2004; Park and Recreation, February 19, 2004; Traffic, Safety & Parking, February 12, 2004; BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME Regular Meeting - Monday, March 1, 2004 CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 3 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 b. Department Reports: Police, January, 2004 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities,please contact the City Clerk at(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Monday, March 15, 2004 ��CITiy � BU_RLINGAM_E c � m n 9 gaT[o J wc6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of February 17, 2004 CLOSED SESSION: a. Threat of Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(b)(1),(3)(C# Claim of Ewa Patuszynski; Claim of Michelle Gavin; Claim of Diane Johnson, et. al. b. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code §54956.8: Property: Assessor Parcel No. 028-285-030 (1512 Ralston Avenue); Agency Negotiators: Jim Nantell, George Bagdon, Larry Anderson; Negotiating Parties: Walter C. Sjostrom and Ana T. Sjostrom Trust; Under negotiation: Possible purchase of property C. Personnel Matter(Government Code §54957) one matter(continued from February 3, 2004) CA Anderson advised that Council provided direction in the handling of these matters. 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 7:04 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Supervisor Mark Church. 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 regular meeting of February 2, 2004; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the minutes of the special continued regular meeting of February 3, 2004; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). 1 Burlingame City Council February 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes 5. PRESENTATIONS a. RECOGNITION OF A GROUP OF CITIZENS WHO ASSISTED IN APPREHENDING A SUSPECT Commander Van Etten presented commendations to local citizens James Jurow, Jordan Jurow, Steven Perdue, Mark Perdue, and Gildardo Pena who courageously assisted the Police Department in apprehending a suspect. b. PRESENTATION ON MEASURE A FROM TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Supervisor Mark Church made a presentation on the Measure A one-half cent sales tax collected by the county which expires in 2008. A proposal to extend the tax from 2008 to 2028 will be on the November ballot. If the tax is not extended, two projects affecting Burlingame will not be funded. The proposed projects are new Highway 101 interchanges at Broadway and at Peninsula Avenue. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION DECISION ON PROTECTED TREE AT 1537 WESTMOOR ROAD P&RD Schwartz recommended Council hold a public hearing and consider the appeal by neighboring property owners of the Beautification Commission's decision to deny removal of a protected tree at 1537 Westmoor Road. Pete Tokarski, 1533 Westmoor Road, and Frouk Kouchek-Ali, 1537 Westmoor Road appeared and answered questions from Council. Mr. Tokarski stated that an established chimney contractor stated that his chimney problem is most likely caused by the existing tree. Although Mr. Tokarski said he has taken alleviating measures, the problem still exists. He said that the tree affects the use of his property, and he requested that he be allowed to remove this tree and replace it with another. After discussion, Councilman Coffey made a motion to overturn the Beautification Commission decision and approve the appeal with the condition that the City Arborist approve the replanting of one or two trees to replace the oak tree; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan. A roll call vote was called, and the motion was denied by a vote of 2-2-1 (O'Mahony and Nagel dissented, Baylock absent). After further discussion, Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to table this issue pending further evidence from the applicants of the need to either trim or remove the tree; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan. A roll call vote was called, and the motion was approved by a vote of 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road, spoke on the commercial zoning change on Broadway. Mike Spinelli, 1301 Mills Avenue, spoke on Measure A. Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue, spoke on Safeway. Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, spoke on the Burlingame Historical Society. 2 Burlingame City Council February 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes 8. STAFF REPORTS a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA CP Monroe requested Council introduce an ordinance to add uses to the Broadway Commercial Area zoned C-1. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso read the title of the proposed ordinance to amend Section 25.36.041 to allow financial institutions as conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Vice Mayor Galligan waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. b. RESOLUTIONS: 1) ACCEPTING BFI SOLID WASTE RATES FOR 2004; 2) COMMERCIAL ORGANICS COLLECTION PROGRAM FOR BURLINGAME BUSINESSES AND AUTHORIZING A 25% RATE REDUCTION INCENTIVE FD Nava recommended Council approve a resolution accepting BFI Solid Waste Rates for 2004 and a resolution approving the second amendment to the Franchise Agreement with BFI for solid waste, recyclable materials and plant materials. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the resolution accepting BFI Solid Waste Rates for 2004; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve the resolution approving the second amendment to the franchise agreement with BFI for solid waste, recyclable materials and plant materials; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). C. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO THE SECOND UNIT ZONING REGULATIONS CP Monroe requested Council introduce an ordinance to amend the second unit amnesty program and implement changes to the second unit zoning regulations. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso read the title of the proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 25.59 to permanently institute an amnesty program for pre-existing secondary dwelling units and to allow variations in certain requirements for approval. Vice Mayor Galligan waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Councilman Coffey made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). 3 Burlingame City Council February 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT WITH RINO BETTI FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1080 HOWARD AVENUE P&RD Schwartz requested Council approve a resolution approving a lease agreement between the City of Burlingame and Rino Betti, dba Sam's Sandwiches, for the use of 1080 Howard Avenue. b. RESOLUTION OPPOSING SB 744 LEGISLATION THAT WOULD EMPOWER THE STATE'S EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO UNILATERALLY OVERTURN LAND USE DECISIONS CP Monroe requested Council approve a resolution opposing SB 744 legislation that would empower the State's Executive Branch to unilaterally overturn land use decisions. C. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL,JANUARY 2004 FD Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #93264-93802 duly audited, in the amount of $2,324,324.18 (excluding library checks 93264-93295), Payroll checks #157009-157484 in the amount of $3,295,649.59, and various electronic funds transfers for the month of January 2004. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve 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 There was no old business. 12. NEW BUSINESS Mayor O'Mahony requested Burlingame organizations to support local businesses by holding their fundraisers in this city rather than out of town. Councilwoman Nagel commended DPW Bagdon for activating a City of Burlingame website link to enable citizens to report potholes and street debris on-line. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, February 9, 2004; Parks and Recreation b. Department Reports: Building, January 2004; Finance, January 2004 4 Burlingame City Council February 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. in memory of George Collopy. Respectfully submitted, Ann T. Musso City Clerk 5 Burlingame City Council February 17, 2004 Unapproved Minutes }�6„�.-�''S"aey�-��`y,�v't`•�">��'=s."����'y:,:�.�+ofof �'°"t s� ���u.��� sem.-.... .,x ��.pi,��x�r�'� �-.s.�,^""Y ",h.,..Qyr�,.Y�"r�i'TM'� � ;➢ 'L�tr�^' : • .'.�` a✓ Y3S 'y;�'� a s+ z v .avj '� P' ,ww.. y,/H� DO ' mow Yi".' 'iphi- + 3 tet+ '"^ L 'Y W"'b tiJ. D i i �3. Y.' �Og4•/ a rT � c� '•, �r' � a...•c ' //�� _� � �z '- s .. �c m SFC BURLINGAME r C A L 5 f.0 R w 3 x t tzr r ` PROCLAMATION ' Arbor Day, March 7, 2004 yw w, 'c U&ereas, March 7, 2004 is Arbor Day in California and is a time to observe both tree planting and tree care. (First cele6rated in the state of Nebraska in 1872, ' Arbor Day was established to urge settlers and homesteaders in the prairie .s�. " state to plant trees that would provide shade, shelter,fruit,fuel, and beauty for residents of the largely treeless plains;and til& ras, `he City of Burlingame is proud of its street,parkand(tome garden trees and ' recognizes the importance of tree care and appreciation. The NationalArbor ,a Day(Foundation designated the City of Burlingame as a Tree City, V.S.A "~ and, ` *erects Trees can reduce the erosion precious t wind and water, cut < c, of our p ° soil I' �' heating D and coolie(/ costs moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce =` life-giving oxygen, and provide habitat for wifdlfe. In addition, trees are as renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes,fuel for our fires, rr°•.� ' and are a prominent piece of the beauty of our community,and If ApYY �' 91OW1 therefate I, 12gsafw 94 O'Waliony, Wayor of the City of Burlingame, do here6y Y"' C . proclaim March 7, 2004, as Arbor Day and urge residents to observe this � 'h p day by recognizing the importance of trees to our environment. _ In witness whereof, I have hereunto set K my hand and caused the seal of the City Rc of Burlingame to be affixed this the 71ti day of March, 2004 3�t O -< 12gsalie 911. O_tlahony, Z - v s.;y � � !r � � ,y^.{�l�at.• -i ���t� r ��?� .rq�{111mr +i�'�+.ryY �,��•_� !r• 4 + ��Y:. ilVis �•• ���CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 5b ° MTG. 3/1/04 °OAA, ,,,,,,E DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILY T DATE: February 24,2004 APPRO FROM: Director of Parks&Recreation(558-7307) BY : SUBJECT: PRESENTATION TO US FILTER OF THE CALIFORNIA V PARKS &RECREATION SOCIETY'S SPONSOR AWARD PLAQUE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council recognize US Filter and present Plant Manager, Bill Toci, with the California Parks &Recreation Society Sponsor Award plaque. BACKGROUND: The Califormia Parks & Recreation Society has awarded a Sponsor Award to US Filter for their contributions to the City of Burlingame. In their findings for this award was listed the following: US Filter established a unique relationship with the City of Burlingame, being the first public-private partnership ever established in the U.S. in 1972. Despite several corporate changes, the company has continued to provide the City constant, unswerving service with our waste-water treatment program. But above and beyond their contractual obligations, US Filter is a great corporate citizen. Witness its principal sponsorship of the annual Bayfront cleanup and its participation in science demos and training at Burlingame High School. In addition, US Filter contributed significantly to the renovation of Burlingame's pre-school facility at Village Park and has fully sponsored the Music in the Park July concert series for the past two years. During these difficult economic times, these contributions are essential to continuing these very popular programs. Thank you to US Filter for their never ending involvement and commitment to the Burlingame community. ATTACHMENTS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None �Ty STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6a 9- T MTG. FAED---6 5-2 DATE 3.1.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2004 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIA OF A DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Action: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action to approve the applicant's request should include findings for each of the requests made and should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. City Council has three action alternatives: a. to uphold the Planning Commission and deny the application; b. to reverse the Planning Commission and approve the application by resolution; or c. to deny the request without prejudice and return it to the Planning Commission with comments. Action alternative descriptions and the criteria for finding for each action required are included at the end of the staff report. Conditions on the project considered by the Planning Commission: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 15, 2003, Sheets Al-A5, A9, L1.0, Cl and TS1,site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan, erosion control plan and topographic survey; 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 3, 2003, March 20, 2003 and April 22, 2003 memos, the Chief Building Official's December 27, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 20, 2002 memo and the City Arborist's March 20, 2003 memo shall be met; 4. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall be met; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. February 23, 2004 5 . that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 6. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 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; 8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 9. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 11 . that during construction and the applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of the establish erosion control plan shown on Sheet C1 plans date stamped October 15, 2003 ; 12. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission; 13. that the Certified Arborist report dated February 26, 2003 and the tree protection measures listed on sheet L1 .0 on the plans date stamped October 15, 2003 shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction; 14. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 15 . that the tree protection measures listed in the report done by S.P. McClanahan Co., Inc. dated August 17, 1998 and a February 17, 2000 letter that were part of the original lot split in 2000, shall be adhered to in addition to all requirements by the current arborist overseeing this project; 16. that the applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a building permit is issued by the Building Department for the new single-family residence; 17. that the applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval along with the building application for approval prior to Building permit issuance; -2- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. February 23,2004 18. that the applicant shall submit a pre-foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of protection measures at the time of application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and final foundation pour inspections with the Building Department to insure adherence; 19. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the 3-year period; 20. that prior issuance of a grading permit or any grading on the site or issuance of a demolition permit, a root protection zone shall be established around the protected oak trees and the redwood tree and the installation shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be checked by a certified arborist weekly and a written report on the status submitted to the City Arborist; and that the protective fencing shall not be removed until a final Building inspection takes place on the site and the certified arborist determines that it is appropriate to remove the tree protection; 21. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 22. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 23. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 24. that protective fencing shall be installed along the top of bank (merges with 100-year floor as shown on site plan sheet Al, date stamped October 15, 2003); and that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction materials, debris or equipment be stored beyond the top of bank boundary, this includes the terraced area with the retaining walls between the upper top of bank which merges with the 100-year flood line and the lower top of bank adjacent to the Sanchez Creek channel; 25. that should any activity on the project violate any tree protection measure established by the certified arborist, all activity on the project shall be stopped immediately. The City will then retain at the applicant's expense a third-party arborist to implement and enforce the tree protection measures in cooperation with the certified arborist retained by the applicant. The third-party arborist will submit an estimate of the cost of conducting weekly, or more frequent if he determines it be necessary, inspections of the property until project completion, and the applicant shall deposit an amount equal to that estimate wit the City to draw upon to pay the third-party arborist for the inspections and reports -3- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. February 23,2004 conducted to completion. Upon the deposit of the money and correction of the violations of the protection plan, work on the project may resume upon written consent of the City Planner. The City Planner will determine when the deposit is reaching a point at which it requires additional funds given the progress and timing of the project and shall require the applicant to deposit such additional monies as may be necessary to satisfy the requirements. If the deposit is exhausted and additional inspections are needed under this condition,work on the project shall stop until the deposit required by the City Planner is made. The certified arborist shall be authorized by written agreement form the applicant to stop work on the project at any time that a tree protection measure is violated. The third-party arborist, if any shall have the authority to order that all activity on the project be stopped whenever that person determine that a tree protection measure is being violated; and 26. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7-0 on a voice vote to deny the applicant's request for design review and special permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope to build a new house at 1029 Balboa Avenue on the basis that: 1) the scale and size of the project was unsuitable in relation to the creek on the lot; 2) there needs to be a reduction of more than 10% in the floor area ratio on a lot with a creek which limits the buildable area; and 3) it appears that the top of the house would be within the canopy of the trees on the site and construction could damage the mature trees. In their action the Commissioners noted: the design of the new house needs to relate to the natural setting and should transition to the creek; wanted to see a substantial change over what was proposed in the previous proposal reviewed by the Commission(plans of April 30, 2003); the design is nice,but it looks like the top of the house is in the tree canopy;because of the creek, visually this is a 27-foot wide lot, the project covers 50% of the buildable area; there is no justification for the infringement on the declining height envelope, the building crowds the site; need to make sure there is enforcement of the tree protection measures. BACKGROUND: The applicant, James Stewart architect, and Charles Schembri,property owner, are proposing to build a new two-story, three bedroom, single family dwelling with an attached one- car garage on a now vacant creek side lot at 1029 Balboa Avenue, Zoned R-l. The following exceptions to the zoning requirement are requested: - Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling; Special permit for an attached garage (10' x 20' proposed, 10' x 20' required); and Special permit for declining height envelope (142 SF exceeds the envelope on the right side, area 2'-8" x 56-0"; Wallowed). Original Proposal: The applicant originally submitted a proposal to the Planning Commission on May 12, 2003. At that time the proposal was for a 2990 SF four-bedroom house with an attached two-car garage. The Commission voted 7-0 to deny the project, stating that the size and scale of the project was unsuitable in relation to the lot. On June 16, 2003, the City Council heard the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the project. The City Council denied the project without prejudice with direction to the applicant to work with the design reviewer to modify the design and return to the Planning Commission for action. The current proposal was submitted in response to this direction. -4- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. February 23,2004 Setting Sanchez Creek, a perennial creek which drains the coastal hills to San Francisco Bay, flows through the property, which is the second of two lots created as a result of a subdivision in 2000. The creek crosses the rear left corner of the lot and runs southeast on the adjacent property then enters a box culvert under Balboa Avenue. There are several significant trees on this site. A 6-foot diameter Redwood at the front and 43-inch, 37-inch, and 36-inch diameter Oak trees in the rear of the lot. At the time of division of the original lot, because of the location and proximity of the creek, issues were raised concerning the development of the new creek side lot and the effects of development on the creek, trees and possible flood hazards. The lot split was based on an identified footprint for a future house on the lot. This foot print was required to show that not only was the lot a legal lot but that it could be developed without any exceptions to the zoning code. Seventy percent of this lot was determined to be outside of the creek at the time of subdivision. An arborist's report prepared by the developer was reviewed and found acceptable by the City Arborist (March 20, 2003 memo). In this report a tree protection plan was defined. Because of the location and size of the house, stringent tree protection measures were required as conditions of approval for this project. These include requiring hand digging to identify root location before designing and installing pier and beam foundations and cantilevering parts of the proposed house to protect the root systems of the existing protected trees on the site. Because of the trees on the site and the creek, a number of conditions were placed on the map of the original lot split. They are attached to the Planning Commission staff report. These conditions required: that the finished floor elevation of any future building shall be a minimum of 1.0 feet above the 100 year storm flood elevation. The proposed finished floor will be 6 feet above the 100 year flood line (40.50' MSL, where the 100 year flow elevation is 34.5' MSL). A 51 SF portion of the first floor of the proposed house will cantilever over the top of bank (bottom of cantilever at 38.5' MSL, 4 feet above the 100-year flow elevation). The majority of the house is set back 6 feet from the 100-year flood elevation. No other portion of the proposed construction extends over the top of bank(100 year flood line on this lot). There are three existing rock retaining walls along the creek on the left side of the lot which create a series of terraces up from the creek bed. The upper most wall, which is above the 100-year flood line, will be removed to allow for the construction of the house. The two lower walls will be retained as they are (top of the middle retaining wall is 35.5'MSL, one foot higher than the 100-year flood line). A new retaining wall with a metal guard rail will be placed along the left side of the walkway that leads to the front door. Environmental Review The applicant has submitted this project to the California Department of Fish and Game and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board for review. Both agencies have said that permits are not required for the project as proposed. The project also appears to be outside the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. With these clearances, the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Project The proposed new, two-story, three bedroom single family dwelling with attached garage on this now vacant lot, has a floor area ratio of 2,710 SF (0.45 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.60 FAR) is allowed and a lot coverage of 26.1% (1,598 SF) where 40% (2,400 SF) is allowed by code on this 6,000 SF lot. It should be noted that 70 percent of the lot is above the 100-year flood line and considered developable, meeting the city's requirement for a developable lot of a minimum of 60% above the 100-year flood line. -5- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. February 23,2004 The proposed two story structure will be 26'-6"tall (30' maximum allowed). One covered off street parking space (10'x20') is provided where one covered parking space (10'x20') is required. One uncovered parking space is also provided on site as required. There is a 142 SF (2'8"to l'-8"x 56') extension into the declining height envelope (second story side setback) on the right side of the house, away from the creek, making the vertical wall to the second story plate line on this side of the property about 21'-6", next to the 4'-0" side setback.. The project also includes a 20' x18' (360 SF)basement area with an 8 foot ceiling height. This area does not count in the FAR calculation because it is less than 600 SF and completely below grade. It is under the portion of the house away from the creek. The excavated area is setback from the top of bank sufficiently that its construction should not cause a problem with the creek, and the arborist's report dated February 26, 2003 indicated that the basement excavation should not impact the trees if all protection measures are taken. Design Review After the Council's denial without prejudice of the original project, the applicant met with a design review consultant to work on the issues raised by the Planning Commission. The revised design, reflected in the plans date stamped October 15, 2003, incorporates the following changes: • Reduction of 280 SF from last proposal, 310 SF under the maximum square footage allowed; • Two- car garage has been changed to a one-car garage; • Number of bedrooms has been reduced from four to three; • One bathroom has been eliminated,reduction from four to three; and • Replaced stucco with wood siding. The Design reviewer made the following comments regarding the revised project: • that the architectural style of the house is appropriate for the neighborhood; • the Planning Commission had concerns with the size and footprint, the applicant has responded with significant reductions in both of those areas by removing one bedroom, one bathroom and one off- street parking space, resulting in an overall reduction of about 10% of the floor area; • the footprint has also decreased and the lot coverage is less than 27% of the lot area; • due to the revised front elevation, the house will appear significantly narrower from the street than in the previous proposal. • the neighbor on the left will be most impacted by the intrusion into the declining height envelope, however preserving the trees along the creek is more important and results in the mass being pushed to the right side. In summary, the design reviewer notes that the proposal responds to the Planning Commission's concerns by reducing the mass of the front elevation from the street, some of the cantilevered area toward the front has been removed and access to the house is at grade, and the square footage and building footprint have both been reduced. In conclusion, the design reviewer feels that the Commission's concerns have been addressed and supports the revised design. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that the data comparison of the originally submitted project (March 30, 2003), the revised project (April 30, 2003) and the current proposal (October 15, 2003) is included in the Planning Commission staff report on pages 2 and 3. Also included in the Planning Commission staff report on page 3 is a comparison of the October 15th project and the new house project approved on the other lot (1033 Balboa) created in 2000 when the original lot was divided into two lots (this was not a situation of emerging lot lines due to demolition,but a single lot with a creek through it which was subdivided into two legally sized lots each 6000 SF). -6- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. February 23,2004 Staff would also note that the applicant installed story poles prior to the Planning Commission hearing on this project on October 27, 2003, and the story poles were surveyed. These demonstrated the relationship of the proposed house to the tree canopy. Photos of the story poles are attached to the letter from the neighbor at 1020 Balboa. A copy of the story pole plan and the survey of the story poles is attached. Also attached is a letter from Mayne Tree Expert Company dated October 24, 2003, which analyzed the tree protection measures for the tree located on a property adjacent to the site. In summary, the letter notes that the tree was properly protected during the construction project at 1033 Balboa, and that there was nothing proposed on the project site including the basement that would impact the neighbor's tree. The letter concludes that the existing fence provides adequate protection needed for the future project at 1029 Balboa. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Design Review and Special Permit Criteria Mark Hudak letter, December 23, 2003, requesting a continuance of the appeal hearing Monroe letter, November 20, 2003, to Charles Schembri, applicant, setting appeal hearing. Mark Hudak letter,November 5, 2003 requesting appeal hearing. Planning Commission Minutes, October 27, 2003 Council Minutes June 16, 2003 Mayne Tree Company letter dated October 24, 2003 regarding tree protection Omni Global Surveying Inc. survey of story poles date stamped October 27, 2003 Bill and Gail Roberts, letter to Planning Commission, October 26, 2003,with pictures George J. Tobriner, 1036 Balboa, letter to Planning Commission, October 27, 2003 James H. Irwin, 1021 Cortez, letter to Planning Commission, October 26, 2003 Mr. & Mrs. David Hinckle, 1616 Sanchez, letter to Planning Commission, October 23, 2003 Elfriede C. Jordan, 1032 Cortez, letter to Planning Commission, October 27, 2003 Lana Appenrodt, 1040 Balboa, letter to Planning Commission, October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments City Council Resolution Notice of Appeal Hearing, Mailed February 20, 2003 Aerial, 1029 Balboa -7- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW,AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review,special ermits for declining height envelope and attached garage for first a new two-story residence at 1029 Balboa Avenue zoned R-1 Charles J. Schembriproperty owner, APN: 026-165-230; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame held a public hearing on said application on October 27, 2003, at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS,this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on March 1,2004,at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 Class 3 —construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including(a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more of such units, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review, special permits for declining height envelope and attached garage are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for the design review and special permits are as set forth in the staff report,minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 Planning Commission held on the 1St day of March, 2004 , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope 1029 BALBOA AVENUE effective March 1, 2004 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 15,2003, Sheets Al-A5,A9,L1.0,C1 and TSl,site plan, floor plans, building elevations, landscape plan, erosion control plan and topographic survey; 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 3, 2003, March 20, 2003 and April 22, 2003 memos, the Chief Building Official's December 27, 2002 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 20, 2002 memo and the City Arborist's March 20, 2003 memo shall be met; 4. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall be met; 5. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 6. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 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; 8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 9. that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; -2- Conditions of approval for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope 1029 BALBOA AVENUE effective March 1, 2004 11. that during construction and the applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of the establish erosion control plan shown on Sheet C1 plans date stamped October 15, 2003; 12. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission; 13. that the Certified Arborist report dated February 26, 2003 and the tree protection measures listed on sheet L1.0 on the plans date stamped October 15, 2003 shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction; 14. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 15. that the tree protection measures listed in the report done by S.P.McClanahan Co.,Inc.dated August 17, 1998 and a February 17,2000 letter that were part of the original lot split in 2000, shall be adhered to in addition to all requirements by the current arborist overseeing this project; 16. that the applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a building permit is issued by the Building Department for the new single-family residence; 17. that the applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval along with the building application for approval prior to Building permit issuance; 18. that the applicant shall submit a pre-foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of protection measures at the time of application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and final foundation pour inspections with the Building Department to insure adherence; 19. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the 3-year period; -3- Conditions of approval for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope 1029 BALBOA AVENUE effective March 1, 2004 20. that prior issuance of a grading permit or any grading on the site or issuance of a demolition permit, a root protection zone shall be established around the protected oak trees and the redwood tree and the installation shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be checked by a certified arborist weekly and a written report on the status submitted to the City Arborist; and that the protective fencing shall not be removed until a final Building inspection takes place on the site and the certified arborist determines that it is appropriate to remove the tree protection; 21. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or storm drain system;the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 22. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 23. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 24. that protective fencing shall be installed along the top of bank (merges with 100-year floor as shown on site plan sheet Al, date stamped October 15, 2003); and that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction materials, debris or equipment be stored beyond the top of bank boundary, this includes the terraced area with the retaining walls between the upper top of bank which merges with the 100-year flood line and the lower top of bank adjacent to the Sanchez Creek channel; 25. that should any activity on the project violate any tree protection measure established by the certified arborist, all activity on the project shall be stopped immediately. The City will then retain at the applicant's expense a third-party arborist to implement and enforce the tree protection measures in cooperation with the certified arborist retained by the applicant. The third-party arborist will submit an estimate of the cost of conducting weekly, or more frequent if he determines it be necessary, inspections of the property until project completion, and the applicant shall deposit an amount equal to that estimate -4- Conditions of approval for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope 1029 BALBOA AVENUE effective March 1, 2004 wit the City to draw upon to pay the third-party arborist for the inspections and reports conducted to completion. Upon the deposit of the money and correction of the violations of the protection plan, work on the project may resume upon written consent of the City Planner. The City Planner will determine when the deposit is reaching a point at which it requires additional funds given the progress and timing of the project and shall require the applicant to deposit such additional monies as may be necessary to satisfy the requirements. If the deposit is exhausted and additional inspections are needed under this condition, work on the project shall stop until the deposit required by the City Planner is made. The certified arborist shall be authorized by written agreement form the applicant to stop work on the project at any time that a tree protection measure is violated. The third-party arborist, if any shall have the authority to order that all activity on the project be stopped whenever that person determine that a tree protection measure is being violated; and 26. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. -5- ROUTING FORM DATE: March 31, 2003 TO: City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1; APN: 026-165-230. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 31, 2003 (�4"A( " po*v� Reviewed By: Date of Comments: "i'1 ROUTING FORM DATE: March 13,2003 TO: V City Engineer _Chief Building Official _Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1;APN:026-165-230 STAFF REVIEW:Monday,March 17,2003 caw' -( ( zs w q- s py v TAUVk6 o s�. pgobosy re Lce� -rarer 1.L 0 - Of 'TAa p ywr" CJ AlfW Art cr s Kms"-' tN r azg Reviewed By: �� Date of Comments: 5. 03 ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: /City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM:-- _> Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. it 4we r#�qvvFMO. �� , cS �. ® u(PYL 0VWr kljl� `014 W N&Vw G � (s 5 W 14117 Reviewed By: VY Date of Comments: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS t -(V�- wwt Project Name-•0, -Project Address: 1,02A U140voXv, The following requirements apply to the project 1 'J( A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) yam„ t, - sro1cv poy 2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and shoul be made o drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. k The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 Y Asanitary sewer lateral IM is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify miti_--."on measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Pagel of 3 UAprivate developmenAPLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost,design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall,at its own cost,design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk,curb,gutters,parking meters and poles, trees,and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans,it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic,pedestrian traffic and public on street parking.The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 - Any work within the drainage area,creek,or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers - Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 'x/ The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 V - apt-ge#eS#Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 Y The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U.Nprlvate developmentTLANNiNG REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. 3&­;eH&,rj- �a� 1,107 N43f�906=— 5p4e"�. X)Q ir1�2 ✓ Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official -ire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. Reviewed By: Date of Comments: �-- ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. Idol 0, /U� � tib r Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ROUTING FORM DATE: March 13,2003 ,TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official _Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1;APN:026-165-230 STAFF REVIEW:Monday,Much 17,2003 7A( s Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ��� 0 3 Action Alternatives and Finding Criteria for 1029 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA (C.S. 25.28.040) The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are as follows: �.- 1 . Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA (C.S. 25.28.035) The planning commission may grant a special permit in accord with this title if, from the applicant and the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds: (a) the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or additional are consistent with the existing structure and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish material and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. S.-ICC STAFF REPORTS APPEALSIAction Alt 1029 Balboa.doc 1 c)2(iI - M _et- -ham ?. qt 01 CR, CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL,THOMPSON& HORN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 216 PARK ROAD,POST OFFICE BOX 513 BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94011-0513 MARK D.HUDAK TELEPHONE(650)342-9600 mhudak@cmithlaw.com FACSIMILE(650)342-7685 www.cmithlaw.com December 23, 2003 Ann Musso City Clerk City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,CA 940i OF Re: 1029 Balboa Avenue Dear Ms. Musso: Our client, Charles Schembri, is not going to be back in California in time to prepare for the appeal hearing scheduled for the City Council's meeting on January 20, 2004. Therefore, we are requesting that the appeal be continued to the next available Council meeting. Would you please present this request to the Council for its approval. Thank you for your assistance. ..� Sincerely, Mark D. Hudak MDH:kmd 24471.00001\BGLIB1\1203481.1 EUi3LING1' ME The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650)558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 November 20, 2003 Charles Schembri 904 Bromfield Road San Mateo, CA 94402 Dear Mr. Schembri, At the City Council meeting of November 17, 2003, the Council scheduled an appeal 'Paring on your project at 1029 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held ,,--i Tuesday, January 20, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, �— 6n or— Margaret Monroe City Planner c: City Clerk Mark Hudak, N— 216 Park Road Burlingame, CA 94010 SARESOLUTIONU029 balboa.app.hear.doc CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 216 PARK ROAD,POST OFFICE BOX 513 BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94011-0513 MARL{D.I IUDAIC TELEPHONE(650)342-9600 mhudak@cmithlaw.com FACSIMILE(650)342-7685 www.cmithlaw.com November 5,2003 RECEIVED BY HAND N 0 V 6 2003 Amn Musso, City 1e i CITY O F BURL I N G A M E City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPT. .501 Primrose Road,' Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1029 Balboa Avenue Our client, Charles Schembri, appeals the decision of the Planning Commission regarding his project at 1029 Balboa Avenue. I am enclosing a check for$250.00 for the appeal fee and noticing costs. Thank you for your assistance. Since , Mark D. Hudak 2447 1.00001\BGLIB 1\1198405.1 10/27/2003 11:Z1 FAX YKUVEN MGMT 1NC INUU3 OCT 23 '03 i1:43AM HUD - SACRAMENTO P.2 ` ._ OMNI GLOBAL SMV. EXING,INC. LicaLsed Profrewional Land sirveying 3 16142 Via Lupine San Lorenzo,Ca 94550 Ofc(510),278-8670 's Fax(510)278-6453 Fmiaild'>�s gi, .net RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2003 i CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. To: Whom it may concern I surveyed lot 5B a resubdivision of lot 5 Block 25 Map of Easton ' addition to Burlingame No. 2. Piled in Book A of Maps at Page 72# copied into Book 3, Maps, Page 93. I checked the temporary (story pole plan) lay-out of the future house. I found the lay-out to conform wht the Stewart Associates architectual plan for the horizontal and vertical'locations. Attached plan view of tree locations. i . agtip 4ANd 8�qr I �v� Pyti Ko11 �ho9 o No 3 j 1 OF CA1��d i 1 t .10/27/2003 11:21 FAX PROVEN MGMT INC 19004 lf-4 -41 -5y & Ci,w i - o 4olj�qf AW '�� 40VO RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME N r PLANNING DEPT. 4' 32. 6 Kit� .a L-Lor 49,°t°[5 Lor 5 t� io tz-i �o AvV, 10/27/2003 11:20 FAX PROVEN MGRT INC Q002 • rm o0oanJ444J RAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO 11.1002 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR-S LICENSE NO.276793 GRADUATE FORESTER CEWnF[ED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L KUM TNOTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD,SPE.A rRx5100fr SAN CARLM CA 9407P6229 KFVINOW-RA R K MAN RECEIVED ACSIMILL' (650)593-440 650)5939 d4a03 OvFRA9oN5 MANAGER October 24, 2003 OCT 2 7 2003 EMAIL: infb@mayne mwM Mr. Charles Schembri 904 Bromfield Road CITY OF BURLINGAME San Mateo CA 94402 PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Schembri, SUBJECT: 1033 BALBOAAVENUE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA On Friday, October 24, 2003,at your request I visited the above site_ The purpose of my vlslt was to inspect and comment on the trees on the construction site. Of particular interest was a large coast live oak in the fear.neighbor's property. Observations, The large trees on site, near the creek, were well protected. The health of these trees was well monitored by Mayne Tree Expert Company. These trees show no signs of negative impact from the completed construction site. The rear neighbors tree Is approximately 45 feet from the nearest foundation(the garage)and I believe no root loss has occurred. The grade has not been changed on the site, nor has the rear fence been moved or damaged. The large oak appears to be suffering from cryptocline,which is a leaf disease that attacks the lower 2/3 of the foliage, but generally is not fatal. Some crown rot may be evident, as this neighbor has turf below approximately 115 of the root zone of this tree. Summary: This has been a great example of proper tree protection during a construction project and the tree's health Improving during construction. I see nothing on site ittat would impact the neighbor's tree to any negative degree. The existing fence is an the tree protection needed for the finished project or, if approved, the future project. Sincerely, �y�N WET`rrzV Kevin R. Kielty Certified WC 1#0478 2476 Gfi '+ KRK:pmd {� A City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003 between properties, balcony looks directly into his family room. There were no further poWO nets and the public hearing was closed. -� The maker of the motion, C. Keighran, and the second, C. Auran, withd - e original motion for approval with changes. Further Commission discussion: noted that they d like to see the changes before approving; like balcony solution suggested by project archit -_ ill suggest removing the balcony. C. Brownrigg made a motion to this item on the consent calendar after the following changes: 1) revised garage roof so front matches the rear; 2) bring lower ro ound as a railing for recessed balcony and provide lighter balustrade; and 3) center wi on front elevation. The motion seconded by C. Keighran. Chair ojues called for a voice vote to place this item on the consent calendar when the suggest changes have been made. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 4. 1029 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report October 27, 2003, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty six conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Bojues noted that all Commissioners had visited the site. Noted that applicant has submitted story pole survey completed today, which documents limb clearance to roof. An additional arborist report has also been submitted regarding the oak tree at 1024 Cortez Avenue, City Arborist has reviewed and found acceptable along with other arborist reports on this property. Commission asked CA Anderson how project can comeback without a one year wait if Planning Commission denied the project; how does the penalty fee noted in condition number 19 work; and wanted to see development proposal when the site was subdivided. CA Anderson and CP Monroe explained that City Council denied the project without prejudice because they wanted the project to go back through the design review process, the City Councils' denial without prejudice overrides the Planning Commission straight denial and the project does not have to wait a year for further review. CA Anderson noted regarding future impact on the trees that for the Drake project a value assessment of the trees was required and the penalty was set based on that. CP Monroe noted that the building shown at the time of the subdivision of the lot was just to document that the lot could be developed within the requirements of the zoning code, does not preclude the applicant from coming forward with an exception to the code later. CA Anderson noted that unless it was a condition on approval, the building does not have to have the same dimensions the footprint shown for the lot split. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, represented property owner Charles Schembri. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project architect was also present. Mr. Hudak noted that when the lot was split the house that was shown was within a few square feet of the --� house proposed, however that house had a slightly larger footprint, with a cantilever over the creek bed, the current design is less intrusive. At the previous City Council appeal hearing on this project the Council debated the size of the house, noted it was nicely designed but need to down size to fit better on the lot, so 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003 they denied the project without prejudice. Project architect worked with design reviewer Randy Grange on redesigning. He eliminated one bathroom,one bedroom and one parking space,the house is now narrower from the front,more landscaping has been added at the front;there less intrusion into the creek. Trees will be preserved due to the construction methods proposed and the tree protection measures employed. The additional letter from Mayne Tree regarding the oak located on the property at the rear notes that the distress shown on the tree is not due to the construction on Balboa. There has been talk of a one story house, however the biggest threat to the trees is the foundation and if the house were to be one story the risk to the trees would be the same. The house will clear the major tree limbs by at least two feet. The special permit requested for declining height envelope is due to the need to protect the trees on the left side, so there is justification for the special permit. Lot coverage proposed is 26%well below the maximum allowable lot coverage. Commission concerned about the effect on the trees asked where the sewer and water line will tie in and if there will be trenching for the irrigation system. Owner Charles Schembri noted that sewer service will be tied in the at the rear and that the water line runs parallel to the front to the house and will be tied in on the north portion to avoid any tree roots. The landscape architect suggested using either a drip irrigation or bubble irrigation system to minimize trenching. Commission asked applicant to explained how far the building has been pulled back from creek and how far the roof has been lowered since the April 30 proposal. Charles Schembri stated that the cantilevered area over the creek was reduced by about 50%since the April 30 proposal,but the distance of the cantilever over the creek has not changed. The roof area has been cut back since the April 30 plans,sheet A2,A3 show 45 degree angle taken out of bedroom number one and the living room to allow more room between the house and oak tree. Commission found the declining height envelope intrusion troubling, don't want to see little slice between the houses, could lower plate height in bedroom number two and master bathroom could have lower ceiling to help break up the two story wall that runs almost the length of the entire building,would like to hear from the neighbor regarding the declining height envelope, building is crowded in with the adjacent building, notching ceiling can mitigate encroachment in to the declining height envelope. Project architect noted that can not get windows in the wall if the plate height is less than 8 feet,would lose balance of house.Commission asked if Black Acacia in back corner is going to be removed,not shown on the landscape plan, appears hazardous with growth into power lines. Mark Hudak stated that the design reviewer notes in analysis that the intrusion into the declining height envelope is necessary to preserve the trees and provide for adequate living space. Making the rooms smaller upstairs will make them unlivable, can not see how a single story house will be viable. Property owner noted that there was encroachment into the declining height envelope on the plans shown for the lot split,result of saving trees,not proposing removal of Black Acacia,will be adding screening to corner of lot. Greg Thomas, 1033 Balboa Avenue;Alan Skokan 1041 Balboa;Andrew Stypa, 1024 Cortez Avenue;Bill Robers, 1020 Cortez Avenue; Iraida Mairanella, 1037 Balboa Avenue; and Lana Appenrodt, 1040 Balboa Avenue, expressed the following concerns with the proposed project: proposed construction will have a significant impact on property,every window will be shadowed by proposed construction,opposed to roof height;roots of the trees will be undermined,story poles look like they are within 2 feet of tree limbs,impact on creek concern, and height is a concern, looks like row of apartment buildings, single story house is a better solution; story poles are no different than before,when lot was initially approved it was required that there are no exceptions for development on the lot should be the same now,tree roots from 1024 Cortez do go onto 1029Balboa,because of the creek,roots have no where else to travel;with the proposed basement and foundation there will be less room for roots and they will be disturbed,and then tree may fall on house; `- no substantial change to this project, confused with process because when the lots were split requirements said no exception to code but there is a special permit for declining height envelope requested with this 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2003 project. At the June 16,2003,City Council meeting there was discussion that a two story house may not be possible on this lot,need to relate to natural setting and transition to creek,would like to see old grape stake fence at the rear of the lot replaced if this project is constructed; concerned with trees and canopy,trees on this property were thinned out in January,major limbs were cut-no documentation,during construction saw things that cause concern with the trust of this contractor and worry that conditions will not be followed, conditions require fencing 15-18 feet away but that would be within footprint of the house, during construction of 1033 Balboa saw debris and material placed against trees and trucks were brought up over the roots; why are conditions for trees now added,why not just build a ranch style house. Mark Hudak responded to neighbor concerns: noted that new owners of 1033 Balboa were notified about construction at 1029 Balboa Avenue and did see the plans; oak trees on subject property were trimmed in accordance with Mayne Tree direction,City Arborist was aware of trimming;ranch house on this lot would very narrow and would be hard to provide two bedrooms; applicant has followed process, eliminated bathroom,bedroom and garage space;worked with City Arborist,there is nothing from City Arborist that says this project won't work;understand declining height envelope a concern,but not a lot of options on this lot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Concerned with project, wanted to see a substantial change, design is nice but looks like top of house is in tree canopy; encroachment into the declining height envelope closes in other house; visually this is a 27 foot wide lot, project covers 50%of the buildable lot,project will bring down values of neighbor's properties,can address concerns with smaller house;based on design review criteria the trees and creek are part of the neighborhood, the left side of the house is not compatible with the neighborhood, project will have an impact on the trees, creek and neighborhood, under criteria no. 4, the infringement of the declining height envelope on 1033 Balboa is inconsistent with the criteria,doesn't matter -� if the owner knew about the project when bought the house,structure should be compatible,no findings for special permit for declining height envelope; roof too close to the canopy of the trees, doesn't relate well with adjacent development; changes are an improvement but only to the front, building crowds the site; project not consistent with design review guidelines,project is 10%less than maximum FAR allowed,but that reduction is found on typical lots in Burlingame,not creek lots,need more of a reduction on a creek lot since buildable areas is less; need to look at alternative for encroachment into declining height envelope. Need to make sure there is enforcement of the tree protection measures and add a condition that the waterline not be trenched, did note debris around tree during construction of 1033 Balboa,need to avoid cutting roots, with three year maintenance add language about additional pruning,need to maintain 2 foot clearance so that during storm branches don't rub against the roof. C. Keele made a motion to deny the project. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the design review, special permits for attached garage and declining height envelope. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m. 5. 1341 LAGUNA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RENE ARIAS, APPLIC OPERTY OWNER; CESAR SIFUENTES DESIGNER 82 NOTICED PRO R: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report Oct ,2003,with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff c ts. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Boju6s noted that all Commi ave visited the site. 7 Page 2 of 10 Councilwoman Baylock, a roved by voice vote, 0-2, Councilmembers G igan and Janney abstained. 5. PRESEN ATION a. SE OR RESOURCES H DBOOK P& Schwartz introduced Pa s and Recreation Co issioners Kahn and Dit an who presented the 2 3/04 Senior Resources dbook to Council. b. LIBRARY F NDATION PRESE ATION Jane Dunbar pre nted a check from the ibrary Foundation in th mount of$65,000 to the C' . This is a one-time ecial gift with the inte to allocate $30,000 for e 2003/04 Library book b get and $35,000 for xtension of the main ' rary's Friday hours. T ibrary Board will reque ouncil approval r allocation of the fu s. C. FOLLOW-UP P SENTATION BY PG E AND B.U.L.B. REG ING ECTRIC POWER RELIAB TY Jeff Joy,Director Operations for San Fr cisco , San Mateo an orthern Santa Clara Counties for PG&E,present an update on PG&E's rogress in improvin ervice reliability. Terry Nagel of B.U.L.B. stat d PG&E is on track to mplete all projects t y identified with the Burlingame circuits. 6. BLIC HEARINGS a. FY 2003-04 BUD T PUBLIC HE NG AND ADOPTION OF RES UTIONS FD Nava requested uncil hold a publ' hearing and to adopt the 2003/04 b get and to establish the 2003/04 appropria 'on limit. Vice M or O'Mahony advised that the cost her dental benefits should be excluded sin she already rec ' es that benefit. Mayor Co y opened the p lic hearing. There were no comm is from the floor, and the public hearing as closed. Vi Mayor O'Ma ny made a motion to approve Re lution#67-2003 adopting the 20 /04 budget; conded by Co cilwoman Janney, approved un mously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice May O'Mahony made a motion to a rove Resolution#68-2003 ado p ' g the 2003/04 approp ' ion limit; seconded by Counci oman Janney, approved unanim sly by voice vote, 5-0. C cilman Galligan stated that t se have been difficult times for b get work and commended staff and Council for their part in ba ncing the budget. b. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE CP Monroe recommended Council hold a public hearing and take action. She also answered questions http://www.burlingame.org/council/minutes/2003/06-16-03min.htm 2/20/2004 Page 3 of 10 from Council regarding this item. Councilman Galligan asked why this project had not gone to a design reviewer. CP Monroe advised that the Planning Commission basically liked the design but felt it didn't fit on this lot. -� Mayor Coffey opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak,representing Charles Schembri, owner of 1029 Balboa Avenue , requested Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial for a design review and for special permits for an attached garage and for declining height envelope for a new single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue . Bill Roberts, owner of 1020 Cortez Avenue ,Anna Marianella, owner of 1037 Balboa Avenue , Andrew Stypa, owner of 1024 Cortez, and Lana Applerodt, owner of 1040 Balboa Avenue , each requested Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial for design review and for special permits at 1029 Balboa Avenue . Mr. Hudak returned to the podium and again addressed the Council. Owner Charles Schembri, 904 Bromfield Road , San Mateo , answered questions from Council regarding this appeal. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to deny without prejudice and that the application be referred to a Design Reviewer and back to the Planning Commission; seconded by Councilman Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-1, Councilwoman Baylock dissenting. C. CONSIDE AMUSEMENT PERMIT,FOR BLUSH AT 261 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CA Anderso equested Council hold a lic hearing on the applicatio for an amusement permit for Blush at 2 California Drive . He st d that a letter was received in the property owner of Christie's Resta t at 245 California Driv yor Coffey opened the p lic hearing. The applicant, ew Nahas, 2029 Vista Del Mar, San ateo , stated there wou be no dance floor, a strict dr s code and only amplified music (no liv music). He stated he uld also like to be open on T sday and Wednesday with no amplifie usic. There were no furt r comments from the floor, a the hearing was closed. CA Anderso ' suggested conditions inclu eliminating live music, limiting ente nment to Thursday, Friday an aturday nights, no dance flo ,no renting of the facility, and no lar scale media adverti ' g. CP Monroe suggested st' lating the maximum occupancy. V' e Mayor O'Mahony made a otion to approve this request for a s' month period with the 22 written onditions and the conditions tated above; seconded by Councilw an Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. CONSIDE PPROVAL OF AMUSEMENT RMIT FOR FAUDORIN RESTAU T AT 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CA Anderso requested Council hold a public h ng on the application for an amuse ent permit for Faudorin estaurant at 1492 Bayshore Hi May Coffey opened the public hearin here were no comments from the or, and the hearing was c ed. Councilwoman Janney made a tion to approve this request with c ditions with the stipulation that - the entertainment end at 1 a.m n support of Police Department a rcement; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony, approved unan' ously by voice vote, 5-0. http://www.burlingame.org/council/minutes/2003/06-16-03min.htm 2/20/2004 BILL & GAIL ROBERTS 1 0 2 0 C O R T E Z AVENUE ()MMUNIUATION RECEIY,k�_ BURLINGAME , CA 94010 ( 650 ) 375 - 0182 H AVTER PREPARATIOV ( 650) 857 - 2183 W 1,; STAFT REPW October 26,2003 Burlingame Planning Commission RECEIVED 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 OCT 2 7 2003 Re:Proposed two-story residential development at 1029 21 bo Avenue CITY OF B U R L I N G A M E PLANNING DEPT, Dear Commissioners: We wrote to you back in May of this year expressing concern over the proposed two-story residential development at 1029 Balboa Avenue. At your meeting of May 12, 2003 meeting you heard the concerns of other residents regarding the size and mass of the proposed project given the challenges of it's limited creek-side and tree-lined setting. At that meeting you voted unanimously 7-0 to deny the project siting a number of these same concerns. When the developer appealed to the City Council on June 16,2003,they too voted to reject the project on much the same grounds. At that City Council meeting it was confirmed by the city attorney, Mr. Anderson, that the applicant was restricted from coming back with a new proposal for one year unless substantial changes were made to the project(our emphasis). But now the developer,Charles Schembri,has come back just 4 months later with essentially the same _ project that we feel does not adequately respond to the concerns raised at those meetings and with changes that we feel hardly qualify as substantial. � . .�. ti,t� •. a r QF� s �.�- r •5f. � r.t'�'tx ': Building envelope study done at the time the lot The current proposal is wider and longer than the was created was narrower and less deep than the original footprint and the developer is now asking present proposed showing that a lot could be built for a special permit to violate the declining-height within the zoning requirements. envelope zoning requirement. We feel strongly that an exemption from the declining-height envelope should not be allowed. Very little clearance between the roof and tree We don't see any change in height of the structure canopy —it still rises right up to the tree canopy,potentially harming the trees during construction or once completed. And these trees are the treasures of these creek-side lots. House too large for the site, requires substantial Current proposed project is essentially the same change before resubmission structure with only 280SF (10%) less than before. We hardly view this as substantial. -2— October 26,2003 The developer is also proposing to retain the existing grape-stake fence at the rear of the property, which is old and low. Whatever project is approved we request that a new conforming fence we required to replace the existing fence to buffer any future building- When uildingWhen the original double lot was split back in February 2000 it was required that the owner demonstrate that two houses could be built on both properties without violating any of Burlingame's zoning ordinances. Not only is the developer now showing a larger footprint at 1029 Balboa than was originally shown in creating the two lots, he is now also requesting a special permit since the structure violates the declining height envelope on the north side. We urge the Planning Conunission to deny the special permit for encroachment on the declining height envelope and to continue to require that the developer stay within all current zoning ordinances on this sensitive creek side lot. This was a reasonable requirement at the time the lots were split and a reasonable request now to uphold it. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments. Sincerely, Fz� Bill and Gail Roberts e� 1 7..� 0.Y y! �, # �•� 7 'Y '`� f s q � c. - x , t f H N+ b#9Y "UMMUNIUATION RECEIVE. AFTER PREPARA I for Yw 1 C eX N 0ET-2-' -2003- CITY--OF B U RU N G AM E PLANNING DEPT. 1 `1 �- ��.S� ,err tt N6%yS -��rrr C) _-- - . - Kt-e, _ - P`D A- -- --------- � A" - MMUNIt,ATION RECL',`; JkFTER PRERARM 10i ..JAMS H. IRWIhI ��� 1021 Cortez Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010-1941 650-343-1052 650-333-6418 (cell) 650-340-9248 (FAX) jimirwin@pacbell.net October 26, 2003 RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2003 Planning Commission City of Burlingame, California CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. REGARDING: Proposed development at 1029 Balboa Avenue, I would like to address the Planning Commission: Please know that I strongly oppose the proposed construction on the lot at this address. We are a city known for our trees, and they must be protected. Excessive development along multiple creeks in our neighborhood is shocking. The trees are an important symbol of our city. I find this most recent development proposal to be the most objectionable. Common sense brings into question the survivability of heritage oaks and sequoia redwood trees with homes being built inches away from their root structures. I am sure the arborists have a way of minimizing the damage to our trees, but can they guarantee that all of these trees would remain healthy and strong? I am sure that such a massive change to the trees' environment would be catastrophic. I hope the Planning Commission shares my concerns in this matter. Thank you for taking the time to consider my point of view. Sincerel , eesH"Irwin Mr.&Mrs.David Hinckle October 23,2003 1616 Sanchez Avenue ;UMMUNIGATION RECEIVE Burlingame,CA 94010 " AFTER PREPARAI lOP^ Dear Planning Commission: '3F$I AFF:REPl1RT We would like to voice concerns over the empty lot at 1029 Balboa. We had assumed that this lot was going to remain empty. When we saw the story poles and spoke to some of the neighbors we were disappointed to learn that somebody is going to try and squeeze a house onto such a tiny area. We are even more surprised by the size of the story poles and how far they reach up to the canopy of our city's gorgeous trees. Having lived in Burlingame and raised our children we have witnessed many changes to our city. What has made this city so special are the old homes and the magnificent trees. Although we are experiencing a growth expansion,we truly feel that trying to squeeze such a massive structure into this site is not and does not coincide with our love and feelings of Burlingame. Building a home of this size does not fit with the lot,and will surely detract from the neighborhood's beauty. When we go on walks we enjoy looking over the creek and the trees. This is a lovely and rare setting to have in Burlingame. By building on this site it will become just another memory of what used to be. We feel the city needs to address this problem of building on space where the trees are so dominate. The loss of our heritage trees on this property or any for the sake of a house would be a major embarrassment to us all. RECEIVED Thank you for hearing our concerns. OCT 2 7 2003 �J CITY OF PLANNINGING DEPT.DEPT. To Whom It May Concern: 1 would like to make a comment on 1029 Balboa. 1 have lived on Cortez Avenue for over 25 years. It is sad for me to see the changes, which are taking place. About 10 months ago 1 lost my favorite tree in my front yard from the winter stonms. There is not a day that goes by when 1 don't miss my tree„ 1 see? they have built a new house and are looking to add another home on the vacant lot of 1029 Balboa. 1 ask the Commission to reconsider. The trees have been along that creek for as long as 1 can remember. My children used to climb those very trees, and play in the creek. To build a home on this property will only bring harm to these trees. Just before 1 lost my tree, 1 was told it was healthy. A few months latter 1 look out my window and notice that the tree had fallen over, my heart sank. Please do not let the same thing happen again, by building on this lot. - rJl"+UNit,AT14fV RECE10 gFTER PREPARAf Sincerely, `JF S ,AFF W ' �� RECEIVEt. Elf 'ede C. Jordan OCT 2 7 2003 103,21 Cortez Avenue Burliingame, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT RECEIVED October 27, 2003 OCT 2 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, Burlingame Planning Commission �. 501 Primrose Road :,0MMUN1k AY10N RECEi V� Burlingame, CA 94010 ,ASTER pREFMAYIt?t' Re:Proposed two-story residential development at 1029 Balboa Avenue OF STAFF REPOW Dear Commissioners: I am writing this letter to let you know of my concerns and worry regarding the proposed residential development at 1029 Balboa Avenue to be heard this evening at the Planning Commision Meeting. As you are aware the applicant, Charles Schembri, has just developed one property at 1033 Balboa Avenue which has been completed and sold. The property at 1033 Balboa Avenue did turn out to be very attractive even though it is quite big and overwhelming next to the property on the right hand side of this property and most likely very overwhelming to the neighbor's behind this property. I have nothing against the basic look of the design of the homes that this developer builds, in fact they are quite charming even though they are very large. My main and primary concern for this proposed new development by a developer that is not from Burlingame is the three Oak Trees and the Redwood Heritage Tree that is on this property. With the size of the proposed structure, I am very worried about the trees and the root systems that these trees need to survive. I am also very concerned that with the volume of the proposed _ second story that the trees will experience certain daylight closed off. Please take a good look at those trees, they make this street the reason why `Burlingame" is known as the "City of Trees". Please remember that we need to leave these trees to our children and their children to be still standing in the next 100 years. I know that I have heard that supposedly the reason that I have also seen the creek run over in the rainy season is that supposedly there is a broken storm water pipe under the sidewalk in front of 1029 Balboa Avenue, my concern is that I have seen this creek flood over the last twenty seven years that I have lived here countless times, how in the world has a broken storm water pipe been allowed to be broken for so many years if that is the reason for the creek to overflow? Something is very wrong here, I do not believe that there is only a issue of a broken storm pipe that will be fixed. When is this going to be fixed if this is a problem that has been discovered? My second main concern and worry about this latest development by this developer is that the amount and the size of the building proposed on the size of this lot is that the new proposed house is practically the entire lot, the entire two stories are going to make this another "Monster Big House" in Burlingame. One of the only negative feels of Burlingame is the closeness of many new homes, the negative of this house is that it is so very close to the property at 1033 Balboa Avenue that the applicant has also built, it is giving the feel of a "Daly City Feel' of little boxes next to each other but in this case, it is big boxes next to each other without any back yard to speak of. "The Story Poles" definitely show the size and the complete picture of what I am trying to state. Please review carefully the proposed special permit for declining height envelope that is being asked to be accepted! This proposed house is quite large and crammed on a area that is too small to have such a gigantic house, please do not allow this special permit. I am also concerned that the applicant is asking for a attached garage, this is going against the basic structure of most of all the other homes on this street. The majority of the homes on this street do have detached garages, why is this being changed? We already have quite a bit of problems on this street with additional parking that we have on Balboa Avenue from the apartments on Carmelita & El Camino Real. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts and concerns to you. Sincerely,Lana Appenrodt 1040 Balboa Avenue Burlingame, Ca 94010 RMFUTImon � � . � � •i w� g� 7 F h.._ fp� Ow *�:..�.;s'a4; , J.r• ;r#� s.��S V� rV':'r� � ^f � e� ...9.:�,r.. ..i �jY• r +•.ate Yy Item# Action Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits for an Attached Garage and for Declining Height Envelope for a New Single Family Dwelling Address: 1029 Balboa Avenue Meeting Date: 10/27/03 Request: Design review and special permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a new two- story single family dwelling at 1033 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040, C.S. 25.28.035(2) and C.S. 25.28.075) Property Owner: Charles Schembri Applicant/Designer: Stewart Associates APN: 026-165-230 General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Lot Area: 6,000 SF Date Submitted: December 16, 2002 Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status:Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 -Class 3-construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas,up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The proposal is to construct a new two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1.The existing lot is vacant. The proposed house will cover 26.1%(1,598 SF)of the 6,000 SF lot,where 40%(2,400 SF)is the maximum lot coverage allowed. The two-story house would have a total floor area of 2,710 SF (0.45 FAR)where 3,020 SF (0.60 FAR)is the maximum allowed. There would be one covered parking space provided for this three bedroom house in the attached garage(10'X 20').The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling; • Special permit for an attached garage; and • Special permit for declining height envelope where 142 SF encroaches into the right side envelope. Background: The subject property is the result of a lot split that created two separate lots from a 12,000 SF parcel in February 2000. The subject property does not presently contain any structures. Sanchez Creek, a perennial creek,flows through lot 513 (subject property)the second of the two lots created as a result of the subdivision. The creek crosses the rear left corner of the lot and runs southeast and is directed through a box culvert under Balboa Avenue. There are several significant trees on this lot including a 6' diameter Redwood at the front,and 43",37" and 36"diameter Oak trees in the rear of the lot. At the time of the lot split regarding development on the 5B site, issues came up regarding its effects on the creek and trees, and possible flood hazards due to the proximity to the creek. The City Arborist has requested an arborist's report defining a tree protection plan. This has been provided and has been reviewed and found acceptable by the City Arborist (March 20, 2003 memo attached). The Planning Commission expressed concern that the cantilevered area of the proposed house would result in a lack of water to the root system of the adjacent oak tree. A letter,dated October 21,2003,has been submitted by the applicant's arborist stating that with the proposed design,the root zone will still have access to water and nutrients and that the cantilever will not be a problem. The City Arborist has reviewed this letter and concurs with the its conclusion. It should be noted that the finished floor will be at an elevation of 40.50'where the elevation of the tree is at 34.59',separation of almost 6 feet. Stringent tree protection measures will be required as conditions of approval for this project,including a requirement for hand digging and other design parameters within tree root areas as indicated in the report done by 1 Design Review&Special Permits Attached Garage &Declining Height Envelope 1029 Balboa Avenue S.P. McClanahan Co., Inc. dated August 17, 1998 and a February 17, 2000 letter that were part of the original lot split in 2000. The conditions of approval that were placed on the lot split in 2000 are attached for your reference. One of these conditions required that the finished floor elevation of any future building shall be a minimum of 1.0 feet above the 100 year storm flood elevation. The proposed finished floor elevation is 40.50'where the 100 year floor elevation is 34.5'. There is a total of 51 SF of the first floor that will cantilever over the top of bank,with no other construction proposed beyond the 100 year flood line or the top of bank, which merge towards the rear of the lot near the oak trees. Currently there are three rock retaining walls along the left side of the property that terrace up from the creek bed. The uppermost wall will be removed and reconstructed to allow for the construction of the house, the two lower walls will be retained as part of this project. The creek channel flows almost entirely on the adjacent property at 1021 Balboa Avenue,except for a small portion that clips the left rear corner. During the rainy season,there has been water seen flowing in between the creek channel on 1021 Balboa Avenue and the retaining walls on 1029 Balboa Avenue. The Public Works Department notes that there is a broken storm water pipe under the sidewalk in front of 1029 Balboa Avenue that results in water flowing onto the property from under the bridge near the retaining walls. This storm water pipe will be repaired by the Public Works Department. The applicant has provided the California Department of Fish and Game with a project description and set of plans for this proposal. Department of Fish and Game staff has advised that the project does not require a Streambed Alteration Permit and no further review is required by their agency. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board has also reviewed the proposal and has determined that a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is not required and no further action is necessary. The project also appears to be outside of the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposal is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA. CURRENT REVISED ORIGINAL ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL 4/30/03 PLANS 3/30/03 PLANS SETBACKS Front: 1 st flr 23'-6"trellis No change 23'-6"trellis— 15'-0"or block 25' garage 25' garage average(18.25') 2nd flr 23'-6" 23'-6" 20'-0" Side(left): 1St flr 18' No change 14'-6" 4'-0" 2nd flr 18' 18' Side(right):1st flr No change 4 4'-0" 2nd flr 4' 4' Rear: 1st flr 25' No change 23' 15'-0" 2nd flr 40W' 41' 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: 26.1% 29.6% 29.8% 40% 1,598 SF 1,782 SF 1,789 SF 2,400 SF FAR: 2,710 SF/ 2,990 SF/0.49 3,005 SF/0.50 3,020 SF/0.60 FAR 0.45 FAR FAR FAR PARKING: 1 covered 2 covered 2 covered 1 covered (10' x 20' 20' x 20' 20' x 20' 10' x 20' 2 Design Review&Special Permits Attached Garage&Declining Height Envelope 1029 Balboa Avenue CURRENT REVISED ORIGINAL ALLOWED/REQ'D PROPOSAL PROPOSAL PROPOSAL 4/30/03 PLANS 3/30/03 PLANS +1 uncovered +1 uncovered' +1 uncovered' +1 uncovered HEIGHT: 26'6" 26'6" 29'3" 2%2 stories 30' whichever is less Special Permit Special Permit Special Permit DH ENVELOPE: See code Required2 Required2 Required 'Special permit required for an attached garage 2 Special permit required from declining height envelope,142 SF(2'8"(1'8")x 56'=142 SF)encroaches along the right side. Com arison Table-1029 Balboa&1033 Balboa 1029 Balboa 1033 Balboa Proposed Project Approved Project SETBACKS Front:1st flr 23'-6"trellis 20' 2nd flr 25'garage 20' 23'-6" Side(left): I S2 flr 18' 5' 2nd flr 18' 5' Side(right):Is2 flr 4' 15'-6" 2nd flr 4' 11'-6" Rear: 1st flr 25' 44' 2nd flr 40'6" 44' LOT COVERAGE: 26.1% 34.5%(2,072 SF) 1,598 SF FAR: 2,710 SF/ 3,335 SF/0.55 FAR 0.45 FAR PARKING: 1 covered 2 covered(20'x 20') (10'x 20) +1 uncovered +1 uncovered HEIGHT. 26'6" 28'11" DH ENVELOPE: Special Permit Required' Meets requirement May 12,2003 Action Meeting: On April 14,2003 this project went before the Planning Commission for design review study. The Planning Commission expressed several concerns with the project. Please seethe attached April 14,2003 minutes for reference. On May 12,2003,the project went back to the action calendar where the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to deny this project. At this meeting the Planning Commission stated that the scale and size 3 Design Review&Special Permits Attached Garage &Declining Height Envelope 1029 Balboa Avenue of the project was unsuitable in relation to lot. There was also concern expressed about the impact on the trees and the neighboring properties. The following are comments stated by the Commission at the denial hearing: --�N • Building envelope study done at the time the lot was created was narrower and less deep than the preset_ proposed showing that a lot could be built within the zoning requirements; • Story poles now installed do not appear to the show the area where the family room is proposed at the rear•, • Very little clearance between the roof and tree canopy; • An engineering analysis is needed for the walls between the house and the creek, including the volume of the flow in the creek given the cantilever over the creek; • Would like to see Army Corps correspondence stating they nave no jurisdiction regarding this development; • Design is good but the house is too big for the lot; • Footprint is too big for the buildable area; • Concerned with the location of the walls and the flow of the creek; • Not a huge house but close to adjacent house and creek bed, not the right project for this lot; • Potential damage to the trees is major; • House fits into setting, its floor plan opens to the trees and creek but the story poles shows conflict with the tree canopy. June 16, 2003 City Council Appeal Hearing: The Commissions' denial of the project was appealed to the City Council and was heard at the June 16, 2003 meeting. The City Council denied the project without prejudice with direction to the applicant to work with the design reviewer and return to the Planning Commission for action. Staff brought this information back to the Planning Commission as an FYI and asked for direction to pass along to the design reviewer. The Planning Commission provided the following comments for the design reviewer: • That story poles should be installed before the action meeting and pictures of the poles should be included the staff report; • The story poles should encompass the entire envelope of the redesigned house, and should be verified by a licensed civil engineer, the survey should include the location of the major tree limbs and all portions of the structures on the site should be separated from the major limbs by at least two feet; • Liked the fact that the design of the house took advantage of the creek and oriented to the creek, but it was still too big; • Careful of coverage of roots, even if cantilever poor solution because of lack of water on roots, should not cantilever over major root systems; • Clearance between the roof and the tree canopy should be addressed; • Engineering analysis is needed for the durability of the walls between the house and the creek, including addressing the impact of volume of the flow in the creek; • House is too big for the lot, the footprint is big for the buildable area; • House is too close to the creek bed, wrong project for this lot; • Potential damage to the trees is a major concern; • The house orients well in the setting, its floor plan opens to the trees and creek but the story poles show conflict with the tree canopy; • Problem that one can only access the rear yard from inside the house; • Query whether a second floor is possible or the right solution for this lot; and • Ensure that there is a meaningful backyard. The applicant met with the design reviewer and discussed these issues. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped October 15, 2003, with the following changes: • Reduction of 280 SF from last proposal, 310 SF under the maximum square footage allowed; 4 Design Review&Special Permits Attached Garage &Declining Height Envelope 1029 Balboa Avenue • Two car garage has been changed to a one car garage; • Number of bedrooms has been reduced from four to three; • One bathroom has been eliminated, reduction from four to three; • Replaced stucco with wood siding. The applicant will be erecting story poles and will have the poles surveyed, as per the Planning Commission's request the weekend prior to the public hearing. The survey will include the location of the major tree limbs and note clearance dimensions. The Planning Commission requested that all portions of the structure be separated from major limbs by at least two feet. The story poles and survey will not be complete until after the delivery of the Planning Commission packets, so staff will provide the survey as a desk item at the October 27, 2003 meeting. Design Reviewer's Comments and Conclusion(memo dated July 14,2003):The design reviewer's July 14,2003 memo is attached. The design reviewer points out that the architectural style of the house is appropriate for the neighborhood, but that the Planning Commission had concerns wit the size and footprint. The applicant has responded with significant reductions in both of those areas by removing one bedroom,one bathroom and one off- street parking space, resulting in an overall reduction of about 10% of the floor area. The footprint has also decreased and the lot coverage is less than 27% of the lot area. The design reviewer states that due to the revised front elevation, the house will appear significantly narrower from the street than in the previous proposal. The neighbor on the right side will be most impacted by the intrusion into the declining height envelope, however preserving the trees along the creek is more important and results in the mass being pushed to the right side. In summary,the proposal respond to the Planning Commission concerns by reducing the massing of the front elevation from the street,the cantilevered area toward the front has been removed and access to the house is at grade, and the square footage and building footprint have both been reduced. The design reviewer feels that the Commission's concerns have been addressed and supports the revised design. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for a Special Permit:In order to grant a Special Permit for garage length the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and 5 Design review and Special Permits 1029 Balboa Avenue (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements,and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Planning Commission Action:The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.Affirmative action should be made by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 15,2003,Sheets Al-A5,A9,L1.0,Cl and TSl,site plan,floor plans,building elevations, landscape plan,erosion control plan and topographic survey; 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,replacing or relocating a window(s),adding a dormer(s)or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 3,2003,March 20,2003 and April 22,2003 memos,the Chief Building Official's December 27,2002 memo,the Fire Marshal's December 20,2002 memo and the City Arborist's March 20,2003 memo shall be met; 4. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall be met; 5. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,set the building envelope; 6. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 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; 8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 9. that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staffwill inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 6 Design review and Special Permits 1029 Balboa Avenue 11. that during construction and the applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of the establish erosion control plan shown on Sheet C1 plans date stamped October 15, 2003; �— 12. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission; 13. that the Certified Arborist report dated February 26, 2003 and the tree protection measures listed on sheet L 1 .0 on the plans date stamped October 15, 2003 shall be installed and inspected by the CityArborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction; 14. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 15. that the tree protection measures listed in the report done by S.P. McClanahan Co., Inc. dated August 17, 1998 and a February 17, 2000 letter that were part of the original lot split in 2000, shall be adhered to in addition to all requirements by the current arborist overseeing this project; 16. that the applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a building permit is issued by the Building Department for the new single-family residence; 17. that the applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval along with the building application for approval prior to Building permit issuance; 18. that the applicant shall submit a pre-foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of protection measures at the time of application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and final foundation pour inspections with the Building Department to insure adherence; 19. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the 3-year period; 20. that prior issuance of a grading permit or any grading on the site or issuance of a demolition permit, a root protection zone shall be established around the protected oak trees and the redwood tree and the installation shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be checked by a certified arborist weekly and a written report on the status submitted to the City Arborist; and that the protective fencing shall not be removed until a final Building inspection takes place on the site and the certified arborist determines that it is appropriate to remove the tree protection; 21. that the applicant shall submit an. erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive 7 Design review and Special Permits 1029 Balboa Avenue areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project;and designated construction access routes,staging areas and washout areas; 22. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 23. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps,silt fences,straw bale dikes,storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats,and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 24. that protective fencing shall be installed along the top of bank (merges with 100-year floor as shown on site plan sheet Al,date stamped October 15,2003);and that at no time during demolition,grading,or construction of the proposed project shall construction materials,debris or equipment be stored beyond the top of bank boundary,this includes the terraced area with the retaining walls between the upper top of bank which merges with the 100-year flood line and the lower top of bank adjacent to the Sanchez Creek channel; 25. that should any activity on the project violate any tree protection measure established by the certified arborist,all activity on the project shall be stopped immediately. The City will then retain at the applicant's expense a third-party arborist to implement and enforce the tree protection measures in cooperation with the certified arborist retained by the applicant. The third-party arborist will submit an estimate of the cost of conducting weekly,or more frequent if he determines it be necessary,inspections of the property until project completion,and the applicant shall deposit an amount equal to that estimate .� wit the City to draw upon to pay the third-party arborist for the inspections and reports conducted to completion. Upon the deposit of the money and correction of the violations of the protection plan,work on the project may resume upon written consent of the City Planner. The City Planner will determine when the deposit is reaching a point at which it requires additional funds given the progress and timing of the project and shall require the applicant to deposit such additional monies as may be necessary to satisfy the requirements. If the deposit is exhausted and additional inspections are needed under this condition,work on the project shall stop until the deposit required by the City Planner is made.The certified arborist shall be authorized by written agreement form the applicant to stop work on the project at any time that a tree protection measure is violated. The third-party arborist,if any shall have the authority to order that all activity on the project be stopped whenever that person determine that a tree protection measure is being violated;and 26. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Barber Planner c: Charles Schembri,applicant 8 ROUTING FORM DATE: March 31, 2003 TO: City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 ; APN: 026-165-230. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 31, 2003 040 Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ROUTING FORM DATE: March 13, 2003 TO: City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-l; APN: 026-165-230 STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 17, 2003 JW_ 5WA&Y fdA �. Reviewed By: Vy Date of Comments: 03 ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: /City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM:-- Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. �wta,o t4ed5ur,6­5 iF &mew 4ww cmc. qvxM wrx - Reviewed By: V Date of Comments: 01�03�y3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 1 -two- W" Project Name. - T±kLt� (} Project Address: The following requirements apply to the project 1 A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) A*^{ { —„�, V LT_ Srn"r py 'T u is c^.JO I"tv»( / rt 2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and shoulfl be mad ' drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. — The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage pians for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone,the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 y Asanitary sewer lateral Lois required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) _ 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify miti --`on measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Pagel of 3 IJAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters,parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State -�_- - Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers — Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 _�The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 $Fto - ee VAny widening of Wthe driveway Missubject to City Engineer's approval. 22 Y The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 UAprivate developmenAPLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: /City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROTV1: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. a efO66 orv(w-�%V. A W&J� tl"-V -),o W'Quvr-Y &"Y A-0 fl k W C-4T1�Q�� rte cS a-u-b Xeb- >V- U(PTL gov4vwr tet- c�( V(-'P',W cs S cA-( tg Reviewed By: V Date of Comments: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS P M o'S1Wk/ Project Name:4t" Owl i -Project Address: The following requirements apply to the project rr I A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) / qtg „L p,y u S �o�o »Y 'f1t€ Uw- twv t,ta w yr�,r vu(�/L�la,�.r 2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and shoulfl be made to drain towards the Frontage Street.(Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. X/ The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone,the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 Asanitary sewer lateral tris required for the project in accordance with the City's standards.(Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify miti„H-on measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division.The parcel map shall show all existing property lines,easements, monuments,and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page]of 3 Wprivate developmentTLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters,parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 `l No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 _�The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 r ' - to e e ' . Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 Y The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 AJAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above -� the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 UAprivate developmentTLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. /off 14,0 f1�4-E7 5P/Ve. X�Q Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ��7 ��� _ ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: _City Engineer /Chief Building Official —/Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1,APN: 026-165-230. Reviewed By: �-�,�2 Date of Comments: �--- ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. O W ab-Zd1l0'_ ` 's- � t �© Reviewed By: -1/7 A Date of Comments: ��— ROUTING FORM DATE: March 13,2003 ,TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official _Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage fora new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1;APN:026-165-230 STAFF REVIEW:Monday,March 17,2003 Reviewed By: Date of Comments: 07/15/2003 11 : 54 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 02 Design Review Comments City of Budiagame Date: July 14, 2003 Planning Commission City of Bur ame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1029 Balboa owner: Charles Schembri Architect: Stewart Associates Landscape Architect: Michael Callan Planner: Catherine Barber I have visited the site and surrounding area. I reviewed the original submdssion to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's comments as presented in the meeting minutes. I met with the owner and architects to discuss the project and noted that the Planning Commission had no problem with the design or appearance of the house; the main concern was with its size. At the meting the architect provided a sketch of the revised proposal. DESIGN GUIDELINES: 1. Compatibllity of the Architectural Style with that of the EAsti D9 Neighborhood. • There are a variety of architectural styles presented in the neighborhood and the proposed home should fit in well. 2. Respect for Parldxkg and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood • This project requires a special permit for its detached garage. The neighborhood contains both attached and detached garages. The proposed parking would not be inconsistent with that pattern, One should note that, due to the unique characteristics of this lot, a detached garage is not *-asble. 3. Architectural Style, bass & Bulk of the Structure: • As noted above, there are no concerns with the architectural style of the house. • Although not called "mass and bulk" in the Planning Comm comurnts, there were issues with the overall size and footprint of the proposal. The applicant has responded with significant reductions in both of those areas. The 2 car garage has been changed to a f car garage (which also elitubates a large portion of the cantilevered floor space); the, m=A)er of bedrooms has been reduced from 4 to 3; one bathroom has been eliminated. 'These revisions result PEEVED J U L 1 5 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME Ill flPI RI.II/ .\ rr\T 07/15/2003 11:54 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 03 in a 10%+reduction in floor area,and a 12%reduction in proposed lot cover. Due to the revised(rout elevation,the house will appear significantly narrower from the street than in the previous proposal 4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: • This project requires a special permit for declining height envelope.The neighbor to the right will be the most impacted by this project since the non- conforming area(for declining height)occurs along that side of the house. The non-conforming area is a wedge shape at the top of the wall running the length of the house(except at the stairwell and family room)and contains no actual floor space.In my opinion,while it would be nice to have less intrusion into the daylight plane,preserving the trees along the creek is more important; and that appears to be what's driving this request to push more mass to the right side.Also note that the front elevation shows the stairwell dormer to be out in the non-conforming area,while according to the other drawings,it is offset inward.Therefore,this area actually conforms to the envelope and if one blocks it out on the front elevation,one sees a significant impact on that drawing. • The neighbor to the left will not be directly hapacted by this project due to the heavily wooded creek bed between the houses. 5. Landscaping and its proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural _ Components: • A nice landscaping plan was submitted with the original proposal,but I did not review any expanded plan covering the revised building footprint. SUMMARY In addition to the Design Guidelines review,I reviewed the list of Phummig Commission cornmrats for the design reviewer in the Planner Report and now the following: • No new story poles had been installed at the time of this review,so no analysis of tree limbs etc.was completed.The comments list states that the poles only need to be up prior to an action meeting.Clearance between the roof and tree canopy will become visible once the story poles are fastalied. • As previously noted,the cantilevered area has been significantly reduced. How the cantilevers relate to specific roots,or impact root systems,has not been analyzed. • Engineering analysis of existing site walls was not part of this design review. In my opinion,this proposal responds to Planning Commission concerns in a number of ways:Due to the narrower Rout elevation,this design will look significantly smaller from the street,and less"parked in",than the original proposal;the cantilevered area has been removed up front where it was least desirable,allowing for on grade access and a better sense of house/site fit;the square footage and internal components of the house have been RECEIVED 2 JUL 1 b 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 07/15/2003 11 : 54 650-579-0115 TRG ARCHITECTS PAGE 04 reduced, wbich tramWes Wto zeal mss mhwtions on the outside; The footprint has been lowered to less thin 27% of the lot area which retains as much open yard space as practical Wo pulls the front of the house Anther from the creek. The revised design seems to address the commissions stated concerns about the size of the proposal, and as there bane never been, any style issues with dais project, I support the revised. design. Randy Grange, AIA RECEIVE ® _ J U L 1 5 2003 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2003 CP Monroe briefly rented the project description. There were no questions of staff. All Commissioners visited the site/floor opened the public comment. ndy Grange,TRG chitects,205 Park Roa project architect, e located the second story a ition in the middle the first floor and pus ed it back to reduce . Planning Commission ed if the existing wi ows are going to be r aced to match the new oted that the right side mdows don't match Mr. Grange stated th e could add grids to the er level windows to atch the new upper vel windows. There re no other comments from d the public heari was closed. . uran made a motio o place this item on a consent calendar. a motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on mot' n: nice project; fits ' with existing archit tore of building. Chair Bojues ailed for a voice vote n the motion to place is item on the consent Galen ar when plans had been revis as directed regardi the windows. The otion passed on a voice vot 7-0. The Planning Commis on's action is adviso and not appealable. s item concluded at 10:17 m. X. PL NER REPORTS Review of City ouncil regular meeti g of June 16, 2003. _ CP Monroe revie d the actions of the ouncil meeting of June 1 , 2003. She noted that e Council adopted the FY 03-2004 budget. Th also denied without preju ce the appeal at 1029 lboa Avenue and directed t t the application be ferred to a design reviewe and back to the PI J g Commission. Finally, the uncil voted to part' spate in the Housing Endo ent Trust JPA whic will facilitate the members' igibility for housing subsidy funds, which may b efit our Housing Element objectives. FYI— 1029 Balboa Avenue, return from City Council, direction for design reviewer The Planning Commission clarified their comments on this project so that the design reviewer would have clear direction: • That story poles should be installed before the action meeting and pictures of the poles should be included in the staff report; • The story poles should encompass the entire envelope of the redesigned house,and should be verified by a licensed civil engineer,the survey should include the location of the major tree limbs and all portions of the structures on the site should be separated from the major limbs by at least two feet; • Liked the fact that the design of the house took advantage of the creek and oriented to the creek,but it was still too big; • Careful of coverage of roots, even if cantilever poor solution because of lack of water on roots, should not cantilever over major root systems; • Clearance between the roof and the tree canopy should be addressed; • Engineering analysis is needed for the durability of the walls between the house and the creek, including addressing the impact of volume of the flow in the creek; 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 23,2003 • House is too big for the lot,the footprint is big for the buildable area; • House is too close to the creek bed,wrong project for this lot; • Potential damage to the trees is a major concern; • The house orients well in the setting,its floor plan opens to the trees and creek but the story poles show conflict with the tree canopy; • Problem that one can only access the rear yard from inside the house; • Query whether a second floor is possible or the right solution for this lot;and • Ensure that there is a meaningful backyard. FYI—13 urlingame Ave ue,proposed window chan e The appli t,representing ple Computer,requested odification to the approv.9efagade design to reduce a pedestrian ori ed window along Park Ro by 15 feet from 45'5"to 39X5". The commission felt at this window w important to breaking up a length of the blank wall o s side of this comer . r this reason the eIt that this item should b et to a public hearing so the pplicant could presen ther ideas for breaki up this long wall and enc aging pedestrian interest movement. Staff w ected to inform the plicant and determine i e wished to proceed to pub' hearing or install th 'ndow as approved a 45'-5". M. ADJ NT air Bojues adjourned meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully bmitted, Tim uran,Secretary MR4UTrS06.23 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003 than 30 days after the occupancy it is issued and the temporary buildings are removed; 22) that before the classroom building is dem shed, any asbestos found in the building shall be properly removed using appropriate removal metho ; 23) that all construction shall be req . 6d1to be done in accordance with the California Building Co requirements as amended by the C. of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction impose y the City of Burlingame Municipal e; 24)that the project shall comply with City of Burlingame's a ferior illumination Ordinance 1477; 2 that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are disco red during construction, all work wi e halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper rotection measures, as determine y qualified experts selected by the City, can be impleme d; and 26) that the site shall be use or religious and school use, with the school use united to pre-sc olers and elementary/middle schoo ge children only. The motion was seconded b . Keighran. ission discussion: excellent pro' ct; parking is sufficient for the use; not in fa of adding conditions for age since this use will not chang encourage amended condition suggested e City Attorney since it will not affect the applicant if th don't change their use and do not move ut need to the neighborhood for future uses; large parking 'ance, but the parking study notes no rtage of parking on the site and there are no complaints by neighbors; the motion maker agreed amend the motion to add condition #265 that the site shall be ed for religious an school use, with th chool use limited to pre-schoolers and elementary/middle sch 1 age children only; the second of the otion agreed to the added conditions. Chair Bojues c 11 for a voice vote on the motion to a e with the added condition. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:31 p.m. 7. 1029 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY ---� SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 12, 2003, with attachments. Plnr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked how much buildable area is on the site, and how much coverage the buildable area on this site. Planning staff would have to calculate. Commission asked if there was an envelope study done when the lot split was originally reviewed. Staff noted that the building envelope proposed was narrower and not as deep as the one shown. Commission asked if the story poles on the site reflect the exact building envelope, did not appear to show the family room at the rear. Staff noted that the story poles show the second story envelope but not the single story portion at the rear (family room); the applicant can verify. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. John Stewart, project architect and Charles Schembri, 804 Bromfield, San Mateo, property owner were present to answer questions. John Stewart stated that he listened to the design review study tapes. Project was revised with smaller footprint and not as tall. Commission noted that the story poles show that there will be very little clearance between the roof and the tree canopy, need to address this issue now not later; corner of the house need to be cut back from oak tree. John Stewart noted that the plate height could be reduced at that point so the roof will clear the tree branches, the foundation at that point will be a pier and grade beam to address soil and tree issued, will only be 6 inches in the ground. Commission stated that they would like to see an engineering analysis for the walls between the house and the creek, look at volume flow in the creek. Property owner noted that to date there have been no studies done on the existing walls since the two lower walls will not be touched. The top wall will be removed and reconstructed with pier supports, concrete above grade, and will be faced with the 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2003 old rock. The flow of the creek will not be altered, the flood plane is at 34.5 feet and the finish floor is located above the 100 year floor plane. The Army Corps of Engineers has stated that they have no jurisdiction. Commission asked to see this conclusion. Notes 1,2 and 3 speak to these issues. Commission asked what story poles on lower terrace represented. Charles Schembri noted that they represent the cantilever of the hall closet and the corner of the living room between the Redwood and the Oak. Commenting on the project,Bill Roberts, 1020 Cortez,Robin Sommer, 1012 Balboa,Dave Lavema, 1012 Balboa, Denise Balestrieri, owner of 1017 Balboa Avenue, Andrew Stypa, 1029 Cortez Avenue, Anna Marianella, 1037 Balboa Avenue, concern with proximity to the creek; volume of structure consumes his light; back of house not shown on story poles; house is within 30 SF of the maximum allowed; house pressures the trees and creek;run-off is limited; property as a single lot with one dwelling;tree touches the poles; floor are in the area where the oak and redwood are located;how can foundation not affect the trees; takes away continuity of the neighborhood; owner has rights,but there has to be a limit to make sure new houses fit in with the site; there is no parking already on this block. The houses are too close together; parking is a problem on this block. Proposed design is very nice;house that is being built by owner at 1033 Balboa is turning out nice. Lives behind subject property, so will have two new houses and is going to lose sunlight;owner doesn't live in Burlingame;will be a whole row of new houses;a lot of projects in this area on Balboa,Carmelita;this year creek flooded;if trees are lost properties will not be worth as much;back of house looks like an apartment building. Concern with trees, read arborist report and the City Arborist's comments say that the arborist report provided appears adequate; arborist report reads "Piers limit root damage by 40%",but doesn't say how much roots are impacted;removing top wall support will impact the oak,not immediately but maybe in years will affect oak;project is too tall,hits trees. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: only change to structure one foot taken off of family room,there are similar sites in the city that are not maxed out or stuck in under trees;good work on design,but house is too big for the lot; footprint is too big for the buildable area of the site; concerned with location of house walls and flow of creek; if project goes forward want to see analysis of walls; project does not fit the site; it is not a huge house(dimension wise)but close to adjacent house and close to creek bed;not the right project for this lot; story poles almost touch the tree,too much house for the lot;potential damage to trees is a major concern; compliment architect on design,fit house into setting,floor plan opens to the trees and creek,but story poles show conflict with trees, can only access the rear yard from the house. Commission asked CA Anderson if the project is denied does that restrict the applicant from coming back for one year without substantial change. CA Anderson responded that yes, a denial of the project would require that the applicant wait one year before coming back with the proposal, unless there are substantial changes to the project, as determined by the City Planner. C.Brownrigg moved to deny the project based on the scale and size of the project in relation to the lot,and the impact on the surrounding environmental and on the neighboring properties. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on the motion: respect the architect,but the applicant must scale down the project not a easy site. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2003 density will be ressed in another way; ' lusionaZ ments will be on the C ssion's May agenda for view. — Vice hair Boju6s called for voice vote on the in mend the posed amendments to ec dominium regulations i he municipal code to tor appr al. The motion passed a 6- 0-1 (C. Keighran absent voice vote. Appeal pr edures were advised. s item concluded at 8.40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1029 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (CHARLES SCHEMBRI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT)(66 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER PLR Lewit briefly presented the project description and noted that there were two letters submitted from neighbors at 1024 and 1028 Balboa Avenue. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Charles Schembri, owner and applicant was present to answer questions. He noted that the design of the house stemmed from trying to preserve the protected-size trees on the left side of the property. There is no proposed construction within the 100-year flood zone. Commission asked if the applicant also developed the lot next door, the second lot created by the lot split approved in 2000. The applicant responded yes. Lana Applerodt, 1040 Balboa Avenue and Anna Mairanella, 1037 Balboa Avenue,spoke expressing concerns that the lot was too small for the proposed house, the house is too close to the protected trees on site; the creek currently floods the lot and development of a residence would make the condition worse;the house just built at 1033 Balboa Avenue is nicely done, but another new,two-story residence in the neighborhood will dwarf all the existing houses. The City Engineer noted that there is currently a faulty pipe connected to a storm drain next to the property, the pipe leaks and water runs downhill across the property to the creek,giving the appearance that the creek is overflowing its banks and flooding the subject property. However, when the City repairs the pipe, the property should not experience this problem because the storm water will go directly from the pipe into the creek. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission had the following concerns about the project: • still have major concerns about the safety of the trees and tree canopies;would like to see the arborist report with tree protection measures during construction, including necessary trimming,included as an attachment to the staff report; • compliment the architect and applicant on the design of the house,which takes advantage ofthe creek setting along the left elevation„but the right elevation is a long,blank wall with no variation,adding some articulation on this wall would add interest along that side,the trellis shown does not do enough to break up that elevation; • recall the public hearings for the original lot split on this site and the trees were a major issue for the neighborhood, concerned about the tree canopies, do not see any reason that the proposed house 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 14,2003 Vice-Chair Bojues 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. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:28 p.m. 12. 1609 RALSTON AVENUE,ZONED -1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIYW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHIL HYL , JPH DESIGN, APPLICANT AND HITECT; SEAN AND ANDREA CUTRIGHT PROP TY OWNERS)(52 NOTICED PROJE CANNER:RUBEN HURIN PLR Lewit briefly prese ed the project description. There were questions of staff. Vice-Chair Boju" opened the public comment. Phil Hyla , designer,was present to answer ions. The Commission ed if there was a wall extending beyo the chimney on the right side. esigner noted that only t eaves extended beyond the chimney. here were no other comments the floor and the public acing was closed. e Commission had the following con rns about the project: • concerned by the bulkiness both side elevations, design ap ars boxy; • designer should investig ways to add articulation along a side elevations,perhaps c els and a "bump-out" at that a ation; • provide details o e plans about the existing and oposed windows, will the 1 match, are they true divided li t wood windows, what type of is proposed; and • add some t er elements to the landscape pl to screen the proposed s nd story,taller trees can be added he front;taller shrubs can be ded along the sides. C. Brow 'gg made a motion place this J m on the consent calend at a time when the requested revisions have een made and plan checked. a motion was seconded C. Vistica. Comment on motion: this is odest addition,far belo the maximum allowable FAR and the simple de matches the existing hou . Vice-Chair Bojue ed for a vote on the tion to place this item on the consent tale when plans had been revised directed. The motion sed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighr sent). The Planning Commi ' n's action is advisory an of appealable. This item concluded at 9• p.m. 13. 1537 DRAKE AVE E, ZONED R-1 - APP ATION FOR MITIGATED ATIVE DECLARATION,D IGN REVIEW,CONDITION USE PERMIT FOR THE RE- RGENCE OF THREE PARCEL ,AND SPECIAL PERMITS F TWO ATTACHED GARAGE O CONSTRUCT THREE NEW O-STORY SINGLE F DWELLINGS (OTTO MILL APPLICANT AND PROPERTY R. JAMES CHU, C ESIGN & ENGR., INC., D IGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT P ANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Mo e briefly presented the proj t description,noting a letter su tted from a neighbor at 1561 Drake Ave n that included and arborist port from Mr. Coate for the si . Commission asked staff to clan e di pancy between the FAR to s provided in the applicant's arch 18,2003 letter and those prded in th staffreport. Staff not t t the applicant's totals were p ably taken from the designer's culations, t that staff always perfo their own calculations,stafft als are the numbers that should referenced by the Commission. Commission asked for further clarification of the City's responsibilities concerning the 11 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.or `CITY G A E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. ea Type of application: Design Review X Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit X Other Parcel Number: Project address: 101-1 15AL to A A�o vJ- APPLICAN PROP_ERTY OWNER Name: / Name: At) ArrwcAIII.—,r Address: f 19L,1DA t7 Address:4 City/State/Zip:L'�?DrQ '• A 1a q /State/Zip: Phone(w): 0 -�J1P 010 Phone(w): (h) 1 (h): ARCHIT CT/DESIGNER Name: ri f Address: 14) 6., City/State/Zip: 070 Please indicate with an asterisk * ' Phone(w): Jam' the contact person for this roject. (h): RECEIVED DEC 1 6 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT LZSCRIPTION: � L 1 'F AFFADAVIT/SIGNA RE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that 4thhei, formation given herein is true and rrect to the b st of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: I know about the proposed appli tion and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Com ission. Property owner's signature: Date: ( � 10 Date submitted: PCAPP.FRM RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION DEC 1 6 2002 1029 BALBOA AVENUE CITY OF BURLINGAME CHARLES & BRENDA SCHEMBRI, PLANNING DEPT. PROPERTY OWNERS AND PERMIT APPLICANTS 1. Explain why the blend of mass,scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The proposed project is anew 3013 SF single family dwelling.Currently there is not an existing structure located on this property. To the North of the project a new Craftsmen style home is currently being constructed.To the South the property is adjacent to Sanchez Creek. This residence was designed by the same Architect,Stewart Associates as the adjacent home to the North. The lot is heavily wooded and is dominated by a 6'diameter Redwood tree in the front and several large oak trees along the South Elevation. The proposed homes mass,scale and dominant structural characteristics have all been designed around the existing trees and Sanchez Creek. The proposed homes floor area,lot coverage,rear setback,side setback and front setback are all in compliance with the City regulations. A special permit is being requested for a minor deviation from the declining height envelope for the North Elevation of the home. This deviation is a result of the unique characteristics of the lot,which include the existing trees and the slope of the lot towards Sanchez Creek. In order to save the existing trees and mitigate any impacts to the Creek the home has been situated close to the North Property line. Situating the home close to the North property line and limitations on building the home on the South side of the lot due to the existing tree canopy have resulted in this Special Permit request. The proposed home is similar in size to several of the homes on Balboa Avenue as well as other homes in the Easton Addition. The proposed home is well articulated and takes advantage of the scenic creek setting by orienting the views from inside the home to the creek. The home is well proportioned to the lot as well as to other homes on the street and in the neighborhood. The generous 25'front setback diminishes the scale of the home,as do the existing massive trees on the property. The structural characteristics of the home,such as the two-story design and hip and gable roof are consistent with the neighborhood and street. 2. Explain how the variety of roofline,faVade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,street and neighborhood The proposed home has a similar roofline to other homes on the street. The roof has a 8:12 pitch,several gables and a prominent ridge running the length of the home near the center of the property. Exterior finish materials consist of asphalt shingle roofing,metal clad wood windows,horizontal lap siding and flagstone walkways. These building materials blend with the adjacent architecture and provide a rich appearance to the home. The building fagade prominently displays a quality wood carriage house style garage door,a covered porch entry,an arched soffit and planter boxes above the garage door,as well as a round accent window. The mix of all of these design elements results in a timeless yet classical fagade. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city(CS. 25.57)? A.Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; The surrounding home styles include craftsmen,colonial,bungalow,cape cod, saltbox,mediterranean and several others. The propose home utilizes design elements from several of these styles while complimenting the creek setting and adjacent new craftsmen style home. B.Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood. The proposed home includes a lengthy 25'setback to the front of the home and garage,while the average block setback to the home is only 18.25'. Two covered parking spaces as well as one uncovered space is provided. An attached garage is utilized,as a detached garage is impractical due to the adjacent creek, which prohibits the use of a driveway to the back of the lot. C.Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties. The proposed residence has been designed around the existing redwood and oak trees on the property.To the South the home is adjacent to the creek and several large trees. These trees create a buffer to the home on the South side of Sanchez Creek. To the North is a new home designed by the same Architect as this project,Stewart Associates. Careful attention has been paid to the views and line of sight from the adjacent windows in both of these homes. The home also blends well with the existing homes to the West and East. A generous rear setback of 22'is provided to the 15`floor and 40'to the 2"d floor although only 15'and 20' respectively are required. D.Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. As previously mentioned the property has several large oak trees and a very large redwood tree which dominate the lot. The home is very well proportioned to the existing trees and their canopy. The mass and bulk of the home are very well balanced by the tree canopy. Additionally the proposed new landscaping suits the creek and tree studded lot setting. Native plants are utilized in many cases. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees?Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. The proposed project DOES NOT require the removal of any trees on the property. The proposed home was carefully designed around the existing trees. Tree protection measures will be utilized during construction and a qualified arborist shall review and approve all work adjacent to the existing trees to insure that they are not harmed. This special permit request is made in order to save the existing trees on this property. STEWART ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE • INTERIORS • PLANNING 1351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (650) 591-8283 FAX: (650) 591-9578 City of Burlingame April 29, 2003 501 Primrose Road Job No. 0251 Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Planning Commission RECEIVED Re: New Home - 1029 Balboa Avenue APR 3 0 2003 Dear Commissioner: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I have listened to the tape of your study session. I am sorry I was unable to attend as I was on a family holiday for the Easter break. I appreciate the positive comments you made about my firm. The following is in response to the issues that were raised: 1. Safety of Existing Trees We will place story poles on the site so you can see the clearance from the proposed home to the existing trees. The City's Arborist as well as the Owner's Arborist, Mayne Tree Expert Company, have already approved the location of the home relative to the existing trees. 2. Right Side Elevation We stepped the family room back 110" from the wall and we moved the stairs in 110" to create breaks for the entire height of the home. Also, we have added three dormers for interest. We have prepared a drawing providing a comparison of the window locations of the proposed home with the home next door that our client is currently constructing. 3 . Plate Heights and Roof Heights We reduced the plate height of the first floor from 1010" to 9'0". We further reduced the roof height by changing the roof pitch from .,<8:12 to 6:12. Overall, the roof height has been reduced by 210". As a result, the revised design is 316" below the height limit. 4. Daylight Plane Both the reduced plate height of the first floor and the lower roof height significantly reduce the amount of building mass projecting into the right side daylight plane. This significantly reduces the daylight plane exception being requested. 5. Story Poles Story poles will be erected so you can see the placement of the home on the parcel and its relationship to existing trees. 6. Size of Home We have reduced the size of the home slightly by stepping in portions of it away from the right wall as requested. 7. Garage Doors We feel a two car garage is needed. We feel the current design is appropriate as the doors are recessed behind the columns and under the second floor overhang. The area at the current nook is not large enough to relocate the family room to this location. 8. Appearance From Street We have prepared a rendering showing the home from the street. As you can see, when the home is put into context with the existing mature trees, the home does not appear large and the garage doors are not overwhelming. We trust that these changes will meet with your approval. Please call me if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, John L. Stewart, AIA cc: Charles Schembri RECEIVED APR 3 0 2003 CI PLANNING DEPT. 10/21/2003 15:46 FAX PROVEN NCNT INC [in 002 —1— tun 10:41 NAL 6605934443 MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO 2002 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE NO-276793 GRADUATE FORESII''R CERTHUDARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L.HUNr'INGTON FWU)sM 535 aRAGATO ROA D,SM-A KF VIN R.KIE,7Y SAN CARLOS,CA 99070.6229 OFGRATIONS MANAGER RECEIVED TEI•EIHONE: (650)5934400 FACSIMILE; (630)593.4443 October 21,2003 EMAIL: infa(�meyne0ee.c4m Charles Schembri OCT 2 1 2003 904 Bromfield San Mateo CA 94402 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Deer Mr.Schemtai, SUBJECT. 1029 SALBOAAVE:,I3URLINGAME I am writing this letter in regard to the large trees(2 oaks and 1 redwood)and the effect that the building of a new house with a cantilever over the root zone will have on the trees. With this type of design,root cutting will be minimized. Our experience with this type of design leaves the free with little or no negative effect The trees'ability to get water with the root zone being partially covered should not be a problem. Oaks only need water during the winter months. Ground water and soll saturation will provide plenty of water and nutrients. If in fact the trees do show signs of sby,ss,artificial Irrigation can be provided. Sincerely, ZZ OF Kevin R.Kielly Certified Arborist WC 00476 KRK:pmd ►1p.WG0a7G �ry�ED AR� 10/21/2003 15:47 FAX PROVEN MGKT INC [it 003 10/21/03 TUE 15:23 FAX [a 001 SPI Consulting Shoring, StrUCft" s &General Consknelion Engineering 35 Fmbarcadero Cove,700 Oakland, CA 94606 Ph 510$36-3319 Fax 510 536-3320 October 21, 2003 Charles Schembre RECEIVED 904 Bromfield Road San Mateo,CA 94402 OCT 2 1 2003 Regarding: 1029 Balboa Avenue,Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. bear Charles, I have reviewed your proposed foundation plan for the new residence at the above referenced property with respect to its potential impact on an existing cobble stone retaining wall. You are proposing to install a new reinforced grade beam supported on 16-inch diameter piers 12-feet deep at$-foot centers. From the design section given to me I've been able to determine that the new foundation is about 3-feet away from the existing wall. Since the new pier and grade beam foundation will bear its loads well below the bottom of the new wall,it should have no impact on the existing wall. In fact this type of construction will impose no additional loading on the existing wall. In conclusion, assuming good construction practice by your General Contractor,your new foundation should have no impact at all on the existing wall, Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, aP,WP 0 Sal , Italiano, Pi's 5 President * p 0 OS CIDP OFC /n-2)-a 3 STORY POLE PLAN NEW RESIDENCE 1029 BALBOA AVENUE BURLINGAME , CA. LEGEND: STORY POLE NETTING .\\\\\` GROUND STAKES X 158.0 51 .0 5$ 64.0 64.0;; 62.5 56.5 8 51 .0 58. . 58.0 RECEIVE .0 63. 0 OCT 1 5 20031` __FIN. FL. ELEV: 40.5. CITY OF BURLINGAM, - - PLANNING DEPT. . TES STEWART ASSOCIA ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS 13LANNING , .,.. Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE NO.276793 GRADUATE FORESTER CERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L.HUNTINGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD,STE.A PRESIDENT SAN CARLOS,CA 94070-6228 KEVIN R.KIELTY TELEPHONE: (650)5934400 OPERATIONS MANAGER February 26, 2003 FACSIMILE: (650)5934443 EMAIL: info@maynetree.com Charles Schembri 904 Bromfield Road San Mateo, CA 94402 Re: 1029 Balboa, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Schembri: On Friday, February 21, 2003, at your request, I visited the above site. The purpose of .� my visit was to inspect and comment on the large redwood and 2 large oaks on the edge of the creek bank. You also requested that I review the plans for the new construction and the impact this will have on the 3 Heritage Trees. Method: All trees were identified on a map provided by you. Each tree was given an identi- fication number which was inscribed on a metal tag and nailed to the trees at eye level. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above grade(diameter at breast height or DBH). The trees were then give a condition rating from 1-100 for form and vitality using the following rating. 1-29 ... Very poor 30-49 ... Poor 50-69 ... Fair 70-89 ...Good 90-100.. Excellent RE r'- Lastly, a "Comments" section is provided. MAR 13 2Q3 CITY OF n j� PL , Schembri 2-26-03, Pg. 2 Tree No. Species Size Condition Comments (Inches) (Percent) 1 Coast live oak 61.1 70 V-shaped crotch at base. Tree @ 2' has been lightened and cabled. 2 Coast live oak 38.2 75 Terracing above the creek has helped keep root crown clear. Tree is in good health, but is heavy to the northwest. 3 Redwood 72.9 95 On bank of creek. Excellent root flare, trunk taper. Observations: The trees are in good to excellent condition. Recent maintenance was properly carried out. The plans for the new construction will have some impact, but the pier and cantilever design will lessen the impact dramatically. Recommendations: The raised entrance path to the front of the planned house will raise the grade near the trunk of the redwood. A proper retaining bulkhead must be built to keep fill off the trunk of the tree. A ventilation system should be installed below the compacted raised fill area. A grid system of perforated drain pipe is excellent for this purpose. Any root cutting for piers or for the basement should be inspected by an arborist. Summary: I feel the plans have addressed protection of the trees' root zones. The piers should limit root damage by up to 40 percent. However, the pier holes and basement excavation should be inspected. Tree protection on this sensitive site will be of the utmost impor- tance, but if all protection measures are taken, I foresee little impact to these trees. Tree Protection: Tree Protection Zones should be established and maintained through the project. Fencing for the tree should be of metal wire, placed as close to the dripline of the trees as possible, still allowing room for the construction. Schembri 2-26-03, Pg. 3 No tools or equipment shall be stored inside the protection zones nor shall any equipment be cleaned there. (See Mitigating Measures for Existing Trees on Construction Sites", enclosed.) Monitor and document any root cutting. Any large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by an arborist. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboriculture principles and practices. Sincerely, f ,�a �r�N K�F�r�o�� zL No.WC-0476 m Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist #0476 O KRK:dcr Encl. MITIGATING MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION RAPACTS ON EXISTING TREES X413 j INTRODUCTION It is an established fact that construction around existing trees will impact the trees to some degree. The degree of impact is largely predicated on the condition of the tree(s) before the construction activity begins. It is therefore important to inspect all trees prior to any construction activity to develop a "tree protection program" based on the species, size, condition and expected impact. A Certified Arborist (International Society of Arboriculture) is suggested for this work. The local University of California Extension or County Farm Advisors Office has the names of local certified arborists. S=QN jj &M PREPARATION All existing trees shall be fenced within, at, or outside the dripline (foliar spread) of the tree using the following formula: Five inches in distance from the trunk for every inch in trunk diameter, measured 4.5 feet above t h e average ground level. Example: a 24 inch diameter tree would have a fence erected 10 feet from the base of the tree (24 x 5 = 120/12 = 10). The fencing should not interfere with actual construction, but is intended to redirect unnecessary traffic, and to protect limbs and roots. No storage of materials, unnecessary trenching, grading or compaction shall be allowed within the dripline of the trees. The fence should be a minimum of four feet high, made of pig wire, snow fence, or cyclone, with steel stakes or pipes as posts. If the fence is within the dripline of the trees, the foliar fringe outside the fence shall be raised to offset the chance of limb breakage from construction equipment encroaching within the dripline. . All contractors, subcontractors and other personnel shall be warned that encroachment within the fenced area is forbidden without the consent of the certified arborist on the job. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other materials, disposed-of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment and other heavy equipment. The temporary fence shall be maintained until the landscape contractor enters the job and commences landscape construction. MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY SECTION LLI GRADING/EXCAVATING All grading plans that specify grading within the dripline of any tree, o r within the distance from the trunk as outlined in SECTION II when said distance is outside the dripline, shall first be reviewed by the certified , arborist. Provisions for aeration, drainage, pruning, tunneling beneath roots, root pruning, or other necessary actions to protect the trees, shall be outlined by the arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as described above, said trenching shall be undertaken by hand labor. All roots 2 inches or larger shall b e tunnelled and smaller roots shall be cut smoothly to the side of the trench. The side of the the trench should be draped immediately with two layers of untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall be soaked nightly and left in place until the trench is backfilled to the original level. The arborist shall examine the trench prior to backfilling to ascertain the number and size of roots cut, and to suggest further remedial repairs. SECTION LV REMEDIAL REPAIRS. PENALTIES The arborist on the job shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that may affect the trees, and prescribing necessary remedial work to insure the health and stability of said trees. This includes, but is not limited to, all arborist activities specified in SECTIONS I, II and III. In addition, pruning, with types and techniques as outlined in the "Pruning Guidelines" (1995) of the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertilizing, mulching, aeration, irrigation, drainage, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local site requirements and State Agricultural Pest Control laws. All specifications shall be in writing. For a list of licensed pest control operators or advisors, consult the local County Agricultural Commissioners Office. Penalties, based on the cost of remedial repairs and the appraised values provided in the Evaluation Guide published by the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. SECTION Y FINAL INSPECTION Upon completion of the project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken that impacted the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compaction, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. The arborist should submit a final report in writing outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection. MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY 02/18/00 10:58 TEL 415 892+5909 LOUIS ARATA 102 '-15-1997 9:26414 FROM P- 2 J%.NEsN M:CLCnAAnn QgRY F gRM$TRQNC '- IChIK N MGCIENn!!n1 "CEEM`°`S.PMcCLENAHAN CO., INC. " U A nLM N AReoR(CULTURISTH SINCE 79{i GonTRACTowe SIC.i65:9�! .I ARASTRADER°R°AO Pp 7A VA4L ,CA 9�Zw TELEPHONE(650)326•67Q I - February 17, 2000 FAA(550)69a-1 Z47 Mr. James Valenti 1564 Rollins Road Burlingame, Callfomia 94010 RE: 1033 Balboa Avenue Burlingame, Callfomia Dear Mr. Valenti: As requested, I reviewed the proposed plans for site improvements at the above referenced site_ Reference is made to the Tree Survey of August 17, 1998 in regards to Coast Redwood #4. Proposed plan will provide pier hole no closer than within 12' of the trunk and spread footing no closer than within 16' of the trunk_ Proposed driveway is located above existing retaining wall and encroaches no closer than within 10' of the trunk. At these distances, no impact to buttress/supporting roots is expected and sufficient lateral root environment will remain to sustain tree vitality. Adoption of Preservation Measures to Include fertill2ation, irrigation and pruning will ensure a most favorable prognosis. Should you have any questions, or If we may be of further assistance in these concems, kindly contact our office at any time. Very truly yours, S. P_ M CLENI CO., INC. By: Js an, President R istered Consulting Arborlst#249 A erican Society of Consulting Arborists JMMc:pm RECEjVk:-0 FED 18 2000 routs A ARATA. JAMES M. MCCLENAHAN CONTRACTOR'S #651341 - WALTER J-LAWRENCE GARY F. ARMSTRONG -� _ DAVID F. MOORE INC. JOHN H.MCCLENAHAN S . P. McCLENAHAN CO. , GENE K. PEGLOW ARBORICULTURISTS #I ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTOLA VALLEY. CA 94028 _ TELEPHONE (650) 326-8781 August 17, 1998 FAX (650) 854- 1267 Ms. Annie P. Kraemer 1033 Balboa Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Dear Ms. Kraemer: As requested, I inspected specific trees to determine present condition and provide guidelines for tree preservation during site improvements. The site is a residential lot bounded by a creek on the easterly side. Three tiered, rock retaining walls are located between creek and existing garden area and abut the Coast Redwood and multi trunk Live Oak. With Adoption_ of Tree Lr_eservation Measures, the proposed subdivision and home --- — — improvements can be accomplished with minimal impact to tree environments. For purposes of identification, tree numbers in this survey correspond to those on the Site Plan enclosed. In determining 'Tree Condition' several factors have been considered which include: (1 ) Rate of growth over several seasons; (2) Structural decays or-weaknesses; (3) Presence of disease or insects; and (4) Life expectancy. The following guide for interpretation of 'Tree Condition' as related to Life Expectancy is submitted for your information. 0 - 5 Years = Poor 5 - 10 Years = Poor to Fair RECEIVED 10 - 15 Years = Fair 15 - 20 Years = Fair to Good MAR - 91999 20 + Years = Good CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Ms.Annie P.Kraemer August 17, 1998 Page 2 Tree#1: Species: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Multi trunk: 43.3",37.4"@ 401/2'above grade Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is of uniform size,coloration and twig elongation and crown density indicate normal vitality. Multi trunk growth habit is considered an inherent structural defect. Broken cable supports must be replaced. Large pruning wounds exhibit minimal decay and are surrounded by strong callus. Lengthy limbs require endweight reduction to minimize exposure to hazard. The root crown has been maintained near natural grade and existing retaining wall encroaches to within 2'of the trunk on the easterly side. Proposed site improvements should not encompass more-man 35%of �_eral root area outer foliar _eluneter)._Tr_enchinglexcavations�nust be accomplished by hand to a 30"depth when within 16'of the trunk. Prognosis: With adoption of preservation measures,prognosis is considered most favorable. Tree#2: Species: Coast Live Oak 14.6"@ 4-112'above grade Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. The trunk has grown to a slight lean and the canopy has developed one sided. The root crown and buttress root development has caused movement in retaining wall which abuts the trunk. This tree is located between tree#1 and existing retaining wall and will not be impacted by site improvements. Prognosis: Adoption of preservation measures will provide a favorable prognosis_ v Ms. Annie P. Kraemer ~ Page 3 August 17, 1998 Tree #3: ' Species: Coast Live Oak 35.9" @ 401/2' above grade v Condition: Fair to Good Observation: Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal'vitality. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay. Old wounds exhibit callus closure. The one sided canopy is not considered a significant defect although endweight reduction pruning should be accomplished. Existing retaining wall is located just above the root crown on the westerly side. Proposed site improvements should be limited to 35% of a balanced canopy. Trenching/excavation must be accomplished by hand to a 30"depth when within 12'of the trunk. Prognosis: With adoption of preservation measures, prognosis is considered most -� favorable. Tree #4: Species: Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 72.2" @ 401/2' above grade Condition: Good Observation: Foliage is of uniform size, coloration and indicates normal vitality. Summer stress as evidenced by inner foliar yellowing is typical of the species and does not indicate decline. Tree structure is sound with no visible signs of decay or defects. The root crown has been maintained near natural grade. Buttress roots are visible at ground level. Upper retaining wall encroaches to within Von the westerly side. No movement in wall indicating root activity was observed. Encroachment of site improvements to dripline (outer foliar perimeter), on the westerly side, will not significantly impact tree environment. Prognosis: Adoption of preservation measures will provide a most favorable prognosis. Ms. Annie P. Kraemer Page 4 August 17, 1998 TREE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES • Tree Preservation And Protection Plan In providing recommendations for tree preservation, we recognize that injury to trees as a result of construction include mechanical injuries to trunks, roots and branches, and injury as a result of changes which occur in the growing environment. To minimize these injuries, we recommend grading operations encroach no closer than four times the trunk diameter, (i.e. 30" diameter tree x 4=120" distance). At this distance, buttress/anchoring roots would be preserved and minimal injury to the functional root area would be anticipated. Should encroachment within the area become necessary, hand digging is mandatory and root severing should be accomplished only after inspection by a qualified arborist. • Barricades Prior to initiation of construction activity, temporary barricades should be installed around all trees in the construction area. Six foot height, chain link fences are to be mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. These barricades will be placed around individual trees and/or groups of trees as the existing environment dictates. The temporary barricades will serve to protect trunks, roots and branches from mechanical injuries, will inhibit stockpiling of construction materials or debris within the sensitive Wipline' areas and will prevent soil compaction from increased vehicular/pedestrian traffic. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered. These barricades should remain in place until final inspection of the building permit,.except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. Designated areas beyond the driplines of any trees should be provided for construction materials and on site parking. Ms. Annie P. Kraemer Page 5 August 17, 1998 Root Pruning (if necessary) During and upon completion of any trenching/grading operation within a tree's dripline, should any roots greater than two inches (T) in diameter be damaged, broken or severed, timely root pruning to include flush cutting and sealing of exposed roots should be accomplished under the supervision of a qualified Arborist to minimize root deterioration beyond the soil line. Pruning Pruning of the foliar canopies to include removal of dead wood is recommended and should be initiated prior to construction operations. Such pruning will provide any necessary construction clearance, will lessen the likelihood or potential for limb breakage, reduce 'windsail' effect and provide an environment suitable for healthy and vigorous growth. • Fertilization A program of fertilization by means of deep root soil injection is recommended with applications in Spring and Summer for those trees to be impacted by construction. Such fertilization will serve to stimulate feeder root development, offset shock/stress as related to construction and/or environmental factors, encourage vigor, alleviate soil compaction and compensate for any encroachment of natural feeding root areas. Inception of this fertilizing program is recommended prior to the initiation of construction activity. • Irrigation A supplemental irrigation program is recommended for the Coast Redwood and should be accomplished at regular three to four week intervals during the period of May 1" " through October 31'` Irrigation is to be applied at or above the 'dripline' in an amount sufficient to supply approximately fifteen (15) gallons of water for each inch in trunk diameter. Irrigation can be provided by means of a soil needle, 'soaker or permeable hose. When using 'soaker' or permeable hoses, water is to be run at low pressure, avoiding runoff/puddling, allowing the needed moisture to penetrate the soil to feeder root depths. Y t , Ms. Annie P. Kraemer August 17, 1998 Page 6 • Inspection Periodic inspections by a qualified Arborist are recommended during construction activities, particularly as trees are impacted by trenching/grading operations. Inspections at approximate four (4) week intervals would be sufficient to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the Tree Preservation Plan .and to provide recommendations for any additional care or treatment. We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation concerns. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, kindly contact our office at any time. Very truly yours, S. P. c LENAHAN CO., INC. By: ames c lenahan, ASCA resident, Consulting Arborist JMMc:pm STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CENTRAL COAST REGION (707)944-5520 Mailing address: POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 Street address: 7329 SILVERADO TRAIL NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94558 March 10, 2003 Notification Number: 1600-2003-0091-3 Charles Schembri 904 Bromfield Road San Mateo, California 94402 Dear Mr. Schembri: Results of a Lake or Str ea-trfbeti Alteration Agreement Notification Review We have received and evaluated your Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration package and determined that it was complete. Using the information from your attached description,plans, maps,and questionnaire, we have determined the following: You are proposing work in the vicinity of Sanchez Creek located at 1029 Balboa Avenue, in Burlingame, San Mateo County. Your project consists of construction of a single family residence adjacent to the creek. The proposed house and foundation will be outside of the 100 year flood plain. No trees will be removed although minor trimming of branches may be necessary. The possibility of substantial impacts from this project as described is unlikely or the activity is outside the jurisdiction of the Department under Section 1600 et. seq. of the Fish and Game Code. If you conduct your project as described in the Notification, no Streambed Alteration Agreement is required. Please be advised that a permit or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)review of your project may be required by another agency. RETAINA COPY OF THIS LETTER AND YOUR ATTACHED NOTIFICA TION PA CKA GE AT THE WORK SITE AIVD PROV7DE TO DEPARTMENT REPRESEN7AT IVE IF REQUESTED. Thank you for taking time to notify the Department. If you have any questions, please call Marcia Grefsrud,Environmental Scientist, at(707)944-5559. Sincerely, Robert W. Floerke Regional Manager Central Coast Region cc: Warden Kavanaugh `-- r— Lieutenant Baldwin , Kristine Atkinson 2003 CITY OF B;;RLIN`•=A ME PLANNHINIG L`[PT. 1v1O1v 11VU11a11 - 1vic�isagc Page 1 of 2 (JAS VEGA$- T T Home I Inbox I Compose Contacts Options Help charlesjoseph@msn.com Free Newsletters I MSN Featured Offers I Find Message Calenda Hotmail Save Address es BlockFree Nev Previous Next I Close MSN Fea From : "Habte Kifle"<HK@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov> Find Mes To: <charlesjoseph@msn.com> Reminde ---- — Directorir CC: "Ron Gervason"<RCG.RB2Post.RB2Domain@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov>,"Susan Gladstone" <SFG.RB2Post.RB2Domain@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov> ----- --------- Subject: Re: 1029 Balboa Ave., Burlingame Permits Explore Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:03:59-0800 --------- - -- —------------------------ Free Gan Reply Reply All Forward Delete Putin Folder... _TJ Printer Friendly Version Personal: 'Net AccE Dear Mr. Schembri: Share Ph Send Ca This e-mail message is in response to your e-mail below and to your Chat Roc February 28, 2003, letter requesting for our input if the subject Upgrade is qualified for Section 401 Water Find Old project 4u Quality Certification from our agency. Base on Board Staff review of the February 28 letter and ShopAT7 your e-mail message below, the project will not violate water quality More... standards for the following reasons: 1. As indicated in your e-mail message, the project is neither qualified for the Army Corps of Engineer's Nationwide Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act nor to the California Department of Fish and Game's Streambed Alteration Agreement; 2. Based on the project design, the project is over 20 feet away from the jurisdictional banks of Sanchez Creek and its riparian habitat, and all construction activities will be conducted above and beyond the ordinary high water marks; 3. The proposed project will not involve in removing any vegetation from the riparian habitat; 4. The project will not result in any discharges into Sanchez Creek in Burlingame. All stormwater runoff from the property will be directed to city storm drain inlets and away from the creek; and 5. The proposed plan includes to implement appropriate stormwater management plans to control erosion and sedimentation during construction; We realize the project is situated adjacent to a sensitive riparian corridor; however, for the reasons described above and since the project consists about 2,600 square feet of two-story single family home, no further actions is necessary provided the project is built in accordance with the design specifications outlined in your February 28, 2003, letter and its attachments. 3 If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at the underlying address Best regards, MAR 3 1 2003 CITY OF BURL!NGAME Habtemariam Kifle PL`NNII`�G DEPT. �. Water Resources Control Engineer California Regional Water Quality Control Board .../getmsg?curmbox=F000000001&a=e77c6b 195dcdf5fefc0cac2426ed033e&msg=MSG 104763/14/2003 Page 1 of 1 Scope of Corps Regulatory Jurisdiction in San Francisco District TIDAL WATERS FRESH WATERS SECTION 404 SECTION 404 if wetlands Uplands edisposal of dredged exist behind a levees disposal of dredged or fill material regulatedor fill material SECTION 10 all structures and work:levee,dock,etc SECTION 10 all structures FirLor and work V*dand Edge.. _ �OrdinaryFighUttr r MFW s Coastal Wetlands sh Tidelands Wetlands S wr and Marshes 1987 Wetland Jurisdictional Manual (littp://www.wes.army.mil/el/wetlaiids/wlpubs.litm]) -� Regulatory Home Page RECEIVED NIR 3 1 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. h"://www.spn.usace.army.mil:/regulatory/jd.html 2/28/2003 People2 Page 2 of 3 lkohi Yeakel _][Caltrans Liason (415) 977-8472 john.j.yeakel @,usace.arm) South Section (Counties- n Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sa uz, Monterey San B o, and portions of: San Luis Obispo, Alameda and Costz Ed Wylie, South Section Chief, (415) 977-8464 edwar•d.a.wylie(a,usace.arrriy.rrril F_ South Section Staff Name Phone Number E-mail Address Phelicia Gomes (415) 977-8452 phelicia.m.gomes@usace.army.mil Gordon Liu (415) 977-8463 gordon.j.liu@usace.army.mil Lolly Martindale (415) 977-8448 molly.martindale@usace.army.mil Andrew Muss (415) 877-8442 andrew.j.muss@usace.anny.nlil Bob Quebedeaux (415) 977-8446 bob.d.quebedeaux@usace.army.mil Bob Smith (415) 977-8450 robert.£smith@isace.army.mil Corrie Veenstra (415) 977-8717 corrie.veenstra@usace.army.mil North Section (Counties: Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskyou, Trin Napa, and portions of Solano) Jane Hicks, North Section Chief, (415) 977-8439 jane.m.hicks@usace.army.mil RECEIVED MAR 3 1 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. http://www.spn.usace.army.mil:/regulatory/people2.html 2/28/2003 C1 rc o� CITY OF BURLINGAME euwuNrwME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 Site: 1029 BALBOA AVENUE Application for design review and special permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling at: 1029 PUBLIC HEARING BALBOA AVENUE, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-165- 230). NOTICE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, October 27, 2003 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council ` Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: October 17, 2003 (Please refer to other side) I CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applicnvk ay be reviewed prior to the meeting a 1DWalWnent Q1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cal' If you chall ge u ma be limited to raising onl hos ssues ed a e blic hearing, described ic r d to the city at or prior t (;AM1M C A L 1 F O K *i t o Property oliers c2::r i onsi ori orming their tenants ab t thi no 1 mformatio ple se call (650) 558-7250.lbank u. r Margaret M oo City Planner .� g ir' PU ICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED,by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and special permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a new two-story house with an attached garage at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1,Charles J.Schembri,property owner,APN: 026- 165-230, WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 27,2003,at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE,it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3-construction and location of limited numbers of new,small facilities or structures including(a)single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and special permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit"A"attached hereto. Findings for such design review and special permits are set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of October, 2003 ,by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY 1 EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption,design review and special permits. 1029 Balboa Avenue effective November 6,2003 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 15,2003,Sheets Al-A5,A9,L1.0,Cl and TS l,site plan,floor plans, building elevations,landscape plan,erosion control plan and topographic survey; 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,replacing or relocating a window(s),adding a dormer(s)or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 3,2003,March 20,2003 and April 22, 2003 memos,the Chief Building Official's December 27,2002 memo,the Fire Marshal's December 20,2002 memo and the City Arborist's March 20,2003 memo shall be met; 4, that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition,grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall be met; 5. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,set the building envelope; 6. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 7. that prior to scheduling the roofdeck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 9. that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staffwill inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 2 1029 Balboa Avenue Exhibit A Conditions of Approval 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; It. that during construction and the applicant shall be responsible for the implementation ofthe establish erosion control plan shown on Sheet Cl plans date stamped October 15,2003; 12. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission; 13. that the Certified Arborist report dated February 26,2003 and the tree protection measures listed on sheet LI.0 on the plans date stamped October 15, 2003 shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction; 14. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 15. that the tree protection measures listed in the report done by S.P.McClanahan Co.,Inc.dated August 17, 1998 and a February 17,2000 letter that were part of the original lot split in 2000, shall be adhered to in addition to all requirements by the current arborist overseeing this project; 16. that the applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a building permit is issued by the Building Department for the new single-family residence; 17. that the applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval along with the building application for approval prior to Building permit issuance; 18. that the applicant shall submit a pre-foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of protection measures at the time of application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and final foundation pour inspections with the Building Department to insure adherence; 19. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborisfs report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the 3 1029 Balboa Avenue Exhibit A Conditions of Approval maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the 3-year period; 20. that prior issuance of a grading permit or any grading on the site or issuance of a demolition permit, a root protection zone shall be established around the protected oak trees and the redwood tree and the installation shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be checked by a certified arborist weekly and a written report on the status submitted to the City Arborist; and that the protective fencing shall not be removed until a final Building inspection takes place on the site and the certified arborist determines that it is appropriate to remove the tree protection; 21. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 22. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 23. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 24. that protective fencing shall be installed along the top of bank (merges with 100-year floor as shown on site plan sheet Al, date stamped October 15, 2003); and that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction materials, debris or equipment be stored beyond the top of bank boundary, this includes the terraced area with the retaining walls between the upper top of bank which merges with the 100-year flood line and the lower top of bank adjacent to the Sanchez Creek channel; 25. that should any activity on the project violate any tree protection measure established by the certified arborist, all activity on the project shall be stopped immediately. The City will then retain at the applicant's expense a third-party arborist to implement and enforce 4 1029 Balboa Avenue Exhibit A Conditions ofApproval the tree protection measures in cooperation with the certified arborist retained by the applicant. The third-party arborist will submit an estimate of the cost of conducting weekly,or more frequent if he determines it be necessary,inspections of the property until project completion,and the applicant shall deposit an amount equal to that estimate wit the City to draw upon to pay the third-party arborist for the inspections and reports conducted to completion. Upon the deposit of the money and correction of the violations of the protection plan,work on the project may resume upon written consent of the City Planner. The City Planner will determine when the deposit is reaching a point at which it requires additional funds given the progress and timing ofthe project and shall require the applicant to deposit such additional monies as may be necessary to satisfy the requirements. If the deposit is exhausted and additional inspections are needed under this condition,work on the project shall stop until the deposit required by the City Planner is made.The certified arborist shall be authorized by written agreement form the applicant to stop work on the project at any time that a tree protection measure is violated. The third-party arborist,if any shall have the authority to order that all activity on the project be stopped whenever that person determine that a tree protection measure is being violated;and 26. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. �. 5 BILL & GAIL ROBERTS 1020 CORTEZ AVENUE BURLINGAME , CA 94010 ( 650 ) 375 - 0182 H ( 650 ) 857 - 2183 W RECEIVED June 12, 2003 RECEIVED JUN 11 2003 JUN 1 1 2003 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Members of the City Council CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAOE 501 Primrose Road PLANNING DEPT . Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Proposed two-story residential development at 1029 Cortez Avenue Dear Council Members: We are writing to you to reiterate our opposition to the proposed two-story residential development at 1029 Balboa Avenue, which has been appealed to the City Council and will be on your June 16, 2003 agenda. As you know this property is the second of two lots split from a double lot. The house on the first lot, 1033 Balboa Avenue, is nearing completion. The primary difficulty with the proposed house for 1029 Balboa Avenue is its size relative to the site configuration bordering Sanchez Creek. These creek site lots are one of the charming aspects of Burlingame. This particular property has three mature oak trees along the bank of the creek and one massive redwood at the front of the property. Less than two-thirds of the site is a flat, buildable pad, and the remainder is the tiered bank of the Sanchez Creek. The applicant, Charles Schembri, has proposed a project that is unsuitable for the topography of the site and the existing tree canopy. When the story poles were put up, they exactly illustrated this point. The enclosed photos show that the two-story home in height and width would consume nearly all of the available open volume of the site. Parts of the house cantilever over the creek bank wall. What looks like a modest side yard for the new house at 1033 Balboa is proposed to support a house of 2,990SF —only 30SF shy of the maximum square footage allowed on a normal, flat lot. When the Planning Commission voted to reject the application by a 7-0 vote they clearly stated many of these concerns. The Commission's discussion on the proposed house and their subsequent action was thoughtful and the best interest of maintaining quality development in our city of Burlingame especially with respect to these beautiful creek side lots. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the process. We hope the City Council will respect the Planning Commission's well-founded arguments and their decisive vote to reject the 1029 Balboa Avenue project as proposed. Sincerely, t 1W Bill and Gail Roberts i J _�J enclosed photos tArm OFr 4 s�ti� I tr, Y 1 ' • j p { �� r / ',.�� °.� � �.; �. ��". tib: ,•., �J*, ��..�� �. 1 Year a t N. .4 14 'yam•. ., - Y _ , ¢J r �, x �z Y�• a` err , ry .. .. roti •�i. WMMUNIt,ATION RECEIVkC.: BILL & GAIL ROBERTS AfTERI'REPARA11Oti 1020 CORTEZ AVENUE BURLINGAME , CA 94010 OFSTAFF REPORT ( 650) 375 - 0182 H ( 650) 857 - 2183 W RECEIVED May 7,2003 MAY - 8 2003 a Planning Commission CITY OF BURL1NGAME Burlin � $ PLANNING DEPT, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Re:Proposed two-story residential development at 1029 Cortez Avenue Dear Commissioners: We are writing to you to provide our comments regarding the proposed two-story residential development at 1029 Balboa Avenue to be heard at the Commission's May 12,2003 meeting We live at 1020 Cortez Avenue, which also runs along Sanchez Creek and backs up diagonally to the subject property. As you know the applicant, Charles Schembri, is developing both this property and the adjacent property at 1033 Balboa Avenue. We give credit to Mr. Schembri for taking the time to show us the plans of both properties prior to the Commission's review. He is building a quality project at 1033 Balboa,one with architectural character. The property at 1029 Balboa is much more of a problem. Our prime concern is the amount of building being proposed given the character and physical configuration of the property. These creekside lots long ago were sized to provide comfortable buffers from the creek banks themselves and from the beautiful large trees that line it. These lots have a special character in Burlingame. Understandably Mr. Schembri's objective is to maximize the profit potential out of his development with the largest house the site FAR will allow. But this is 10-pounds of house being squeezed onto a 5-pound lot. As you can see from the enclosed pictures the small level building pad (only about half the site), the overhanging three oak trees and one massive redwood tree are not conducive to the larger size of the proposed house. The volume of the second story especially in the back of the house completely meets the oak tree canopy closing off daylight. The larger floorplate further reduces the ability of the soil adjacent to the creek to absorb rainwater. This creates more direct flow into Sanchez Creek, which overflowed its banks this past November and December- At a minimum we would suggest a reduction of the family room addition in the back to reduce the footprint of the structure. Reducing the encroachment of the groundfloor cantilever sections over the creekbank would be another idea. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the process. We hope the Planning Commission will consider modification to the proposed design that may address some of these concerns and preserve some of the special character around Sanchez Creek. Sincerely, V�t� Bill and Gail Ro�be� MAY 07 2003 11 : 31AM HP LASERJET 3200 r p. 2 AP-TER P FPAR I(101"i [appreciate you hearing my concerns: 1. fi fs? l Kpowr I feel even though the size of the proposed house might fit within the city codes the Proposed size will have a big impact on the neighborhood. When we first purchased our home we fell in love with what was its natural setting and open area around us. The Proposed design is very long and boxy. I am against the variance because of the additional bulk to the proposed home. I feel this committee has always tried to break up the bulk mass with "gables" and by other means. If the variance is approved I fee] the council is endorsing an apartment style house in a heavily wooded neighborhood setting. Not to mention this house will block more light and open space that is the neighborhoods charm. Over the past year we have watched a new home go up on the adjoining lot. It how much sunlight we have lost. Not to mentiis amazing on the scenery. With another two story home being built I will lose most of my afternoon sun. Should this home be considered I would like to have the story poles put in place for the neighbors to view the size of this house. 1 can't emphasize enough how much sunlight we lose not to mention the scenery. Another reason of concern is the flow of the creek. There are several homes being built along the creek. The empty lots are being replaced by large homes and concrete. Therefore allowing more water to run off into the creek. lust this past winter my neighbor lost a large portion of the creek's retaining wall, which will have to be replacedI this spring. I have lived alongside the stream for the last 8 years and this is the worst flooding I have seen. The water overflowed the creek bed and ran across our back yards for several hours- I do have a video of the creek over flowing should the committee like to view this. With this new home being built the water running away from the house surely put more pressure on the creek. will Another point 1 would like to mention is McClenahn's letter from August 17, 1998, which is on file with the planning commission. They rate the condition of the trees less favorable than the report being presented by Mr. Schembri. But this report clearly mentions that new construction will have an impact on the trees. They are claiming the piers should limit root damage by un to 40 Percent. Does this mean there is a 60 chance or higher that the roots will percent l be d I would also like to remind the committee of their statements made when the lots were Split "If the development ruins a tree that was intended to be saved it would truly be an embarrassment to the city,,. It was also noted by committee members that the Redwoods have a wide and shallow root system, which are very sensitive to driveways, parking and paving. E It should be noted that when the grading is done to keep the water away from the house its going to go towards the trees. As the committee is well aware any change to th environment of these trees could cause the trees to die off' NECEIVED MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLING E PLANNING DEPT 1 I MAY 07 2003 11 : 31RM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 1 I also feel this house does not fit in with the neighborhood. All most all of the homes in the area have detached garages set on the back of their Property. resembles that of a garage apartment. 1 also feel the back f the house, wh chthe will bese facing my property looks more like an apartment buildin g.they are trying to hard to put such a bulky house on such a smalls lot is my feeling that Thank you, Andrew& Sarah Stypa 1024 Cortez Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Post-R"Fax Note 7671 D*'° 01 page From co-mept. co Phone OP 0 9Q Fax• 6 6• / Fax M ASO l�7 9 RECEIVE[ MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1 I 14N Rf-coNEC: SER P�RA�1C11 OV VPS April 14, 2003 RECEIVED City of Burlingame APR 14 2003 Planning Dept. 501 Primrose Road CITY OF BUR DEPT. E PLANNING DEPT. Burlingame, CA 94010 Attention: Margaret Monroe, City Planner Subject: New Two Story Residence at 1029 Balboa Ave. Public Hearing April 141h Dear Ms. Monroe, As a neighbor living directly across the street at 1028 Balboa Avenue, I have several concerns: `- 1.This was originally a single lot that was allowed to be split approximately two years ago. This is just another example of the demise of what made Burlingame a wonderful place to live. I know it can't be changed but it's worth repeating. 2.This will add to the parking problem on our block. We now have many cars from the El Camino apartments parking on our block. What ever happened to the old days when you couldn't park on the street between 2 AM and 6 AM? It certainly made the city more attractive. I don't know why we even need street sweepers when they just drive down the middle of the street. 3.Construction this close to the creek and trees could ultimately contaminate the creek and kill the trees. 4.The prospect of having two large houses jammed into a small space is of great concern. The front of my house has a beautiful outlook on the trees and greenery and I'm afraid that looking at a garage, etc. will lower my property value. 5.My biggest concern is that the house cannot be built without disturbing the large redwood tree in the front. Limbs will definitely have to be cut back to make room for the garage which could lead to killing the tree. I believe that when the lot split was approved it had a provision for not disturbing the trees. In conclusion, this lot split was technically wide enough but considering the creek —� and trees, not practical or in the bests interests of the block. We are not against progress but in this case feel this project does not meet the aesthetic values of Burlingame. ohn &Kathleen Phelan 1028 Balboa Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED APR 14 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME -� PLANNING DEPT. MAY 07 2003 1 1 : 31 RM HP LASERJET 3200 'Oa AO� e p 2 COMMUNIUA i ION RECEiVEG MTER PREPARAf101*i I appreciate you hearing my concerns: OF 57AFF RLPO RT I feel even though the size of the proposed house might fit within the city codes the Proposed size will have a big impact on the neighborhood. When we first purchased our home we fell in love with what was its natural setting and open area around us. The proposed design is very long and boxy. I am against the variance because of the additional bulk to the proposed home. I feel this committee has always tried to break up the bulk mass with "gables" and by other means. If the variance is approved I feel the council is endorsing an apartment style house in a heavily wooded neighborhood setting. Not to mention this house will block more light and open space that is the neighborhoods charm. Over the past year we have watched a new home go up on the adjoining lot. It is amazing how much sunlight we have lost. Not to mention the scenery. With another two story home being built I will lose most of my afternoon sun. Should this home be considered I would like to have the story poles put in place for the neighbors to view the size of this house. I can't emphasize enough how much sunlight we lose not to mention the scenery. k E Another reason of concern is the flow of the creek. There are several homes being built along the creek. The empty lots are being replaced by large homes and concrete. Therefore allowing more water to run off into the creek. Just this past winter my neighbor lost a large portion of the creek's retaining wall, which will have to be replaced this spring. I have lived alongside the stream for the last 8 years and this is the worst flooding I have seen. The water overflowed the creek bed and ran across our back yards for several hours. I do have a video of the creek over flowing should the committee like to view this. With this new home being built the water running away from the house will surely put more pressure on the creek. Another point 1 would like to mention is McClenahn's letter from August 17, 1998, which is on file with the planning commission. They rate the condition of the trees less favorable than the report being presented by Mr. Schembri. But this report clearly mentions that new construction will have an impact on the trees. They are claiming the piers should limit root damage by un to 40 percent. Does this mean there is a 60 percent chance or higher that the roots will be damaged? I would also like to remind the committee of their statements made when the lots were Split. "If the development ruins a tree that was intended to be saved it would truly be an embarrassment to the city". It was also noted by committee members that the Redwoods have a wide and shallow root system, which are very sensitive to driveways, Parking and paving. It should be noted that when the grading is done to keep the water away from the house its going to go towards the trees. As the committee is well aware any change to th environment of these trees could cause the trees to die off NECEIVE MAY - 7 2003 CM OF BURLINGAVIE PLANNING DEPT I i MAY 07 2003 11 : 31RM HP LASERJET 3200 P. 1 I also feel this house does not fit in with the neighborhood. All most all of the homes in the area have detached garages set on the back of theirro rt , The front of resembles that of a garage apartment. 1 also feel the back of theyhouse, whi hthe will be house facing my property looks more like an apartment building. they are trying to hard to put such a bulky house on such a small lot.n it is my feeling that Thank you, 4�'_ 5 Andrew& Sarah Stypa 1024 Cortez Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Post-It"Fax Nota 7671 D°i1s7 o� DaO6'� TO From co-m-pt. Co pt*xw a Phots MCS-, 17, 9 Fax• / Fax 7 9 i RECEIVED MAY - 7 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I I RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,DESIGN REVIEW,AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review,special permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for first a new two-story residence at 1029 Balboa Avenue zoned R-1, Charles J. Schembri, property owner,APN: 026-165-230; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame held a public hearing on said application on October 27, 2003, at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS,this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on March 1,2004,at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW,THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 Class 3 —construction and location of limited �- numbers of new, small facilities or structures including(a)single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more of such units, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review, special permits for declining height envelope and attached garage are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit"A" attached hereto. Findings for the design review and special permits are as set forth in the staff report,minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 Planning Commission held on the l"day of March, 2004,by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope 1029 BALBOA AVENUE effective March 1,2004 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 15,2003,Sheets Al-A5,A9,L1.0,Cl and TSI,site plan,floor plans, building elevations,landscape plan,erosion control plan and topographic survey; 2. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,replacing or relocating a window(s),adding a dormer(s)or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 3,2003,March 20,2003 and April 22, 2003 memos,the Chief Building Official's December 27,2002 memo,the Fire Marshal's December 20,2002 memo and the City Arborist's March 20,2003 memo shall be met; 4. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition,grading or building permit from the Building Department. All requirements of the BAAQMD permit shall be met; 5. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property comers,set the building envelope; 6. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 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; 8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 9. that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10.that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; -2- Conditions of approval for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope 1029 BALBOA AVENUE effective March 1,2004 11. that during construction and the applicant shall be responsible for the implementation of the establish erosion control plan shown on Sheet C 1 plans date stamped October 15, 2003; 12. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission; 13. that the Certified Arborist report dated February 26, 2003 and the tree protection measures listed on sheet L1.0 on the plans date stamped October 15, 2003 shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction; 14. that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; �. 15. that the tree protection measures listed in the report done by S.P.McClanahan Co.,Inc.dated August 17, 1998 and a February 17,2000 letter that were part of the original lot split in 2000, shall be adhered to in addition to all requirements by the current arborist overseeing this project; 16.that the applicant shall submit a root protection area plan to the City Arborist for approval before a building permit is issued by the Building Department for the new single-family residence; 17. that the applicant shall submit a footing foundation plan to the City Arborist for approval along with the building application for approval prior to Building permit issuance; 18. that the applicant shall submit a pre-foundation pour report to the City Arborist for approval of protection measures at the time of application for a Building permit; and the applicant shall schedule pre and final foundation pour inspections with the Building Department to insure adherence; 19. that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist's report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for 3 years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the 3-year period; the trees shall be inspected for ~" compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the 3-year period; -3- Conditions of approval for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope 1029 BALBOA AVENUE effective March 1, 2004 20. that prior issuance of a grading permit or any grading on the site or issuance of a demolition permit, a root protection zone shall be established around the protected oak trees and the redwood tree and the installation shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist;the tree protection measures shall be checked by a certified arborist weekly and a written report on the status submitted to the City Arborist; and that the protective fencing shall not be removed until a final Building inspection takes place on the site and the certified arborist determines that it is appropriate to remove the tree protection; 21. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the creek bed or storm drain system;the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cuttfill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 22. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 23.that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 24. that protective fencing shall be installed along the top of bank (merges with 100-year floor as shown on site plan sheet Al,date stamped October 15,2003); and that at no time during demolition, grading, or construction of the proposed project shall construction materials,debris or equipment be stored beyond the top of bank boundary,this includes the terraced area with the retaining walls between the upper top of bank which merges with the 100-year flood line and the lower top of bank adjacent to the Sanchez Creek channel; 25. that should any activity on the project violate any tree protection measure established by the certified arborist, all activity on the project shall be stopped immediately. The City will then retain at the applicant's expense a third-party arborist to implement and enforce the tree protection measures in cooperation with the certified arborist retained by the applicant. The third-party arborist will submit an estimate of the cost of conducting weekly,or more frequent if he determines it be necessary,inspections of the property until project completion, and the applicant shall deposit an amount equal to that estimate -4- Conditions of approval for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope 1029 BALBOA AVENUE effective March 1, 2004 wit the City to draw upon to pay the third-party arborist for the inspections and reports conducted to completion. Upon the deposit of the money and correction of the violations of the protection plan,work on the project may resume upon written consent of the City Planner. The City Planner will determine when the deposit is reaching a point at which it requires additional funds given the progress and timing of the project and shall require the applicant to deposit such additional monies as may be necessary to satisfy the requirements. If the deposit is exhausted and additional inspections are needed under this condition, work on the project shall stop until the deposit required by the City Planner is made. The certified arborist shall be authorized by written agreement form the applicant to stop work on the project at any time that a tree protection measure is violated. The third-party arborist, if any shall have the authority to order that all activity on the project be stopped whenever that person determine that a tree protection measure is being violated; and 26. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. -5- ROUTING FORM -- DATE: March 31, 2003 TO: city Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist City Arborist City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-l; APN: 026-165-230. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 31, 2003 CR i Reviewed By: Date of Comments: `iZ e3 ROUTING FORM DATE: March 13,2003 TO: ZCity Engineer _Chief Building Official _Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist, _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1;APN:026-165-230 STAFF REVIEW:Monday,March 17,2003 4, eam# WM) 12(/0©2 5va— kwtt/- cur ' --'VZ-0 � 0C WAfle& VR" &t-K- 5" "tet-( Oat, W4'q6 per, ww-4.'rsy 1(40 t am -rr IJ o of 'Vft w tom- 146 m" -tir 6r-W R Y/,r—. tfiO4(tr Reviewed By: Date of Comments: F S ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: ZCity Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist �Sr. Landscape Inspector City Attorney FROi :`-- Planning.Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. kovbw/st tgvo "Wf qVU cft' r STS� Aaw it aj � . 1-014-c nc, ew-q ( , per( A" vet Reviewed By: Y"- Date of Comments: (:21 34� _i PUB LIC.WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS '( - WWI Project Name: ray Project Address: k .The following requirements apply to the project 1 A property- boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall.show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior- to the building permit issuance.) U4jooq —AWvbyt V-A f t,&,T- q"r a poY 2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be�' drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone,the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 '� Asa tary sewer lateral IM is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify miti -•`bi measures. Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division.The parcel map shall show all existing property lines,easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Pagel of 3 U:1private developmenAPLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS_doc. - PUBUG:WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12. Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall,at its own cost,design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk,curb, gutters,parking meters and poles, trees,and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction-to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area; creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers - —_- Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 The project shall comply with the-City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 to e e .Any widening of the driveway is subject Io City Engineer's approval. 22 Y The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the.driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U.Nprivate developmentTLANNING REVIEW CONRAENT3_doc t PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 U-.Wvate developmenAPLANNING REVIEW CONMENTS_doc ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16,2002 TO: City Engineer 7Chief Building Official Eire Marshal Recycling Specialist Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff --- - R— SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official /ire Marshal _Recycling Specialist Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. Reviewed By: Date of Comments: �— ROUTING FORM DATE: December 16, 2002 TO: City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal /Recycling Specialist Sr. Landscape Inspector _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1, APN: 026-165-230. � �vYt G o� 0- 's Reviewed By: 4 17 A Date of Comments: �-���--- ROUTING FORM DATE: March 13, 2003 I,TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1029 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1; APN: 026-165-230 STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 17,2003 �'o 'Y 15 c/o 4 5- 7A� I s Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ���a Zo 3 .t A,CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT euRu)rcwmE 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 Site: 1029 BALBOA AVENUE Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application for design review and special permits for an attached garage and declining height PUBLIC HEARING envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling NOTICE at: 1029 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1. (APN:026- 165-050). The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Monday, March 1,2004 at 7:00 P.M.in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,California. I Mailed: February 20, 2004 I i i (Please refer to other side) j CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic ay be reviewed prior to the meeting a 1 D p ent 1 Primrose Road, Burlingame,Cal' If you chall ge t u ma be limited to raising onl os ssues ed a e blic hearing, described i 'c d to the city at or prior t C A t. 3 IF 0 IR %4 1 A Property ov i iers M91 or ij ing their tenants a t thi no 1 mformati0 ple se call (650) 558-7250.1iank u. (ys■" f,! P 9 Margaret City Planner PU ICE (Please refer to other side) 410' ...... 021 41 ir Oo 'K -h I 41i 4i -- �71 44 41 g, 41 PA SY • Aj 46. AlAkl 10,- vv, .7 "ol. 4u 4t' -ly IN 46 T 47, Nl( Air �r� CITY kSTAFF REPORT guRLiNGAME AGENDA ITEM # 6b MTG. 1, ,0C DATE 3.1.04 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL STJBMITTED",.,jj4-&j ,,, BY DATE: FEBRUARY 20 2004 APPROVED FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZON CODE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE FIRST FLOOR FOR 24 MONTHS. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed change. Affirmative action should be to adopt the proposed ordinance. If the ordinance is adopted it becomes effective in thirty days, April 1 , 2004. However, if after a public hearing the Council should decide to add others of the four uses proposed for the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area, it is necessary to re-introduce the ordinance with those amendments. 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. The second reading and public hearing should then be set for March 15, 2004. BACKGROUND: Garbis and Maida Bezdjian, the owners of the property at 1199 Broadway, have requested that four land uses presently prohibited on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area be allowed. The four uses requested are financial institution, real estate, health services (medical offices) and general office uses. In their request the applicant did not state a preference for whether the uses should be allowed as permitted or conditional. The Planning Commission studied (December 8, 2003) and held a public hearing (January 12, 2004) on the request and recommended to the Council that the zoning code for the Broadway Commercial Area be amended to allow financial institutions on the first floor for a period of 24 months. City Council Study At their meeting on February 17,2003, the City Council reviewed the applicant's request to allow four, now prohibited uses, in the Broadway Commercial Area. After discussion the Council directed staff to prepare an ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE FIRST FLOOR FOR 24 MONTHS. March I,2004 ordinance which would allow financial institutions on the first floor for a period of 24 months in the Broadway Commercial Area. In the zoning code financial institutions are defined as (CS 25.08.264): "Financial institution" means: 1. A state-licensed bank, national bank, savings and loan association, savings bank, federal credit union, state-licensed credit union, industrial loan company or finance company and money machines associated with them; and 2. A financial institution installed in another business, whether financially independent or not, shall be considered a financial institution, and required to meet all requirements of Title 25 for financial institutions. 3. Free standing automatic teller machines (ATMs) or similar machines dispensing currency and other items for cash or debit shall not be considered financial institutions. Investment advisors or brokers are not financial institutions (CS 25.08.388) but are an office use. The proposed revision would allow financial institutions only for a period of 24 months. At the end of 24 months the financial institution use would become, again, prohibited. If the property owners/merchants or Council wished to continue financial institutions as a permanent use in the Broadway Commercial area, the zoning code would need to be changed, within the 24 months, to remove the"sunset" clause for the use. The reasons given by the Council for supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow financial institutions for a trial 24 month period were: the number of vacancies in the Broadway Commercial Area seem to be on the decline; some of the vacancy appears to be related to the price of the space; if financial institutions will help its OK, but do not believe in additional space for services without foot traffic, need to keep the goal (maximize pedestrian oriented retail activity) of the street in mind, the comments of the merchants and residents are to keep it the way it is. If doctors are allowed they will pay more rent and am concerned that the result will be to increase the rent for the retailers. Feel that it is good to prohibit real estate because they create too much traffic and can't control to density of the use; medical uses are a destination, people don't combine trips to the doctor and shopping; offices are allowed on the second floor and there is no values added by having them on the first floor as well; customers of financial institutions have pretty quick turn over like a dry cleaners so will have a neutral effect and are OK; feel that based on the number of responses and the distribution of the responses the survey was not directive; not clear why we need to change one use, but financial institutions are OK. Council voted 4-0-1 (Councilwoman Baylock absent)to introduce the ordinance to allow financial institutions on the first floor as a conditional use for 24 months in the Broadway Commercial Area. The second reading and public hearing were set for March 1, 2004. The Staff Report for the Council Study meeting of February 17, 2004, along with the annotations for the requested changes to the uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area are attached at the end of this Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Section 25.36.041 to Allow Financial Institutions as Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. City Council Staff Report, February 17, 2004, Introduce Ordinance to Add Uses to the Broadway Commercial Area, Zoned C-1 Broadway Commercial Area, with attachments including Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area. Notice of Public Hearing, City Council, published February 21, 2004. 1) I ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 25.36.041 TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS CONDITIONAL USES 2 IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA 3 4 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 5 6 Section 1. The economic and social health of the Broadway Commercial Area is a vital part of 7 the Burlingame community. Broadway merchants and property owners have requested the City to loosen 8 some of the controls that were put in place to sustain the retail character of the area, so there is more 9 flexibility in tenants and business opportunities. This ordinance will allow financial institutions as a 10 conditional use so that the size,frontage,traffic impacts of locating such a use at a specific property in 11 the area can be evaluated, while at the same time providing an opportunity for such a business. The 12 ordinance change will only last for two years, so that it can be reevaluated for its effect on the area. 13 14 Section 2. Section 25.36.041 is amended to read as follows: �- 15 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. 16 (a) Permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Except as otherwise provided in this 17 section, uses permitted in the C-1 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. 18 (b) Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses 19 allowed in the C-1 district, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area 20 pursuant to a conditional use permit: 21 (1) Food establishments; 22 (2) Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; 23 (3)Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above; and 24 (4) Health services above the first floor only. 25 (c) Prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the uses prohibited in the 26 C-1 district, the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area: 27 (1) Real estate; �-- 28 (2) All other offices on the first floor; and 1 (3) Psychic services. 2 3 Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective until March 31, 2005,unless earlier repealed, and 4 shall have no further force and effect beyond that date. If the ordinance ceases to be effective, the 5 provisions of Section 25.36.041 in effect when this ordinance was adopted shall be reinstated unless 6 otherwise provided by an ordinance subsequent to this one. 7 8 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 9 10 Mayor 11 12 I,ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing 13 ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17`h day of February, 14 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 15 , 2004, by the following vote: 16 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 17 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 18 19 City Clerk 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STAFF REPORT � AGENDA ITEM# MTG. 'S 0; DATE 2.17.04 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SI7B BY DATE: FEBRUARY 4.2004 APPROVED FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT:INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: City Council should consider first the applicant's request to allow on the first floor four uses presently prohibited in the Broadway Commercial area. These uses are:financial institutions,real estate,medical offices and general office uses. Action alternatives are: ➢ If Council should determine that any or all of these four uses should be considered as permitted or conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area,Council should direct staff accordingly and introduce an ordinance to amend the zoning requirements for the Broadway Commercial Area. ➢ If Council should decide that no change to the existing zoning in the Broadway Commercial Area is appropriate at this time;and the four uses should remain prohibited,Council should direct staff. No public hearing is required and the matter is closed. If Council should direct any change to the current zoning requirements for the Broadway Commercial area, Council should set a public hearing and second reading of an ordinance. Staff would recommend that this item be set for public hearing at your meeting on March 1,2004. 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. Request: Garbis and Maida Bezdjian,the owners of the property at 1199 Broadway,have requested that four land uses, currently prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area(shown on the attached map), should be allowed on the first/ground floor either as permitted or conditional uses. The four uses are: financial institutions,real estate offices,health services and general office uses. The applicant stated no preference for whether the uses jld be allowed as permitted or conditional uses. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED Gl BROADWAY COMMERCJAL AREA. FEBRUARY 17,2004 The request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at study on December 8, 2003. The public hearing and action was taken by the Commission on January 12, 2004. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council consider allowing only one of the uses, financial institutions and that they be allowed only as a conditional uses. In addition they felt that financial institutions should only be allowed for a trial period of 24 months. Commissioners felt that the remaining three uses requested should continue to be prohibited on the first floor. These uses to be prohibited are: real estate, health services and general offices. It should be noted that health services and general office uses currently are allowed above the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. The Commission proposed that these uses continue to be allowed above the first floor. In their action the Commission found that the portion of the request they could recommend, financial uses for 24 months, was consistent with the existing General Plan as it describes the character of the Broadway Commercial Area and for that reason their recommendation was not subject to CEQA review. (see below) General Plan Compliance The General Plan Land Use Element, adopted in 1969, allowed on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area the uses presently requested to be allowed on the first floor: financial institutions, real estate(offices), health services, and general office uses. Since 1969 the zoning has been changed in the Broadway Commercial Area to prohibit these four uses on the first floor; however, the land use description in the General Plan was not amended for the Broadway Commercial Area, as a result these uses may be allowed once again as either a permitted or conditional use without amending the General Plan Land Use Element. Environmental Review/CEQA Compliance If the present request to add financial institutions, real estate offices, health services and general office uses on the first floor is found to be consistent with the Burlingame General Plan, then it appears that the addition of the four requested uses in the Broadway Commercial Area is consistent with CEQA and no additional environmental action seems required. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on January 12, 2004,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keele absent)to recommend to the City Council that the zoning code be amended for the Broadway Commercial area to allow financial institutions as a conditional use for 24 months and that real estate, health service and general office uses remain prohibited on the first floor. In their discussion about their recommendation the commissioners noted: it is surprising that a space would go two years without a tenant and wondered if this was the result of market restrictions or market pricing, because believe if a space were truly below market price it would be occupied; did own research of residents west of Broadway and employees in the Airport Blvd. area, do not want dental offices, financial institutions on Broadway, they want more retail; Broadway impacted by genesis of larger full service businesses, community loyalty has drifted away, now need to infuse quality merchants to draw people, not want windows curtained with no view into stores; feel health services would impact negatively, don't generate much foot traffic, patients occupy parking for longer than retail user, and these uses would occupy a lot of street frontage on the first floor, questions is how would each of these uses generate pedestrian activity? Asked for more information from applicant so could understand the difference in pedestrian activity generated by each use but the applicant did not provide. Commission continued: Could do a trial but unwilling to do that without knowing how fast the impact might occur, would it result in 401/6 of the first floor areas being occupied by office during the trial period,which then become nonconforming thus potentially permanent; input of residents and merchants is mixed, survey was helpful, but people who live here's vision of Broadway is more of a local serving business area, INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAYCOMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED Gl BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. FEBRUARY 17,2004 Burlingame Avenue is the primary downtown; concerned about uses with"closed shutters" on the first floor, cnidd have the same impact as 10 vacancies; feel that financial institutions and real estate uses should be xed for 18 months because they are a part of a neighborhood service area, health services and general offices should not be allowed on the first floor at all, want a commercial area which draws people in; concerned that existing tenant spaces or properties will be merged and larger, first floor office spaces(greater than 4,000 SF) created which would have a negative impact on the character of the retail commercial area; developers are successful because they know what they need to do to bring quality tenants into an area, that is the approach needed on Broadway; Broadway has an advantage as a retail area, people live nearby; in addition lots of merchants and people are concerned about this change and that it will increase rents which will squeeze out small businesses. Of the 5 vacancies in the Broadway area now,three are in the applicant's building, that means there are only 2 vacancies and that is not enough to justify a change in the uses in the commercial area; zoning should be left as it is and small business tenants should be sought out. BACKGROUND: History: In 1969 the City of Burlingame adopted its General Plan, including the Land Use Element. At the time the General Plan was adopted financial institutions, real estate offices, health services and general office uses were all allowed on the fust floor on Broadway. In the General Plan, the Broadway area was described: "Broadway Center: Outlets in this center now provide convenience goods and consumer services for residents in the general vicinity. Although many of the businesses here are well established and apparently successful enterprises,better circulation, more parking, and better urban design would enhance this center. Separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and �- reduction of through-traffic on Broadway is needed. Recommendations for improving the traffic circulation pattern are presented in the Circulation Element. These include a grade separation for the railroad tracks and improvement of the Broadway-Bayshore Freeway interchange to relieve traffic congestion at that point. Consideration should be given to creating a pedestrian precinct on Broadway in the section between Laguna Avenue and Capuchino Avenue. Additional off-street parking access to such lots from the new streets indicated on the plan diagram. An urban design plan should be developed for this center to provide more detailed guidance for future changes." (Land Use Element, page L-5) And the Goals and Policies established for the Broadway Center were as follows: VI Goal: To encourage mixed commercial uses to provide a transition between districts fully commercial or residential and to provide housing opportunities for those dependent on transit and desiring a pedestrian-oriented living environment. Policy L(G): The City should retain three general categories of commercial uses: Shopping and Service, service and Special Sales, and Office Use; as well as Waterfront Commercial along the waterfront area. Policy L(14): Broadway Center: outlets provide convenience goods and consumer services for residents in the general vicinity: 1)Better circulation, more parking and better urban design would enhance this center including separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction ofthrough-traffic on Broadway. z INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TOADD USES TO THEBROADWAYCOMMERML AREA, ZONED GI BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. FEBRUARY 17,2004 2)Consider creating a pedestrian precinct on Broadway in the section between Laguna Avenue and Capuchino Avenue. ^� 3)Provide off street parking to the rear of present business outlets fronting on Broadway with access to such lots from new streets. 4) Develop an urban design plan to provide more detailed guidance for future changes. The Land Use Element adopted in 1969 was broadly implemented by the C-I zoning district and all the uses, permitted and conditional in the C-1 district were allowed in the "Broadway Center". In 1984 the Broadway Commercial Area was created to facilitate implementation of the General Plan and the map defining the area adopted. As a part of adopting the Broadway Commercial Area the city also limited the uses in the area by prohibiting banks, building and loan associations, financial institutions and offices on the first floor (this would include medical offices). Later the prohibited uses on Broadway were expanded to include real estate and psychic services; in addition food establishments were limited in number and by type. However, it should be noted that all of these uses were originally allowed in the 1969 General Plan. The changes to the permitted uses over time occurred at the request of the local business operators and property owners with the intention of promoting retail sales of convenience goods and customer services for those living in the area and supporting a separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The General Plan was not amended as uses were restricted because it was thought that the changes to the land uses were consistent with the planned goals, policies, role and function of the Broadway Center. Zoning Changes Presently the four uses requested to be allowed on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area are prohibited. Since California law does not permit "use variances", there is no way these uses can be approved in the Broadway Commercial Area except to amend the zoning code and establish them as either permitted or conditional uses. As it now stands the zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area builds on the C-1 zoning district regulations. This means that all uses permitted or conditional in the C-1 zone are allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area except as limited by the provisions of the Broadway Commercial Area, CS 25.36.041. The current Broadway Commercial Area zoning provisions make some currently permitted uses in the C-1 district conditional uses and prohibit some uses which are permitted or conditionalusesin the C-1 district. In a figurative sense the Broadway Commercial Area regulations "overlay" the C-1 district and provide for additional land use limitations. The requested changes in land uses would take four uses in the Broadway Commercial Area from the prohibited uses and make them permitted. The commission can determine if each of these uses should be permitted as a matter of right (e.g. without public hearing or Commission review) or if each should be allowed as a conditional use only. A conditional use is one that is reviewed by the Planning Commission and upon review can be "conditioned" or limited so that the proposed use can best addresses the circumstances of the particular location, e.g. parking availability, pedestrian accessibility, common business hours, layout to be consistent with existing street frontages, etc. Presently two of the four uses requested are conditional uses in the underlying C-1 district: financial institutions and real estate. Health service uses on the first floor or above are prohibited in the C-ldistrict. However, health service uses are currently allowed above the first floor in Broadway Commercial Area as a conditional use. General office uses are prohibited on the first floor and above in the C-ldistrict except in the area bounded by EI Camino Real-Murchison-California Drive-Dufferin where they are permitted. It would be more consistent administratively to have uses which are conditional in the C-1 district also be conditional in A INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED GI BROADWAY COMMERCL91,AREA. FEBRUARY I7,2004 the Broadway Commercial Area; however, there is no requirement that this be the case. The Commission may determine the designation of each of the four uses. The choices are: permitted, conditional use, -ihibited. The attached memo Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway commercial Area, December 30, 2003, reviews the zoning options. Survey of Merchants and Property Owners In October 2003, the City Council directed staff to do a survey of the property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area. The purpose of the survey was to obtain a reading of how the property owners and merchants felt about the requested change in uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Staff mailed 133 questionnaires and 43% were returned. Almost two-thirds (63%) of those responding were merchants. The questionnaire addressed each of the four land uses asking if the use should be allowed to occur (yes or no). For the "yes" option there were two independent choices, "yes without a public hearing" and "yes with a public hearing". The question was asked in this manner to measure which of these uses proposed to be allowed the respondents might feel should be conditional rather than permitted uses. The results in summary were: 75% of the respondents felt that financial institutions should be allowed on the first floor ; 14%of the respondents felt that financial institutions should be a conditional use. Total supporting adding financial institutions on the first floor was 89%. For real estate uses 74% felt that this use should be allowed, 11% of those responding felt that real estate uses should be conditional. Total supporting adding real estate uses on the first floor was 85%. For health services on the first floor 67% of the respondents felt they should be allowed; 19% of the respondents felt they should be conditional uses. Total supporting adding health service uses on the first floor was 86%. Finally, for General office uses on the first floor 72% responded that they should be allowed, but 14% of those responding felt that they should be a conditional use. ital supporting adding general office uses on the first floor was 86%. The majority of those responding to the survey felt that all four uses should be allowed as permitted uses. Two-thirds to three quarters felt that the four uses should be allowed as a matter of right (no public hearing required). Of the four uses health services was the one that the most respondents wanted to be a conditional use, 29%. The tabulation of the survey results and the letter which accompanied the survey are included in the packet for your reference. Also included with the survey is a compilation of all the comments made on the survey form. These comments indicate that the property owners are most interested in the change in uses to reduce vacant store fronts. The merchant's responses are less consistent. On the one hand they want fewer land use restrictions; on the other hand they want the local serving retail business district preserved Staff Comments: The Broadway Commercial Area is a regulation placed over the base C-I (retail sales and services) zoning district which further limits uses in the Broadway Commercial Area to achieve certain planning benefits e.g. contiguous retail development to encourage pedestrian circulation. As noted above over the years the uses permitted in the Broadway Commercial Area have changed. The four uses presently requested were at one time allowed in the area either as permitted or conditional uses. Since consistency in zoning administration and "a level playing field" for property owners and prospective tenants is important, staff would suggest that should any or all of these four uses be allowed, they follow the pattern of the C-I zone. If they are conditional uses in the C-1 zone they be conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. On this basis health services should be a conditional use on the first floor since they are allowed as a conditional use on the second floor in the Broadway Commercial Area now. Financial and real estate uses should be conditional uses on the `—st floor because they are conditional uses in the base C-1 zone at this time. In the case of General Office -s they are permitted in a limited area along El Camino Real zoned C-1, but otherwise are prohibited in the INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED GI BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. FEBRUARY 17, 2004 C-1 zone, indicating the serious impact this use could have on a predominantly retail area. For that reason General Office uses if allowed also should be conditional uses. The Planning Commission felt that, in the absence of studies to show the impacts these new uses could have on the rent structure or circulation/parking activities in the Broadway Commercial Area, if any of these uses or all of them were allowed it should be on an experimental or trial basis. In zoning such a trail is achieved by a "sunset clause", e.g. the opportunity for the use expires on a given date. The Planning Commission suggested that for financial institutions, the only use of the four which they recommended, that the opportunity "sunset" in 24 months. The annotations document dated December 30, 2003, included in the Planning Commission Staff Report, January 12, 2004, discusses these issues. ATTACHMENTS: Revisions to Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004, Item 8 Planning Commission Staff Report, January 12, 2004, with attachments Frankie Meyer letter January 26, 2004, to Meg Monroe, City Planner, Re: Shopping Districts in Burlingame Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amendment Section 25.36.041 to Allow Financial Institutions as Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR2004\lntroNewUsesBmadway 2.17.04.doc Revisions to City of Burlingame Unapproved Minutes January 12,2004 Corrections proposed by Commissioner Brownrigg to Item 8 of the City of Burlingame, Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes, January 12, 2004 Proposed corrections shown in strike out and italics below 8. APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, REAL ESTATE OFFICES, HEALTH SERVICES AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (349 RADIUS NOTICE/95 MERCHANTS NOTICED/STREET POSTED/NEWSPAPER NOTICE)PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the application to add four uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area, noting that if these uses were found to be consistent with the General Plan designation for the Broadway Center, CEQA issues would be addressed. Commissioners asked: if one of these uses were allowed for a trial period, say 24 months, by condition could the commission limit the lease to 24 months. CA responded it would be a problem for enforcement, leases are not city business, if the use were conditional the city could make it "temporary" and limit the use permit to 5 years for example, as we do on the Bayfront and the conditional use permit would be subject to review and could be revoked at that time; however, in general it should be expected that if uses �— are allowed and spaces filled that they will remain as the currently non-conforming uses in the Broadway Area have. In 1969 when the General Plan was approved any use was allowed them in 1984 the uses were limited, why? In the early 1980's the city was looking at Burlingame Avenue to create a high pedestrian traffic retail center (subarea A), Broadway merchants and property owners asked to be treated the same; so the Broadway Commercial Area was created with the same regulations as Subarea A of the Burlingame Commercial Area. How many store fronts are vacant at this time? CP did not know exact number at this time. Can the same kind of limitation of number and type used for food establishments be created for financial institutions and real estate offices. CA responded we do not have enough information to be able to determine the correct number; with food establishments we started with the number in the area at the time we established the regulation, that would not work here since the issue is creating opportunity for more of each of these four uses. Regulating the number and mix of uses needs to be based on a plan for Broadway. There is no plan or vision for Broadway which addresses the appropriate number of each of these four uses. Commissioner asked if any limit on the maximum square footage of each of these uses is proposed. CP noted no, in general the lots are small on Broadway and that limits the size of the individual commercial areas. Commissioner asked if two of each use could be allowed and the city could develop a lottery system to decide how to fill the opportunities. CP noted that the city had some experience with a lottery system as the food establishment regulations evolved and it was unhappy. Would not like to repeat. Do these uses address issues like Pilates? CP noted the City has other regulations in effect now which address physical fitness and training in the Broadway area. There were no further questions or comments from the commission. 1 Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. David Hinkle, 1616 Sanchez; John Root, 1407 Montero;Virginia Vince, 1301 Paloma;Maida Bezdjian,applicant,1199 Broadway;Garbis Bezdjian, applicant, 1199 Broadway; Ross Bruce, President Broadway BID; Saco Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway all spoke. As a BID advisory board member support the merchants opinion as expressed in the 80%support for the four uses in survey;position of BID board is to support members recommendation and to recommend if adopt the four uses,you should include a two year trial period; as a citizen, merchant and property owner on Broadway opposed to any change to the retail structure in the Broadway Commercial Area, like to keep the pedestrian orientation and protect retail. Afraid of unintended consequences,fear that allowing these uses will result in"shuttered windows and store fronts", doctors do not open windows for people passing by to look into;San Mateo has had a lot of experience with this,the Judd Green store for example which went dot.com with a very bad result on the retail area, in the end they did the same thing—limited these uses. Would like to see the retail neighborhood"feel"with small businesses of Broadway preserved,lots of change new families;feel that Broadway has turned the corner on the vacancies; contacted Paul Ferrari CEO of the Italian Market Place, he expressed desire to explore Broadway because he is looking for neighborhood locations e.g. location with quality, small businesses not corporate; see Broadway as an opportunity to support small local businesses which is different from Burlingame Avenue. Commissioner asked why start business on Broadway?Demographics in area have changed,lot of new young families can walk or bike to Broadway, rents have skyrocketed on Burlingame Avenue, Broadway rents much more reasonable. Commissioner asked do you think banks and real estate offices would be detrimental to Broadway? Had banks before, so OK,object to health services and other business offices; real estate seems more appropriate on EI Camino Real where there is more space; Broadway is for small businesses, a destination for shopping, bakery,deli's,where people will continue to return. Public comment continued: applicant stated heard pros and cons, the property at 1199 Broadway has been vacant for more than two years,now 4 to 5 vacancies besides 1199;current restrictions on uses hurt her financially, few people go to the stores, have had several prospective tenants,dentists,asset to Broadway,would raise revenue for the city and would generate foot traffic;there is a lot of available parking;also get a lot of calls for restaurants and delis, 4 to 5 today, referred them to the city; took a petition to 91 merchants and property owners who signed it,available to the city,supports removal of all C-1 zoning regulations in the Broadway area; BID wrote a letter to the Planning Department requesting that the city allow dental office on first floor at 1199,there was no response;have spent a lot of time and effort to rent,nothing has happened;need to remove restrictions it would benefit the merchants -and the city revenue. Commissioner asked there are a few new businesses on Broadway, why has your site been empty two years? Don't know,the interested people are dentists and delis. Lot of vacancy on Broadway,people come and go,tenants change during the time this request for uses has been processed; time to change uses allowed, have had inquiries from mortgage company, real 2 estate, insurance company health service; problem really is discrimination, there are already eye doctors and physical therapists on Broadway, have been told I cannot have a real estate office in my own building; no use in allowing health services on the second floor when the building does not have ADA accessibility; over 90 people signed the petition we took around, met with city staff, they noted that the wording was for the removal of all C-1 restrictions, city staff wanted to do it their own way, OK; asked BID to write a letter. Commission asked to see the petition; it was not provided. CA noted that staff did not tell the applicant not to submit the petition. Submitted September 19, 2003, letter requested from BID supporting allowing the four uses requested and noting that the petition was not intending to eliminate the entire C-1 zoning restrictions but was to allow the four requested uses (health services, other office uses, real estate and financial institutions). The letter noted that "The petition was merely loosely worded". Applicant noted that City planner did do "ballot" on Broadway. The record is clear, there is discrimination, his family is suffering, want these four uses to get rid of the vacancy in his building, need to lease it soon. Commissioners asked it is surprising to be two years without tenants. Now asking city to change zoning; want to determine if this is a result of market restrictions or market pricing, therefore it is fair to ask which will have an impact on other residents, based on the fact that you have vacancies what rent are you asking? M-ershants v.,ant the hange, the mafket e 13feadway new is not . Asking $2.29 to $2.49 per square foot, way below Burlingame Avenue; have made improvements to building including a new roof and awning, think that his rate is below market. Commissioner noted that if truly below market the space would be full. Applicant noted that uses most interested are not allowed, restaurants and delis. Comments from public indicated actual average rents on Broadway. Commissioner asked over the years Broadway has gone through a genesis, are there other types of businesses which might do well there now? Don't know, would like to loosen regulations and let the free market make the decisions because we are having difficulty now. Commissioner asked based on your real estate experience what is the current range of rental rates in the Broadway area? Depends upon the size of the space and the condition of the building, but generally range from $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot; $2.29 per square foot is not below market rate; 1199 is the newest building on the street, it has some dedicated parking on-site and a good comer location, can get better rents than older, run down building. Public comment continued: For the record there are 8 first floor vacancies on Broadway, 3 have leases pending, of the 5 remaining vacancies , three are in Mr. Bezdjian's building at 1199; there are a couple of offices on the second floor also vacant. Would like all four uses to be conditional uses for a two year trial period, this would give the city control and flexibility as well as giving the ability to see if there were unintended consequences. Been a tenant at 1199 for two years, issue has been blurred, these four uses would not result in "closed shutters", they would be neighborhood businesses and would regenerate Broadway; his four employees generate business for Broadway, without service businesses retail would not survive because there is not enough foot traffic; look into allowing for 24 months, stop after that, Broadway needs something. There was no more comment from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: did own research of residents west of Broadway and people who work on Airport Blvd.; consensus was do not want dental offices, financial institutions on Broadway, 3 want more retail, need to hear from residents. In the past uses rolled in and out of Broadway, may have dried up because of competition from Big Boxes and Burlingame Plaza — sucked away by the larger full service businesses; community loyalty drifted away; need to infuse quality merchants to draw people, agree not want windows curtained to block view into stores. Question the value of health service, visits take an hour or more, dentist sees 8 — 10 people a day much less foot traffic than retail and uses a lot of street frontage space; what we need to do is rejuvenate quality merchants; financial institutions and real estate uses generate pedestrian activity, real question is how does the use add foot traffic. At last meeting asked for more data to understand existing conditions and understand what effects change in use might have; information like existing FAR by use; no information provided so cannot make a educated decision. Mentioned before that could do a trial, but without information unwilling because don't know if open to office might result in 40% of Broadway becoming office use; talked to merchants, lot of residents and received mixed responses; merchant survey helpful; people live here, the vision of Broadway is more local Business, Burlingame Avenue is the primary source of business revenue; need data about what is there, the percentage of different types of businesses, exact vacancies and where they are located. Concerned about comments about shutters being closed affecting the street, all closed could have the same effect as 10 vacancies; a lot of people talk about wanting a bakery on Broadway. CA noted could do now if there was no seating. Commission discussion continued: If rezone for one landowner, do we need to consider the input of others; sympathetic toward financial institutions and real estate uses, should be permitted; an 18 month trial period should be considered General office and health service uses should not be allowed at all. an 18 .nm«tfial peF Big impact is unlikely in 18 months since it will take anyone several months to put a business together and find a location; banks and real estate offices can be a part of a neighborhood service area. Agree an 18 —24 month trial period may be the answer; concerned that may join existing spaces to create offices and get 4,000 SF which would have a big impact; hear testimony that employees create foot traffic, want commercial area that draws people in, lived here 30 years seen Broadway change; all agree on what we would like to see, but cannot compel it to happen; if restrict real estate cannot be certain the vacant space will cause a bakery to locate there. As real estate professional would like to see rent survey, when a space remains vacant it can take years to recoup loss. Believe in free enterprise but more comfortable keeping area as is because not enough information to evaluate impact, article in Independent about Fourth Street area in Berkeley, developer successful because he knew what it took to bring quality tenants to area,that is the approach to take;Broadway has the advantage of having residents nearby, lot of people and merchants concerned about change, and resulting increase in rents which would squeeze out small businesses. There are 5 vacancies in the Broadway area now, 3 are in the applicant's building, this means that there are really 2 vacancies and this is not enough to justify a change in uses; applicant reduced his rent he could fill his space from the current use list; should leave zoning uses are is and seek out small businesses. Chair Bojues moved to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request for four additional uses in Broadway Commercial Area. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. 4 Comment on the motion: Would be willing to consider financial institutions :r�o•�'o�.ld-help ,edree vaasaneie in keeping with the neighborhood "main street"; the current number of vacancies is not enough to justify this kind of change; several commissioners noted they could support financial institutions as a permitted use; given definition, if allow financial institutions should be a conditional use because they are a conditional use in the C-1 district; is there a way to allow the applicant to operate a real estate business from his building without changing the code. CA responded no, would need to identify real estate use as either a permitted or conditional use. C. Osterling made a motion to amended his original motion to recommend to City Council that financial institutions be allowed as a conditional use in the Broadway Commercial Area with a 24 month sunset. C. Auran, second to the original motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Bcjues called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request change from prohibited to permitted real estate, general office and health service uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area and that they change from prohibited to a conditional use financial institutions on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area for a period of 24 months. Following the 24 months financial institutions would become, once again, a prohibited use in the Broadway Commercial Area. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keele absent). It was noted that this action now goes forward to the City Council as a recommendation for their action. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 5 Item # City of Burlingame Action Calendar Action on Request to Add Financial Institutions, Real Estate Offices, Health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor as Permitted Or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area Meeting Date: January 12, 2004 Planning Commission Action: The proposed request to add four land uses on the first floor to the Broadway Commercial Area is a change to zoning, therefore the Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to City Council. The Commission is being asked to make two decisions as a part of its recommendation to the City Council: 1 . Are the requested changes in land use consistent with the General Plan; and 2. Does the Planning Commission approve the changes to the land uses requested in the Broadway Commercial Area? In the Commission's recommendation to the City Council you have the opportunity to determine if all four uses should be permitted or some should be conditional or some continue to be prohibited; the Commission may also determine if whatever change in uses is recommended should "sunset" i.e. should be allowed for a stated period of time then revert to the current regulation (prohibition). CEQA Compliance: If the present request to add financial institutions, real estate offices, health services and general office uses on the first floor is found to be consistent with the Burlingame General Plan then it appears that the addition of the four requested uses are consistent with CEQA and no additional environmental action seems required. Request: Garbis and Maida Bezdjian, the owners of the property at 1199 Broadway, have requested that four land uses, currently prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area (shown on the attached map), should be allowed on the first/ground floor either as permitted or conditional uses. The four uses are: financial institutions, real estate offices, health services and general office uses. History: In 1969 the City of Burlingame adopted its General Plan, including the Land Use Element. At the time the General Plan was adopted financial institutions, real estate offices, health services and general office uses were all allowed on the first floor on Broadway. In the General Plan, the Broadway area was described: "Broadway Center: Outlets in this center now provide convenience goods and consumer services for residents in the general vicinity. Although many of the businesses here are well established and apparently successful enterprises, better circulation, more parking, and better urban design would enhance this center. Separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction of through-traffic on Broadway is needed. Action on Request to Add Financial Institutions,Real Estate Offices,Health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area January 12,2004 Recommendations for improving the traffic circulation pattern are presented in the Circulation Element. These include a grade separation for the railroad tracks and improvement of the Broadway-Bayshore Freeway interchange to relieve traffic congestion at that point. Consideration should be given to creating a pedestrian precinct on Broadway in the section between Laguna Avenue and Capuchin Avenue. Additional off-street parking access to such lots from the new streets indicated on the plan diagram. An urban design plan should be developed for this center to provide more detailed guidance for future changes." (Land Use Element, page L-5) And the Goals and Policies established for the Broadway Center were as follows: VI Goal: To encourage mixed commercial uses to provide a transition between districts fully commercial or residential and to provide housing opportunities for those dependent on transit and desiring a pedestrian-oriented living environment. Policy L(G): The City should retain three general categories of commercial uses: Shopping and Service, service and Special Sales, and Office Use; as well as Waterfront Commercial along the waterfront area. Policy L(14): Broadway Center: outlets provide convenience goods and consumer services for residents in the general vicinity: 1) Better circulation, more parking and better urban design would enhance this center including separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction of through- traffic on Broadway. 2) Consider creating a pedestrian precinct on Broadway in the section between Laguna Avenue and Capuchino Avenue. 3) Provide off street parking to the rear of present business outlets fronting on Broadway with access to such lots from new streets. 4) Develop an urban design plan to provide more detailed guidance for future changes. The Land Use Element adopted in 1969 was broadly implemented by the C-1 zoning district and all the uses, permitted and conditional in the C-1 district were allowed in the "Broadway Center". In 1984 the Broadway Commercial Area was created to facilitate implementation of the General Plan and the map of the area adopted. As a part of adopting the Broadway Commercial Area the city also limited the uses in the area by prohibiting banks,building and loan associations,financial institutions and offices on the first floor (this would include medical offices). Later the prohibited uses on Broadway were expanded to include real estate and psychic services; in addition food establishments were limited in number and by type. However,it should be noted that all of these uses were originally allowed in the General Plan. The changes to the permitted uses over time occurred at the request of the local business operators and property owners with the intention of promoting retail sales of convenience goods and customer services for those living in the area and supporting a separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation.The General �... Plan was not amended as uses were restricted because it was thought that the changes to the land uses were 2 Action on Request to Add Financial institutions,Real Estate Offices,Health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area January 12,2004 consistent with the planned goals, policies, role and function of the Broadway Center. Zoning Changes Presently the four uses requested to be allowed on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area are prohibited. Since California law does not permit "use variances", there is no way these uses can be approved in the Broadway Commercial Area except to amend the zoning code and establish them as either permitted or conditional uses. As it now stands the zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area builds on the C-1 zoning district regulations. This means that all uses permitted or conditional in the C-1 zone are allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area except as limited by the provisions of the Broadway Commercial Area, CS 25.36.041. The current Broadway Commercial Area zoning provisions make some currently permitted uses in the C-1 district conditional uses and prohibit some uses which are permitted or conditional uses in the C-1. In a figurative sense the Broadway Commercial Area regulations "overlay"the C-1 district and provide for additional land use limitations. The requested changes in land uses would take four uses in the Broadway Commercial Area from the prohibited uses and make them permitted.The commission can determine if each of these uses should be permitted as a matter of right (e.g. without public hearing or Commission review) or if each should be allowed as a conditional use only. A conditional use is one that is reviewed by the Planning Commission and upon review can be "conditioned" or limited so that the proposed use can best addresses the --. circumstances of the particular location, e.g. parking availability, pedestrian accessibility, common business hours, layout to be consistent with existing street frontages, etc. Presently two of the four uses requested are conditional uses in the C-1 district: financial institutions and real estate. Health service uses on the first floor or above are prohibited in the C-ldistrict. However, health service uses are currently allowed above the first floor in Broadway Commercial Area as a conditional use. General office uses are prohibited on the first floor and above in the C-1district except in the area bounded by El Camino Real-Murchison-California Drive-Dufferin where they are permitted. It would be consistent administratively to have uses which are conditional in the C-1 district also be conditional in the Broadway Commercial Area;however,there is no requirement that this be the case. The Commission may determine the designation of each of the four uses. The choices are: permitted, conditional use,prohibited.The attached memo Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area, December 30, 2003,reviews the zoning options. Survey of Merchants and Property Owners In October 2003,the City Council directed staff to do a survey of the property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area. The purpose of the survey was to obtain a reading of how they felt about the requested change in uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Staff mailed 133 questionnaires and 43% were returned. Almost two-thirds (63%) of those responding were merchants. The questionnaire addressed each of the four land uses asking if the use should be allowed to occur(yes or no). For the "yes" option there were two independent choices, "yes without a public hearing"and"yes with a public -� hearing". The question was asked in this manner to measure which of these uses the respondents might 3 Action on Request to Add Financial Institutions,Real Estate Offices,Health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area January12,2004 feel should be conditional rather than permitted uses. The results in summary were: 75%of the respondents felt that financial institutions should be allowed on the first floor ; 14% of the respondents felt that financial institutions should be a conditional use. Total supporting adding financial institutions on the first floor was 89%. For real estate uses 74%felt that this use should be allowed, 11% of those responding felt that real estate uses should be conditional. Total supporting adding real estate uses on the first floor was 85%. For health services on the first floor 67%of the respondents felt they should be allowed; 19%of the respondents felt they should be conditional uses. Total supporting adding health service uses on the first floor was 86%. Finally,for General office uses on the first floor 72% responded that they should be allowed, but 14% of those responding felt that they should be a conditional use. Total supporting adding general office uses on the first floor was 86%. The majority of those responding to the survey felt that all four uses should be allowed as permitted uses. Two-thirds to three quarters felt that the four uses should be allowed as a matter of right(no public hearing required). Of the four uses health services was the one that the most respondents wanted to be a conditional use,29%. The tabulation of the survey results and the letter which accompanied the survey are included in the packet for your reference. Also included with the survey is a compilation of all the comments made on the survey form. These comments indicate that the property owners are most interested in the change in uses to reduce vacant store fronts. The merchant's responses are less consistent. On the one hand they want fewer land use restrictions; on the other hand they want the local serving retail business district preserved �— Staff Comments: At the study meeting the Planning Commission raised two issues: (1)the need for additional data from the applicant to address issues such as changes in traffic circulation and volume as well as parking demand; and (2) could this change be"tried"for a period of time. The applicant has not responded to the planning commission's request for additional studies of the impacts which might be caused by the requested change in land uses.He did submit a letter dated October 15,2003, indicating that he would support a 24 month trial period for the four uses on the first floor. If the Commission determines that the requested land use changes are consistent with the present General Plan for the Broadway Center, such studies are not necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. In fact if the action were found to be consistent with the General Plan, no CEQA document seems necessary since allowing some or all of the uses requested would be allowing uses which were permitted or conditional uses in this area at the time the General Plan was adopted e.g.no intensification of land use. If the Commission feels that the additional studies and data is necessary to make your determination on whether these uses should be allowed on the first floor on Broadway as it exists today, then the lack of the information may affect the direction of your vote on the request to add the four uses on the first floor. On the second issue of whether these four uses could be"tried"for a period of time,the answer is yes. On several occasions the city has enacted zoning regulations which"sunset"e.g. expire on a given date. The time period for the expiration can be recommended by the Planning Commission. Since it often takes property owners time for different types of uses to become aware of new opportunities resulting from 4 Action on Request to Add Financial Institutions,Real Estate Offices,Health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area January12,2004 zoning use changes, sunset clauses usually go for at least 18 months to 2 years. However,the Commission may choose whatever time frame they wish. Staff would point out that when using a sunset option,those uses which to come into the area during the period of permission will become nonconforming after the sunset of the regulation. If the use is permitted at a given site one business after another of the same type can continue indefinitely at that location,but it cannot expand or intensify. The nonconformity is only lost if the nonconforming use is replaced by permitted use. If the use at a given site is a conditional use,then it may be replaced by another business of the same type which is willing to operate under the conditions established for that use on that property. A business which is a nonconforming conditional use may not ask for amendments to its conditional use permit that increase or intensify the use after the permitted status is lost. These factors should be considered when the Commission determines whether various uses should be tried as permitted or conditional. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments Map of the Broadway Commercial Area Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area, December 30, 2003 Application for C-1 zoning Change, Garbis and Maida Bezdjian with attachments Garbis Bezdjian letter October 15, 2003, amending application Monroe letter to Mr. and Mrs. Garbis Bezdjian, October 31, 2003, requesting additional studies With attachments Planning Commission Minutes, September 8, 2003 Monroe letter to Broadway Business Improvement District Board Members, September 12, 2003 Monroe letter to Garbis and Maida Bezdjian, August 25, 2003, explaining Commission direction with Planning Commission minutes of July 28, 2003 attached Ross Bruce letter to Planning Department, July 9, 2003 Results of Use Survey of the Broadway Merchants and Property Owners,November 2003, Planning Department Memo, December 2, 2003,with survey letter attached Mrs. Manal Arikat, Golden West Diamond Corporation, December 10, 2003,regarding parking in the Broadway Commercial Area Notice of Public Hearing, published January 2, 2004; notices mailed to all property owners and merchants were mailed December 31, 2003; notices posted in Commercial Area December 31, 2003. 5 ( 7n. O � O a ® it • M W " •�„ „ " O e ,o t W co uj 'lrtr l 7�tY � yv.' Alt ' �n S r�. ■ �+ t t F t no A ,« , co 3 Jr,, it Dr a r i cc i _ air ti .� l u t r i• oa ., Q ' © or r Q 97 � •©i a © n rO ti n \ t i I .IRY t ai C st . u (,orr,i I Y 9J rt t of 0J t 9 ' t ail Y - 1 { n —'uGi'rt �i x�• Q s cr ,. y O 9 t At r► '� O' c or i/ V c/ v ri r 9 60 d O S60 q 960 X60 O A Q t rt. © _• sJ 6 � ' � r ''t o Q of a zi a • p 1 /r rr • , p v • ,Jr ® , ' d �J of I - December 30, 2003 Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area Text additions are shown in "italics". Text removals are shown as&,WkethThese revisions make some assumptions which the Commission can adjusted as shown in the annotations. 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. (a) Permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Except as otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in the C-1 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. (b) Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses allowed in the C-1 district, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area pursuant to a conditional use permit: (1)Food establishments; (2) Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; (3)Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above; and (4)Health services on the first floor or above the first floor only; (S)Financial institutions on the first floor or above; (6) Real estate on the first floor or above; and _ (7)All other offices on the first floor or above. Annotation: It is suggested that all four uses be added as conditional uses for the following reasons. Health services are currently a conditional use on the second floor, therefore, it is consistent to make them conditional uses on the first floor. Financial institutions are a conditional use in the C-1 zoning district which is the base district for the area. It is consistent to make these uses conditional in the Broadway Commercial area. If they were to be made permitted uses section a above would need to be amended to read "Permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area including financial institutions on the first floor". Real estate uses are also conditional uses in the C-1 zone, so again for consistency it make sense, if they are to be allowed, to make them conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area_ If real estate uses were to be added as permitted uses the phrase above including financial institutions would be amended to add real estate uses. Finally all other office uses or general office uses are permitted uses in the C-1 zone only in the area bounded by EI Camino Real-Murchison Drive- California Drive and Dufferin Avenue, in all other cases they are prohibited in the C-1 zone. For consistency the general office uses could be added to the permitted list along with financial institutions and real estate uses or they could be a conditional use. In the case of general office uses a conditional use seems more appropriate, since the reason such uses were prohibited in the C-1 zoning district was because of the varying impacts they have on parking and traffic. The city has discovered over the years that an attorney's office, for example, may have 2 people in 1,000 SF or as many as 5 people in the same amount of space. The impacts of the same use can be substantially different. The same rational applies to real estate offices. In the Burlingame Avenue area a number of Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area December 30,2003 years ago, staff discovered a real estate office with one person per 90 SF and others with 2 people per 1000 SF. Real Estate offices often have many agents who have desks at the office but spend much `-- of their time in the field; however,weekly meetings bring all the agents into the office at one time for a block of time and this has a significant impact on parking. This was a serious problem in the City Hall area in the late 1980's. The impacts of health services on parking and circulation depend upon the type of service being offered and the tum over of people being seen e.g. the number of people the provider sees in an hour. Financial institutions such as banks or savings and loans have similar impacts, but also need available, high turnover parking on site or near by. Taken as a whole, and given the recent complaint about lack of parking in the Broadway area (see Mrs.Manal Arikat, Golden West Diamond Corporation, letter December 10, 2003), it seems it would be advisable to evaluate each application for its localized impacts before the business becomes established. Conditions can also insure that subsequent tenants conform to the same limitations if they turn out to be effective. (bc) Prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the uses prohibited in the C-1 district,the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area: (1) Finaneial institutions-, Ml Real estate- (3) All other offiees on the first floor-; and (4) Psychic services. Add CS 25.36.041 (d) (d) The following uses shall become prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area on October 1, 2005:financial institutions on the first floor, real estate on the first floor or above, health services on the first floor, and all other office uses on the first floor. Annotation: This section, if adopted would cause the additional uses requested to be allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area to return to prohibited status 18 months after the change becomes effective. This would allow a trial period for these four uses on the first floor, during which the city could evaluate the effect of them on the functioning of the Broadway Commercial Area. The sunset clause can be over ridden by the City Council amending the code to remove it. Generally this occurs prior to the expiration date. This action can be initiated by the merchants and/or property owners in the Broadway Commercial Area. It should be noted that any of these uses which are opened in the Broadway Commercial Area as a result of changing the code would be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses should the permission for the use "sunset". Also it should be noted that an existing nonconforming use can be replaced by the same nonconforming use at the same site. The nonconformity does not go away until the use on the site is changed. Any subsequent nonconforming use would have to abide by the conditions set out in the conditional use permit issued while the use was allowed. Changes to conditions of approval for uses which become prohibited are not allowed. Drafted: 2 City ofBurlingame Planning Depadment 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlineame.ore Cm APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit_ Variance Special Permit Other -" Parcel Number: Project address: l/99 L�'�OA e7Lc/AY !E�ieGi.✓�AisJF APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: S- SEZciviAN Name:,,,--.4gdis -'4-",IAA W L zd7iRr�1 Address: Address: O Q�2/tY6s4s� !�/,4y City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip:�/Lt s 6,,eez,Gt/ Q 95-21/o Phone(w): 6 rD-_3S/q-S<G4`7 Phone(w):_6J-o- -34e 5z-or?�f oz au'ip8 oxI (h) ARCHITECTIDESIGNER Name: Address: - City/State/Zip: Please indicate with an asterisk* '� Phone(w): the contact person for this project. RECEIVED JUN -2 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME /gyp PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: l'- / zo�i�,w /%fre�eC AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct Yo the best of my knowledge knnowledge and belief. Applicant's signature:. ��. - yDate: I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature• � � D te: 6-1-0-9 Date submitted: 4- 2-03 PCAPP.FPM RECEIVED JUN - 2 2003 CITY Of BURLINGAME GSIB PLANNING DEPT. GARBIS & MAMA BEZDJIAN 40 BERRYESSA WAY HILLSBOROUGH, CA. 94010 June 2, 2003 HONORABLE MAYOR, MS MARY JANNEY AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA. 94010-3997 Honorable Mayer Janney and Burlingame City Council Members: I am writing to you regarding Broadway Plaza at 1199 Broadway, Burlingame. This property that is the `jewel' of Broadway has been vacant for almost two (2) years. The Planning Department has objected to every prospective tenant that has called us. They maintain that there are restraints on certain businesses and that only retail business is allowed. These restrictions are hurting us financially as well as emotionally. Callers wonder why the space has been vacant for so long; when we tell them that there are restrictions imposed by the planning department, they shy away from Broadway and several have gone to other towns and have leased spaces without going through any hassle. Case and point; the planning department objected to a qualified dentist with many years experience who wanted to lease a space from us. We decided to conduct our own real estate business; we too were turned down. We thought we owned the building; I guess we don't. We have no right or the freedom to use our own building the way we see fit. This is not right at all; this is a violation of our civil rights, a violation of anti-trust laws and outright discrimination. Every time we embark on a plan for our property, we face new resistance and hurdles. There are 24 restaurants on Broadway at the present time and now the planning department is preparing to increase the number to 29. Yet there are only three (3) real estate offices (by the way there used to be a fourth one.) This is unfair and irrational; when there are 24 restaurants, five (5) gas stations and a cluster of beauty and nail salons, but only three (3) real estate offices. There is absolutely no justification or rationale to the objections. What really bothers us is the special statute, which states there will be no real estate office, why not restaurants, beauty salons, etc. When I was discussing this matter with the Broadway Merchant's Association President, he pointed out an interesting fact;there used to be four(4)real estate offices on Broadway that I should be allowed to replace the one that is no longer here and I should be able to secure my business license. I urge you to drive by on Broadway and check our building;it is one of the most appealing buildings on the street with striking architecture and exceptionally well maintained. Very few properties on Broadway have their own parking lots,ours does. It is a shame for such a building to be vacant for so long(2 years)because of the limitations imposed presently. We are asking you all to reconsider some of the C-I zoning laws and change Section 25.36.041. A. #4 Use prohibited of health services on the first floor. This should be changed since most of the buildings on Broadway don't have elevators. How would the handicap or the elderly reach the second floor? B. #1 Use prohibited of financial institutions. This also should be changed;financial institutions generate interest on Broadway and benefit the city,its residents and merchants. C. #2 Use prohibited of real estate office. We should have more than three(3)real estate offices on Broadway. It compels people to frequent the street thus,creating more revenue for the city. If a person is unhappy with one real estate firm,he or she should have the option of finding another one on the same street rather than going to Millbrae or San Mateo. D. #3 All other offices prohibited from being on the fust floor. Offices should be given the choice to either be on the first or second floor. We appeal to you to reevaluate the C-1 Zoning regulations based on the reasons we stated above. Laws are not etched in stone;they can be changed. Even the US Constitution has undergone changes in the form of amendments. We would like to ask you to put the wheels into motion and allow us to establish our real estate office and lease the vacant spaces to benefit the city and alleviate our financial burden. Sincerely/, l2// Garbis S.Bezdjian & aida M. �ezdljjian Cc: Mr.Larry Anderson,City Attorney, Ms Margaret Monroe,Planning Department 40 a a � w ,• ,i , • �.. `N4 •:' • 1. . ... ` •,' • ♦•:•r^r•.. �'•i L1.o. ^ �~ � r�'Me� 1f /• �a .••�fI•. R. .w.., y a' . T rlb + ♦pro• ', •►; • •.�•re�•�•1,'•w a"•':� �' •�s+��i• •4is•w•� s••i •I•. •»• "! M, . w.t. S T • •'�• • [� V ',i , r •' •,••aoI t•••+• s 4"► .w•s.a 1./ y�� •j� .•�•� A F�:�••t ie+ .• �, A a,i {"• • .I* .a a o • • ,rA.d• .A ` .Ii..•rl► sry, •�r•!! ar Z•*� *i •• w . . �* >:' •! .. _• a �� �• ,• 'lY. •.. e a • +��: .w+� ' . •.. 'x"`�v �•� .,- • •„�+ib►` •;} ..;'° ,. .st `:y • '• icR1';Ate• ���; a ���.�j.�� ,�r ;• "s • ;•'.i', s a•�� ••!��•!!A .• •'•. '•t,.'i• ..'at..M• ! . A•i•. � k n qi tb"w...'_; -• � ,./,». .i•�'•��./ Mb•y "tz+"'G. „�% r !+♦Ri"Yµr Ya . a i r."-�st ":ice � •.. y: r .,tn'. �^"� �•�� 'l3�p\b�k ,Ykq . .v "' . q •. 4911& k IV AA 4 ot lop Awp lw r� . 4` .•a,, f, may- q �. .Y^� 1. '• ' 1 ! r a�<! �~ham+�� M ♦ • • I ``+iiA \ '•, fir. Y h. e 161. .'�. 4 � : •. r A \ V X4.1 w•�_ • �.` err� *r • 1. ., . • �..� .`f�is. 4 pJ t�•i vI a�-(•I ' 1.. :�• � rr' - t _sVp � - .r ""•fir: I I.�.I_ ' -•_ • 71 ! _moi � .ytCF, y '. `� h: �^�' '7. Ss Nt r.y 4P e am / M � ..�1�r• r`�•I •�1� • � ri )~v •F�SI�� •, .�v et' ms's � *..� " y ./• ► a Ate•;•,•� :« .k yYt4 . •r t ..L Mty a4 w e . `.. .� ..� O S'.. . � .> J , !. � •9 +'�•'.. • SL.yw�R.✓7'U"1y...+JY..11� {'u.�� :. A �• .• i . . �. ^••/•.. Y + 1 r q .Y�. `1� ! P 'aY• i"6f" ^ ♦ i i�'s.�.'F�,^.cy H1 !. l J�!r. R'. ; wr. /..f • •��•r `Pr. ew 1 tl!y�t••, t� 1 My-N�•'�'�iC.l� R,"i � .i(.' ��t :7 .. • ♦e/I+ • A�.aj Ieg®1*i• .:. ,f '.,:. � !• • >o.. rpA p9 >�"+•1 Qly _,bw`�F+�4.',"k'Y r t tr -• • ^ 4r r' ''r d • ...� • •• s e � •`. F',c , �. ky't» s kr r'A°�'3 ro 6 t: ". � „r,,.• ,. „a • • • '�. . +. ^ .•ems r ,�, +' • ArI .�•.. n'Ba•N •.wf • 1 ... 7a. S^wlsk.^l '•2''Y7 .jy. AJ•lrr..• 5' +, ,• Js � `, •f ..•.•. w. •fir i � «. .. f„.a. , � 'w.. ►' <i1 'Y� •'3 '•" �aA. , �.Z :,` •\ 0 � 3 t•'s •. � ^i ' •� . : w > • 0:: �.� ,. ,-® ','J ?� .. ? r• '. F•� 7 ••s'C� .;ra p.. f .r s a4, '•. • r .' • - SAI .t !f 01 s -,..,^ .iS,•4 3aa is.T' 71 r ' ' 1 '�+ �:fir•";4: l 1 .. l w � awt� '.. ,�. tea, k .. ►'"•.::R�1`b;,.. �.�•'•. � _,".•!'r�'��„ '�-W,,, R'1'�1 r.�s,,, •x, � /�. �•;�, to ,y Y^±�( �y '�f A!!. • � ..r 7r Thr �j.: Z uwf Y,� {,.. .ly �I � �✓� i K ` y w�F'S��x � J�. �YW+I tJS��t wi , � � "2 rB,ry,�+l, y�'S�++,ena. '< Xtra �,•lw`s{.r y r '�3�. �dtl{{kMMV��GY��..�YfL � 'Nq L ��'^:���y I... r.•UFM t lY.. ::.. i Y"A'.�•`ta•.. • 6.ti' +� ... •` �•' 'fit .:4:i. R ^ •;"" w. l��''..•�.'1�� < '' '� "+,t0'��.4trn+.tw.w. Out �,,.,WK..c r ..+W.'1 yFN•.�t7 "�L!MJT'" � .q:� .nr�[M1' ��:. •'rte'. .�'� f'���w Ar�Y ���#� ""'f?1�J� �'j'• "*�.�' A w Ar;;,��.',W�,f„4. ¢wt� AL Aj y it JUN - 2 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PL NG DEPT. • �•�:�. • ,1' i.°wpb; • 1: '• •,1 •• � � ,may•�; v ! 1 ��:• •►•.• f. ,f 'r•' ear`tr ,�• � ,I •� � •Iw • k•- .'1,. • • i 5••,:4y•,. ,i,�. L••\::�••i rte• .t V�.f� � �.� :' ice•;;,, .. f 9; .• I • .. •..?r; �' • •'mss�� „s.' •, Al Iwo id w� ..�,,444...Yom[► ',• 4 A• ,� Qj��jn SP , • ro .' •• .• c >f. ,q ♦ 41r i J2'32sl- f� /3 A6 Scr �f /362�j- f'� A10 St RECEIVt6-L,/IJ JUN 2 2003 CM OF BURLINGNME . PLANNING DEPT 1 G (B GAMIS cZ,%"I)A (EZ 71AN 40 BERRT SSA WWA`Y HILLSBO1jQVW C4. 94010 October 15, 2003 RECEIVED OCT 16 2003 BURLINGAME CITY HALL CITY OF BURLINGAME MS MARGARET MONROE, CITY PLANNER PLANNING DEPT. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997 Dear Ms. Monroe: I am writing this letter regarding the Planning Commission and the Staff Study Meeting at Burlingame City Hall on the eve of October 14, 2003 where discussions and recommendations were made. Ms Ann Keighean recommended a 24-month trial period. After consultation with my family, we decided to go along with that recommendation provided we do not have to do the comprehensive study some commissioners talked about at the meeting. We hope after all is said and done, we could all benefit from the outcome. We feel a 24-month trial period would give us a real time, real world indication as to if the proposed policy will benefit or hurt Broadway. Complex studies are expensive, time consuming and ultimately theoretical. The studies cannot accurately anticipate between a good market and a bad market — a 60% office ratio versus a 15% office ratio. Additionally, we agree with Mr. Root's concern that the offices should not be curtained or shuttered to present a blank, closed face to the public. We would like to start our real estate and travel business as soon as we can; we also have a number of prospective tenants who are interested in the spaces but we cannot act upon until we receive the OK from the City. Please let us know as soon as possible of your decision so that we can get the ball rolling. Sincerely, Garbis S. Bezdjian `— Cc: Mr. Larry Anderson, City Attorney Mr_ James Nantell, City Manager CITY C BURL INGAME yoe `o a �AwTID.nn¢" The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRWROSE ROAD TEL: (650)558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAW,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 October 31, 2002 Mr_ and Mrs_ Garbis Bezdjian 40 Berryessa Way Hillsborough, CA 94010 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bezdjian, At the Planning Commission meeting on October 14, 2003, the Planning Commission asked that the applicant prepare a number of studies to facilitate the environmental evaluation of the request to amend the zoning to allow real estate offices,financial institutions, health services and general office uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. The following studies to address the environmental impacts of the change in use were — requested: • Parking, traffic and pedestrian flow, compare existing conditions to what is proposed-, • Economic impact of the change; • Effect on City services and infrastructure with the intensification or diminished use of the area; • Environmental analysis of parking if 25% of the area were office uses and if 50%were office; • Analysis should compare to existing conditions as a baseline,existing floor area ofthe various uses in the area, compared to the proposed change; • Need to consider the effects of having convenient transportation as part of the traffic and parking analysis, some employers might like the location because employees can take the train,may be less of an impact on parking; and • Need a cumulative analysis of impacts of different categories of change,at level of 25%office,or 50%office, should do a matrix analysis, each use with different floor areas within these categories. In addition at the City Council meeting on October 20, 2003, Council directed Planning Staff to prepare and distribute and evaluate a mailed survey of the merchants and property owners in the Broadway Commercial Area. The purpose of the survey is to ask their opinion about the requested changes to the uses allowed on the first floor in the commercial area. Before the request for the addition of the four uses to the Broadway Commercial Area can be scheduled for a public hearing and action by the Planning Commission Planning two things need to be done. Planning staff needs complete the mailed survey of the Broadway merchants and property owners. The Planning Commission needs to hear from you in writing regarding whether you wish to provide any of the additional studies requested and/or hat other additional information you may have to share that addresses the request to allow the four additional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Finally,you should tell us in writing if you wish to modify your application in any way. If you have any questions regarding the next steps in the processing of your request,I can be reached at(650) 558-7255. A copy of the minutes of the October 14,2003,Planning Commission meeting are attached for you information. Sincerely yours, f�Z arg et Monroe City Planner Attachments: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes,October 14,2003 cc. Larry Anderson,City Attorney 1199 Broadway,address file. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 14, 2003 Applicant response: Bill ods, project architect, and L ouri Ram, property owner sponded and noted that the original plans re approved to replace exist' g deck but then the owner ted a curved balcony; --� the front door was shed out 2 foot and the chi y was removed; tried not t lock the neighbors view, the lower deck ' used for access and fire sa ty egress for two sons an one daughter, not adding to occupancy; ) er deck is only 4' wide and 1 not be used for furniture is is not an apartment building; trying to ' imize the expanse of wall to fset the blank wall, make sthetically pleasing, not extending to create artment; expanding house for se by family, insulted that meone would tell us how many eople can a in house. There were no f er comments and the pu is hearing was closed. Commission discussion: bel' ve that there is a hardship n this property, sloping lot ma s it difficult to enjoy yard, good job in res nding to concerns, almos atches the previous deck, it is:duced in size from the previous proposal, 9 SF deck off the master be oom does not impede views, c �icerned with failure to sidewalk due to this roject, would like to see pplicant work out issues wit eighbor; safety issue is justification for t variance, need egress for Brooms, this is a unique prop e y; viewed from 6 Belvedere Court, did not a obstruction of distant vie s; findings support the reques d variance; excellent solution to safety probl with the connection to t lower deck. C. Vis 'ca moved to approve the ap ication, by resolution, with t following conditions: 1) that the project sha e built as shown on the ans submitted to the Planni Department date stamped September 30, 2 3, sheets CS1, Al throu A10, and L1, and that any c nges to building materials, exterior finishes, ootprint or floor area oft building shall require an am dment to this permit; and that that the floor area ratio variances shall onl pply to this building (and th decks) and shall become void if the building (or the decks) are ever expan d, demolished or destroyed y catastrophe or natural disaster or if they are replac or modified in any ay; 2) that the conditions o e City Engineer's June 23, 2003 memo shall be t; 3) that the applicant all comply with Ordinanc 503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Mana ent and Discharge Co rol Ordinance; 4) that du ' g demolition of the existing residence, site pr aration and constructio f the new residence, the plicant shall use all applicable "best managem t practices" as identified ' Burlingame's Storm Wat Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sed' entation of storm water off; 5) that the project is s ject to the state-mandated water conservation gram, and a complete brig on Water Management P1 must be submitted with landscape and irrigat' n plans at time of permit ap ication; 6) that demolitio f the existing structures and any grading or a moving on the site shall be quired to comply with al a regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality agement District; 7) that any improvements for the us hall meet all California Building and Fire Co es, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. a motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bojues ca ed for a voice vote on the motion to ap ve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg). peal procedures were advised. This item ncluded at 8:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR REQUEST TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, REAL ESTATE OFFICES, HEALTH SERVICES AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (41 RADIUS NOTICE/89 MERCHANTS NOTICED/STREET POSTED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS SP Brooks briefly presented the project description, noting that this is an environmental scoping session to determine what issues the commission considers to be potential environmental impacts of the proposed application to change to the zoning regulations for Broadway. There were no questions of staff. 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 14, 2003 Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Ross Bruce,President of the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID) Board of Directors, noted that the BID has come out in favor of the proposal, they were concerned with the original proposal because it would have removed the current controls on restaurant uses, �-- this request is to include various office uses,so the BID now supports. He noted that he had taken a sample survey of several Broadway merchants,and the response has been in favor;there is one Board member who does not support the proposal, and he is here to state his opinion. Gerald Weisl,Weimax Wines located on Broadway, lives at 136 Bloomfield, noted that the amount of available office space in Burlingame is significant,but retail is precious and limited,after looking at the proposal,would like to retain Broadway as largely retail. John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway, spoke in favor of the proposed zoning changes, noting that it is time to make changes to Broadway, but the types of retail that have come in recently do not attract foot traffic, business is slow and there are a lot of vacancies, want to bring it back to the way it used to be, financial institutions would be beneficial on the first floor, the economy will change, we want to attract the type of business that will bring larger numbers of customers. Commissioners asked if the merchants thought that the proposed uses would bring more foot traffic and asked when they had observed the changes and the decreased pedestrian traffic on Broadway. Mr.Kevranian noted that he believes the offices will bring in more foot traffic and noticed the decline about 4 to 5 years ago, he doesn't feel that it is just in response to the economic downturn. Commissioners noted that there were financial institutions on Broadway and they moved out on their own,how will the changes to zoning bring them back, confused that offices will bring more people, with a professional doctor's office, there would only be a handful of people, retail would bring more. Mr. Kevranian noted that dental offices can bring 60 to 70 people a day depending on the number of hygienists in the office,you could have a Mailboxes Etc.with a check cashing service which is not allowed now,real estate offices generate a lot of people that will patronize business, would like to see retail, but recently there has been the wrong kind of retail that doesn't generate foot traffic. Commissioners asked if opening up to office use could be the beginning of a dramatic change to the general use and flavor of Broadway,where retail will decline and more potential offices will move in and replace retail. Mr. Kevranian noted that before the current restrictions on office were put in place,Broadway was not taken over by offices. Ross Bruce noted that the BID did not collect any data to determine what this change would do,membership decided to roll the dice;think freedom would be helpful to Broadway now and later,it might push out retail later;Broadway goes through phases,used to be all antique stores,then real estate and insurance,should free up the restrictions to allow it to go through the phases;this may have unintended consequence,but we don't think so. Commissioners asked if the BID would like to see a mix of office and retail,or an area that is more offices and financial institutions together,what is the vision;how do you envision the mix in 10 years. Mr. Bruce responded that they see a combination of uses with retail,we do not always get what is anticipated, but a fair number of members feel that the current experiment with the office restrictions has run its course and a looser,free market approach may be worthwhile;have seen so many different versions of Broadway, don't know what percentage would work best,the area prospered during most phases,would like to see it seek its own level. Commissioner Keighran noted that she had met with Ross Bruce, Gerald Weisl and Dave Arminino to discuss this issue,presently we have restrictions on the number of restaurants,can we do that for offices,or could we try a trial run for two years and then revisit the issue. CA Anderson noted that approach can be 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 14, 2003 done,the City can try to structure a balance;when the controls on restaurants were put in place,the number was set by those that existed at the time the ordinance was adopted, would need to determine the criteria carefully;but once the business is allowed in,it will exist and it can't be taken back;you could also revisit the issue by adopting a new ordinance to pull it back to the previous regulations at any time. Garbis Bezdjian,applicant,noted that he has been on Broadway since the 1960's,has owned property there since 1967-68,Broadway is struggling,suffering,hurting,need changes right away;retail uses come and go, need a variety of businesses,two dentists were turned down by the Planning Department,if health services have to be on the second floor, there would be no access for the handicapped; need to keep a balance of businesses, all of the Broadway business owners want change, one building has been vacant almost two years, he is just asking for what was allowed before. Commissioners ask if the BID had identified any environmental concerns with this change,such as parking or traffic. Ross Bruce noted that they had not identified environmental changes from converting from retail to office,parking in the area hasn't been as big of an issue as it used to be,do not believe that the nature of the business would change the rent structure, three years ago with the controls in place, retail rents still spiked,BID members thought that based on previous experience,this change feels right. Mr.Bezdjian noted that if you look at the Broadway area during lunch hour,there are a lot of vacant parking spaces,so there is parking available,his building has eight parking spaces;the market is what controls rent;don't believe there would be any environmental impacts because the uses would be what was allowed before. John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue, noted that he is not a merchant, but visits Broadway a lot, a similar situation happened in San Mateo,and San Mateo adopted changes that prohibited offices because they found that when offices went into replace retail,the office tenant closed off the window frontage on the street and -� didn't present a face to the street; it became an issue of compatibility with the retail merchants. Chair Boju6s closed the public comment. Commission discussion: Broadway is a gateway to Burlingame and we should be careful what we do,need to determine what the personality is that we want for this area,should it be like Burlingame Avenue,or like 25th Avenue in San Mateo;we have talked about making the Broadway area attractive to hotel guests;since the parking requirement is higher for offices, each office tenant will have to ask for parking variances, parking is an issue in this area,we have to look ahead not just 2 years but 5 to 10 years,what do the citizens want for Broadway, office commands higher rent than retail,rents will skyrocket,once a use is in place, it can't be removed, we need to look at the long term ramifications; have mixed feelings, don't know how impacted the area is presently,there is plenty of parking in the afternoon,many restaurants are not open for lunch because there is not enough business,we need to look at the parking issue before a decision is made; concern with office rent,which is more expensive than retail,would like to find out what the market rate is for rent on Broadway compared to the office rent;may be good thing as a mixed use,what we have now is not working,tried different things and haven't found the right mix; mentioned in staff report that there is a signed petition,would like an opportunity to see it to have a better idea what the petitioners want;don't think anyone knows what Broadway needs,what is the vision,we are reacting instead ofbeing proactive,is this a center for locals with special retail,what will work well, should it be more service oriented,we can't rush, we need to look at it carefully. The Commission identified the following issues which need to be analyzed in the environmental studies, based on the application as it now stands, with a request to add financial institutions, real estate offices, health services and general office use on the first floor as a conditional use in the Broadway Commercial 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 14,2003 Area. SP Brooks noted that the applicant would be responsible to pay for the environmental studies requested by the Commission. • Parking, traffic and pedestrian flow, compare existing conditions to what is proposed; �- • Economic impact of the change; • Effect on City services and infrastructure with the intensification or diminished use of the area; • Environmental analysis of parking if 25%of the area were office uses and if 50%were office; • Analysis should compare to existing conditions as a baseline,existing floor area of the various uses in the area, compared to the proposed change; • Need to consider the effects of having convenient transportation as part of the traffic and parking analysis,some employers might like the location because employees can take the train,maybe less of an impact on parking; and • Need a cumulative analysis of impacts of different categories of change, at level of 25%office, or 50%office, should do a matrix analysis,each use with different floor areas within these categories. Continued Commission discussion: See Broadway as a pedestrian environment,can be service and retail, some office uses may fit because they provide a service to the neighborhood,would have to be careful how the ordinance is crafted; need to look at a vision statement for Broadway, concerned with John Root's comments about windows closed off at the street level, need to take into consideration the fact that restaurants are closed for lunch, this could be addressed by the merchants. 7. 1340 DRAKE AVENU , ONED R-1 —APPLICA ION FOR DESIGN RE %)W Y FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDI ON (GREG HAGEY, ORTH SUNSERI HARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHIT T; RANDY LEE, PRO RTY OWNER) (64 NO CED) PROJECT PL R: CATHERINE BARB C. Aura n ecused himself because he li within 500 feet of the su 'ect property. PlanneXBer fly presentedt project description. Commi ion asked if staff could fin out the heights of29 Drake Avenu from the files. There were no estions of staff. Chair Bojues open d the public comment. Greg agey, 650 California Stre t, San Francisco, project architect,was availab to answer questions,and note hat proposal is a modest ad 'tion,the owner's intent is to maintain the charac r of the street frontage,and ke 'ng existing roofline,locate assing in the center of the house and pushed it ck,tried to repeat the detail o e existing house in the adds 'on. Commission noted that there are no coverporches on the house. Project chitect noted that the front try is existing with no cover, trying to retain a existing front as is,but there ' a rear porch off the kitche which does hav roof over because the door is set back. There were no other omments from the floor an he public hearin was closed. The Planm Commission had the foll ing comments: • Need' landscape plan, include 1 er evergreens to reduce the in s and retain the Burlingame nested 1o\k; • Include a t3� e protection plan with the dscape plan. Chair Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a tim when the requested revisions have been made. This motion was seconded by C. Visitica. 9 City oJBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2003 street;can trees be placed on the perimeter;it was noted that this should not necessarily be treated as an interim use,since the interim long term parking use across the street has been there for decades. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Paul Salisbury,architect, 1555 Bayshore Highway,and Shelly Takasato,representing the property owner Boca Lake Office,Inc.;Jonathan Wu,President of Anza Parking Corporation. They noted that the property owner views this as an interim use, hope to generate hotel revenue to the city within a decade;site deserves better than a long term airport parking use;hope to build hotel within 5 years;have discussed the landscaping in the BCDC jurisdiction with them,it will take the trees 5 to 10 years to look like something; the site is presently unsightly,hope this use will enable them to clean it up,take care of drainage issues presently on the site,and provide some income to the property owner.It was noted that Anza Parking Corporation was required to provide 15%of their site in landscaping. Staff noted that the requirement is 10%within the parking lot and 15% of the entire site. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Chair Boju6s noted that the comments made would be incorporated into the environmental document.When the document has been prepared it will come back to the Planning Commission with the project for a public hearing and action. The item will be re-noticed at that time. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.This time concluded at 9:40 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 2,2003. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 2,2003. She noted that Council had adopted ordinances clarifying the recent inclusionary zoning regulations as well as clarifying the provisions of —� the commissioner's stipend. Council has rescheduled their September 15 meeting to Tuesday,September 16, 2003,and Council supported having a public meeting with neighbors to discuss the location ofthe sound wall extension along Rollins Road. The sound wall is a part of the Auxiliary Lane project on US 101. This meeting will be later in September or October. Council discussed the use of State land on the Bayfront for recreational purposes,if it is determined that more recreation area is necessary in the Bayfront Planning Area. They asked staff to discuss with the State Lands Commission representatives. Recreation uses could be incorporated into a proposed hotel development since the remaining state parcel is a key hotel location. CP Monroe passed out forms for the Commissioners to indicate how they would like to take their stipend for the coming fiscal year. X - FYI—Correspondence on Broadway zoning changes ` Commissioners commented on a letter to the City Planner from a property owner on Broadway requesting that the Commission consider his application sooner. Commissioners indicated that as part of this determination they would like to see a poll of the merchants and property owners about land uses prepared by the BID. Could staff ask the BID if they could prepare this poll sooner? Staff noted that they would write a letter of request to the BID Board. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Boju6s adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran,Secretary 13 CITY O� BURUNGAME �9 Nwlm.wwL�. The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650)558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 September 12, 2003 Broadway Business Improvement District Board Members David Hinkle Earthbeam Natural Foods 1399 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Survey of Merchants and Property Owners in the Broadway Commercial Area Regarding Changes in Land Use Dear Board Members, At their meeting on September 9, 2003, in response to a letter from an applicant at 1199 Broadway, the Planning Commission directed me to contact you. The applicant's request was to add health services, other office uses, real estate and financial institutions as permitted or conditional uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. On July 28, 2003, the Planning Commission studied this request. At that time there was a letter from the Broadway Business Improvement District Board President stating that "the merchants voted two months ago not to review this matter until January. The letter noted that "the merchants want to have a 100%ballot voting measure for all the Broadway Merchants on this issue in January". (Broadway Business Improvement District, July 9, 2003) In response to the applicant's request and the BID letter, the Commission directed staff to continue this item until after the Commission has received input from the merchants and property owners as indicated in the BID letter. Recently a second letter was sent to the City by the applicant requesting an earlier consideration of his request to add health services, other offices, real estate and financial institution uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. Planning Commission reviewed this letter at their September 8, 2003, meeting and directed staff to ask the Broadway BID if it was possible for them to survey the merchants and property owners within the improvement district sooner than January 2004. 1 I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter. I can be reached at (650) 558-7255. Please do not hesitate to call me if there are any questions regarding this request. Sincerely yours, C � Margaret Monroe City Planner cc. Planning Commission 2 C or, ITY G EKn JHCv ME o� Y •TEL.A�•' The City of Burlingame CITY HALL.501 PRDAROSE ROADTEL:(650)558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997FAX:(650)696-3790 August 25, 2003 Garbis and Maida Bezdjian 40 Berryessa Way Hillsborough CA 94010 Subject: Request for Changing the Permitted/Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area, Zoned C-1 Broadway Commercial Area Dear Garbis and Maida Bezdjian, Please find attached a copy of the Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes from the meeting of July 28,2003. Since the Planning Commission cancelled their meeting on August 11,2003, the July 28, 2003 Minutes will not be reviewed by the commission and acted on until tonight. Usually action letters are written following the Commission's approval of their minutes. The Commission's direction to staff regarding the processing of your request for the change of zoning regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area was to continue this matter until the merchants association is able to complete a poll of the property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commerical Area. Attached is a copy of the letter that the Business Improvement District sent to the Planning Commission regarding your request with their comments on timing. This was included in the Planning Commission's packet for the meeting of July 28, 2003. That packet was mailed to you before the meeting as well. We appreciate that you also attended the July 28, 2003,Planning Commission meeting. If you would like to discuss this scheduling decision by the Planning Commission, you may come to any Planning Commission meeting and speak at the From the Floor portion of their Action Lefler Request for Changing the Permitled/Condilional Uses in the Broadway CommercidArea,Zoned GI Broadway Commercial Area August 25,2003 agenda. The rules of procedure do not allow the Commission to give direction at the meeting -� at which you speak, but they may agenized the item for discussion at a future meeting. Sincerely yopu-rrss, AM aj,-, Margaret Monroe City Planner cc. Larry Anderson, City Attorney Bezdjian FAX Number: (650) 344-0579 2 City oJBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 28,2003 2. ZONING CHANGE TO BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA—APPLICATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTION,REAL ESTATE OFFICES,HEALTH SERVICE AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON TBE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (GARBIS S. MAIDA M. BEZDJIAN APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE C.Vistica arrived at 7:25 p.m. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report indicating that the Planning Commission needed to give direction on the consistency of the request with the current General Plan policy so that staff could make a determination on what CEQA review would be required,as well as any additional information on the zoning request. CP noted that Commission had received a letter from the Broadway BID noting that they had decided to table any action on zoning in the Broadway area until January so that they could see the status of the economy and vacancy rates;they also noted that they had agreed that in the future they would poll their membership before taking any positions on use changes in the area. Commissioners asked: how is the optometrist use on Broadway now classified;are the two real estate offices on Broadway non-conforming;would like to know the opinion of the merchants about this request and what their vision is for Broadway; can we add a review-of the number of restaurants on Broadway to this discussion;do we need to be concerned about ADA compliance for health services on the second floor;we are presently doing two major land use studies, the Bayfront and North End/Rollins Road, and have developed a process involving committees and public input for these kinds of changes,this change would be as broad and am concerned about doing this on the basis of one applicant's request,merchants want to delay this action and am hesitant to go forward on anything at this time. Would like to know the effect ofoffice on the first floor experienced by other cities, know San Mateo recently prohibited offices on the first floor in their retail area,why? Would like staffto contact other communities such as Millbrae, San Mateo and others with similar commercial areas to see what their issues are, what they have done, and would like feedback from merchants in the area. C. Osterling noted in the graphic on the BID letterhead there are real estate and banks shown, should that give us some direction;survey should include merchants and building owners, so moved to continue this item until after we have received input from the merchants and property owners on Broadway. Motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent)voice vote. This item concluded at 7:35 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. There were no items set for the consent calendar 2 AFTER PREPARAIW C?F S?AFF RF,PO4z • BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT d • 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010 ® y ap� -ti z V4 Ay ® July 9, 2003 Planning Department Woo Attention: Meg Monroe City Hall ®d_ ® 50t Primrose Road 54 Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 ®M m ;�dc+ Re: Garbis Bezdjian's petition to change Broadway's C-1 district restrictions, as well r� as overlay district modification. CIJ Dear Meg, L SA)S� I would like to thank you for your letter of June 18, 2003, informing the Broadway xa� LTD,w o M® Merchants of Mr.Bezdjian's desire to change our C-1 and overlay restrictions. - -o Unfortunately, the merchants voted two months ago to not review this matter until 0 ®� January. The issue of modifying Broadway's controlling ordinances is a very Ll controversial topic. Broadway is deeply divided on this issue, and the merchants want to have a 100% ballot voting measure for all of the Broadway Merchants on this issue in Z ou Z January, after we all have had a chance to see how the economy is doing and have a look at the vacancy factor on Broadway at that time. Meg, thank you again for your letter inviting the merchant's-opinion on this proposal. ® Though we can't respond this time, please keep us on the list,we do wish to provide you m ® with our opinion on important planning matters. ® M � Sincerely, �N N Q tc N � � `C 2 Ross Bruce 7 President, BID - o W ® n v M®® V ff3(BEB 44CITY o PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO A BUIUMGAMI= �RIATEo•JYIiwwc/6. DATE: December 2, 2003 RE: Results of a Use Survey of Broadway Merchants and Property Owners, November 2003 In response to an application for an amendment to the uses allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area, all the merchants and property owners in the area were surveyed in November 2003. The request in the application was to allow the following four new uses on the first floor(street level)in the Broadway Commercial Area. The tally of the results of the survey follows. The City mailed a total of 133 questionnaires. All responses were anonymous. These were divided among 37(28%) property owners,94(71%) merchants and 2(1%)requests by phone. Of the 133 mailed, 57 or 43%were returned. The typical return for a mailed questionnaire is 25%. The 57 respondents broke out compared to total responses as follows: Property owners 13 (23%) Merchants 36 (63%) Owner/Merchant 5 (9%) Not Reported 3 (5%) Respondents were given three choices for each of the four first floor (street level) uses proposed (financial institutions, real estate, health services and general office uses). These choices were to allow the use without a public hearing, to allow the use but require a public hearing, and to not allow the use. The raw data is shown in the table below: Uses Yes,without yes,with hearing No Not marked TOTAL hearing Financial Institutions 43 75% 8 (14%) 5 9% 1 57 Real Estate 42 74% 6 (11%) 9 (15%) 0 57 Health Services 38 67% 11 (19%) 8 14%) 0 57 General Office Uses 41 (72%) 8 (14%) 8 (14%) 0 57 Results of a Use Survey of Broadway Merchants and Property Owners,November 2003 December 2,2003 In the case of each use the majority of the respondents felt that the use should be allowed without a public hearing. The affirmative responses without a hearing ranged from a low of 67%for health services to a high of 75%for financial institutions. The most"no"votes were cast for real estate uses on the first floor,9 or 15%. Health service use was the use that drew the highest number of responses for requiring a public hearing, 11 or 19%. Comments from the Survey Cards: Space was left on the survey card for respondents to make open-ended comments. Attached is the list of the comments divided by those from property owners, from merchants and from those who both own a property and area merchant in the area. You may wish to review these. In brief summary: ➢ The property owners who commented seemed to favor the addition of more use options for Broadway. It was noted that only one of the properties on Broadway at California is in the designated Broadway Commercial Area, suggesting that the city might consider adding the other corner property to the Commercial Area designation. ➢ The merchants observations were more varied: no restrictions try free enterprise; Broadway is a retail district preserve it, keep the local flavor; too many food businesses, not enough of the needed food businesses; lack of parking; enough real --� estate and financial institutions. ➢ The property owners who are also merchants responded that Broadway will not change its character as a combination restaurant service area; any legal business should be allowed to operate;a conditional use permit(public hearing)for the four uses is a good idea. Thanks to all those who took the time to fill out their questionnaires and return them. Your input in the form of these survey results will be forwarded to the Planning Commission along with the staff report when they consider the applicant's request for a change to the uses allowed on the first floor(at the street level) in the Broadway Commercial Area. All merchants and property owners who received a survey card will also receive a public notice of the Planning Commissions hearing on this matter. 2 COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS 1) "Fill up the spaces" �- 2) "A healthy mix of retail,service,restaurant and office merchants leads to a successful downtown. I believe we should restrict street level to 25%-30%for of ce/financial/real estate or health care uses." 3) "Store fronts—the majority—are small. It has little impact as who goes in. Notice the Chevron gas station at the corner of Broadway and California is not in the Broadway District. It does not look right for a property facing Broadway not to be included in the Broadway Commercial Area." 4) "No restriction,no conditional use" COMMENTS FROM MERCHANTS 1) "No restrictions,no conditional use"(6 surveys has this comment from merchants) 2) "Broadway has too many restrictions" 3) "Broadway is a retail business district. Please preserve it as such. Turning into an office park is a sad way to go.You can't take retail businesses and expect them to survive on the P floor of an office building for example. Retail space is a rare commodity. Please preserve it on Broadway" 4) "Don't let what happened to Burlingame Avenue happen on Broadway. The local flavor is lost. 5) "More retail—not real estate and financial institutions" 6) "Let's try free enterprise and see what happens" 7) "We need all kinds of business on Broadway besides food businessM There are too many food businesses!!We need something else!!" 8) "We need more like bakery type,healthy juice store instead of coffee and too many beauty salons" 9) "Broadway is hurting badly!! Anything that can potentially promote foot traffic is welcomed and encouraged H" �.. 10) "Parking or lack thereof is the issue" 11) "Of the ones checked `no'—we have enough already"(checked no to real estate and financial institutions) COMMENTS FROM OWNER/MERCHANTS: 1) "Please,please this street has not been the same since restrictions" (checked yes to all uses without a hearing) 2) `Broadway is and always will be a combination restaurant service use area" 3) "Commercial area should allow operation of any legal business" 4) "I think a conditional use permit for these uses is a good idea" A-011,61 �CITY G BURLMCAME Qe 0 JRm.RwE 6. The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650)558-7150 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010.3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 November 6, 2003 Dear Broadway Merchant and/or Property Owner, The City has received a request to change the land use regulations in the Broadway Commercial Area. (Map on the reverse side). The request is to modify the zoning regulations to allow real estate offices,financial institutions, health services and general office uses on the first floor throughout the Broadway Commercial Area, The City Council has asked Planning Staff to do a survey of the merchants and property owners in the area to determine your opinion about whether these additional uses should be allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area. Please note your thoughts on the enclosed card and drop it in the mail by November 20, 2003 The zoning code defines what types of businesses are allowed in each of the categories requested to be added: ■ Real Estate uses include: real estate broker or agent, title insurance, real estate investment, real estate management, real estate developer or similar business. ■ Financial Institution uses include: a state licensed bank, national bank, savings and loan association, savings bank,Federal credit union, state-licensed credit union,industrial loan company or finance company and money machines associated with them. ■ Health Service uses include: office, clinic, laboratory or any other facility engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services include a physician, dentist, dental technician, chiropractor, acupressurist, acupuncturist, therapist, counselor or other similar occupation. ■ General Office uses include: a room or group of rooms used for conducting the affairs of a business, profession , service , industry or government. This would include among other businesses accountants,e-commerce businesses,administrative and management centers for other businesses, accountants, tax preparers, attorneys, etc. With the provisions of the zoning code, some uses are simply allowed without the need for a public hearing or any other planning permit. These uses are called"permitted uses". Other uses are subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission in order to determine if the proposed use,given its size and intensity, is appropriate for the specific location. After a public hearing son such a use the Planning Commission is able to impose conditions on the use to ensure that it is conducted in an appropriate way. These uses are called"conditional uses." Finally, some uses are simply not allowed in a particular zoning district. These uses are called"prohibited uses". The added first floor uses proposed in the present request(financial institutions, real estate,health services on the first floor, and general office uses)would shift four ofthe uses which are currently"prohibited",e.g. not allowed, in the Broadway Commercial Area to either"permitted" uses(no public hearing) or"conditional" uses (public hearing and Planning Commission action required). As a businessperson and/or property owner in the Broadway Commercial Area the Planning Commission and City Council need your input on this change. Please fill out the attached postcard and mail it to the Planning Department at your earliest convenience but no later than November 23,2003- You will receive a public notice about the public hearing date on this matter. If you have any questions regarding this survey please call Meg Monroe, 558-7250, at the Planning Department. Thank you for your participation in this important survey_ We look forward to your continued participation as the future of the Broadway Commercial Area is discussed at the public hearings- You can make a difference in the future of the Broadway Commercial Area! CAVFC „ S tt■ ' 91 Js 17- r6 IS °U r 12 _ _Q O - ® _ r• CHU" -0 C ice' �s`+ ' O e i , S 6 7 D i O a bap . izs , �.. . -rr ..� , m Y E LACUNA a .- - i Aye srrM _ - - _ .uw .c ww 3- ■ - - s O O O O O O ® O O t a 021 1u6 O O 5 e 9 p L � 6 7 � t, a S b - � h .� `' z O 0 19 23 22 ZI O O O O C}s Q 01 O R O�: . O' © O awl a to: . S � zo 25- 24 ZJ 12 1 29 ® Q CAPUCHAw - ■ ' ' - - SE E .ave - . -a O O O� O O O p R - ": : �" 1Q p ©t O O 0 . 9 i�z. a ,' S 6 7 e 9 ro. �� ao t' �.l i.a .n �� ti -" \" m ? ■�— 26' Z5 ZI 13 22 21 all ■l'■■. - 'n.r s s.rarc - - 3 11 CAMINO Ren4- BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA ORDINANCE 1272 OLDEN WES EIVED DIAMOND CORPORATION REC DEC 15 2003 CITY CLEwS OFFICE December 10,2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME Mayor O'Mahony 501 Primose Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Dear Mayor O'Mahony, I am the Store manager of a local high volume jewelry store here in Burlingame, The Jewelry Exchange. We have been at our address of 1301 Broadway since October 1993. And recently are troubled by the parking situation here on Broadway. There are currently 30 people under our employ and since the parking meters in the Paloma/ Broadway lot were changed from 8 hour meters to 2 hour meters our employee's have received a ridiculous amount of parking tickets. Patrons of our store have complained on various occasions for the same reason. Parking on the side streets is very scarce due to the amount of apartment buildings in the area.And homeowners become agitated when we park in front of their homes to frequently:Please.reconsider the 8 hour parking -� meters. We are open to any suggestions you may hae for our.problem. Such as a flat rate for daily parking, etc. Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, / DISTRI U ION: �( 'ty ouncil )� please respond anager City Attorney 11 No Response Required 0 Dir.Finance C,4y Planner E3 Dir.Public Works H��man Resources C�Police Chief Mrs. Manal Arikat Fire Chief 0 On Next Agenda Parks&Rec o Librarian PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK Jthe eh Chicago San Francisco Boston the e Washington D.G Detroit J the e E—acchange 630-530-0444 650-579-4700 978-443-0550 ra—Ct 301-654-9699 734-525-3200 Source Los Angeles Dallas Seattle Tampa New York Philadelphia Cleveland Houston 714-542-9000 972-671-6700 425-687-8000 813-882-4000 201-525-1300 610-291-0200 216-475-1111 832-249-7999 www.jewe I ryexchange.com SU#2�1iYGAME .esr. The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL:650-558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX:650-696-3790 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BROADWAY COMMERICAL AREA ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT The CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION will hold a public hearing to consider an amendment to the zoning regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area to add financial institutions, real estate offices, health services, and general office uses on the first floor as conditional uses. The hearing will be held on Monday, January 12, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Posted : December 31, 2003 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tha CITY OF OURLINOAM9 PLANMINO COMMISSION W111 hold apUblfc hea"na to Igor!merriment to the zo�1Nt reaw W edd �na{�cl��$d�Y Cool m.�o�f �i& �r h�a��lh sAiY�Ce� �11CI� ` re°I 4�te dffti on s h O floor as concjftljp j Ulm,aral a yaa� t1ng W111 b®Mild on Mondey,Jew- LOU 4, �i 7LOU �.M. In the Gily Nall CaunolI Chi,*ta at Sol Prlmroaa Pu►11t1Qa1ne, �llfQml®, Rodd, r��e�ppyp 6f M O hoPrnee,I arfta" may pa aaPE]"cht et 6oi IP I At the Planp►n D"Wnga re, CrllfOR118. mrose tom San MMOO County TImilQ, #315007 January 2; 2004 rnCUCr' e L:)unjc .� nun.ie RECEIVED JAN 2 6 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Dear Meg: Thanl2s for asj;�Lng vj&U UpLwLon about the shopptv,.g dtstri its Ln_FRrLLngPMe. L,Lnfortuv,.atettU., I thLw{e the three AStrLOts have been separated, and categorized Lnto dtstLnctLU Afferent buatAtSS areas. There are several,walls Of L0016ng at the areas—and the service, retnU and restaurant/A Lng experLewees the pubLLe ew,jous from each area. I feet the cLtU is overLoojZLwg the potenttaL draw that each of these areas offer. gurUt 0avu.e Ls a destLnattovw l,oCatLow. It Ls not a tourLst cttu—evevti though tourists pass bu 01&:L01 or 220 each daU. it requires an effort to covu.e Loto our town—b5 traLn, car or now bu gart. it Ls LnterestLng to w,.e that two of these areas—groadwaU awd the I>Laza ---whLch are often cowsWered the weaker of the shoppLwg districts —are rea[LU the "cornerstones' Of 7FurLLv1gawc.e. one the entrance frovu.sol, and the other—wLth a LLttl,e provu.otton—another entrance to gurUm0Pv4.e frown.-PAP—T. gurtLW0avu.e Avenue-on the other hawd has atwaUs beew considered the vu.aLv,, shoppLv,.9/06LLng area —evevL though Lt Ls not easU to fLKA— ALL of the shopptv,.g dLstrricts are suf ferLv,,g durLv,.g the eco"mLe dowwturw we have beew far,Lng the Last few Uears. ALL have store cLosures and vacancies. groadwPU, even wLth Lt's new streetscape Ls troubLed wLth tr&,g to f�wol a good "w,.Lx' of retaL, servLce and AnLng. t understand theU are tr&tg to change some of thezmloo restrLcttons to al,Low office space to come into former retaU areas. I would hope that the pLannLng cove MLsston woul,d deveLop a vLston of aU three dtstrtots worVebng together rather than at odds wLth each other—wLth pettU jeal,oustes etc I tKtn _that the CLtU Ls VZULLwg Lts coLden coose...so to speale.. as Lt a[Lows more and more corporate stores to tafee over the quaint, howV.et©wn feettng that ortgLnaLLU brought peopLe to our town. As one tools around to even the "falee'towv,,s being bunt—bU toterwest and others--the unLque, svu.atL stores are supported and encouraged. I Load at our streets tDZe a "dtspLaU'Of goods to be soLol: The svu.aLLer, more LnterestLvi:g Ltevus are usuaLLtu Ln,the front..so that thea me�er- e cress 308 Lorton Avenue • Burlingame, CA 94010 • (650-) 347-4626 neer rncucroL)unjc 0 nunje are easUU seevL, amcd show character, amol charvv--while the bigger avJ bolster, more recogvuzabLe (chp%m stores) would be iv the bac"rouvLd. savLta Barbara uses this phiLosophu veru success fvUU ovL state street. The street is alive with aetMtU avLd both svvi.aLL avLd Large stores have avu equal presevze im the area. I favored the restauravLt MoratoriRM whevL Lt was or%giMALU put ivLto PLO ee—because I believed that people would rather stroll aLovLg BurUvLgame Ave. Looldo.0 at store wivwlows rather than other OILKtrs eativ at other restaurawts. L-tvLfortuvLateLU, vLow the Wiv *WS peopLe Loop iO-to are dupl'ecated throughout the couvLtru Lm ever wt.aLL. should we have a MaLL Moratoriuvu37 There is vLo `e ISU f&x—but I do hope that the pLavL to put the chcG,,stores alomq BurUi Oavvt Avenge avJ the iv OlepevLdewt boutiques alomg the side streets vu.ight be revisited. The charm avO character of the town has eertaio,[U ehavLged! Residewts avLd people frOVK out of the area have all voiced their distaste for what has happemol to Bur ngame. ThCWZ Uou for cfUow%vLg me to share MU thoughts RvLd ideas. SivLcerelt�, Frav,,16e Meer rneucr- Dillie cjesGns 308 Lorton Avenue • Burlingame, CA 94010 • (650) 347-4626 I ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 25.36.041 TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSITUTIONS AS CONDITIONAL USES `— 2 IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA 3 4 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 5 6 Section 1. The economic and social health of the Broadway Commercial Area is a vital part of 7 the Burlingame community. Broadway merchants and property owners have requested the City to loosen 8 some of the controls that were put in place to sustain the retail character of the area, so there is more 9 flexibility in tenants and business opportunities. This ordinance will allow financial institutions as a 10 conditional use so that the size, frontage,traffic impacts of locating such a use at a specific property in 11 the area can be evaluated, while at the same time providing an opportunity for such a business. The 12 ordinance change will only last for two years, so that it can be reevaluated for its effect on the area. 13 14 Section 2. Section 25.36.041 is amended to read as follows: 15 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. 16 (a) Permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Except as otherwise provided in this 17 section, uses permitted in the C-1 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. 18 (b) Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses 19 allowed in the C-1 district, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area 20 pursuant to a conditional use permit: 21 (1)Food establishments; 22 (2) Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; 23 (3)Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above; and 24 (4) Health services above the first floor only. 25 (b) Prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the uses prohibited in the 26 C-1 district, the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area: 27 (1) Real estate; 28 (2) All other offices on the first floor; and 1 (3) Psychic services. 2 (4) 3 4 Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective until March 31, 2005, unless earlier repealed, and 5 shall have no further force and effect beyond that date. If the ordinance ceases to be effective, the 6 provisions of Section 25.36.041 in effect when this ordinance was adopted shall be reinstated unless 7 otherwise provided by an ordinance subsequent to this one. 8 9 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 10 11 Mayor 12 13 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing 14 ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of ,2004,an 15 adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 16 2004, by the following vote: 17 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 18 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19 20 City Clerk 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY OF BURLINGAME SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND SECTION 25.36.041 TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Burlingame will consider adoption of a proposed ordinance on Monday, March 1, 2004, at a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, that would amend the Burlingame Municipal Code to make financial institutions a conditional use in the Broadway Commercial Area. This would be consistent with the basic zoning in the C-1 districts in the City. Anyone interested in the ownership or development of property in the Broadway area should review the staff report and the entire ordinance. The City Council will receive testimony on the proposed ordinance from all interested persons who appear at the Council meeting. To receive additional information about the proposed ordinance and a complete copy of the proposed ordinance, or to provide written comments, interested persons may contact the City Clerk, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010,phone (650) 558-7203. A complete copy of the ordinance is available for review at the City Library at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. The staff report and a map of the Broadway Commercial Area is available for review at the Planning Department located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. C:\FILES\ORDINANC\Summary\broadwayfinancial.pin.wpd ���CITY ,w STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6c MTG. OA�Aarm 6,00 DATE 3.1.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: FEBRUARY 23.2004 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZON CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed changes to the Second Unit Amnesty Program. Affirmative action should be to adopt the proposed ordinance. If the ordinance is adopted it becomes effective in thirty days, April 1, 2004. BACKGROUND: Part of the work program for implementation of the city's 2001 Housing Element is to review and update, as necessary, the Second Unit Amnesty Program The Second Unit Amnesty Program is designed to encourage single family homeowners to retain and maintain (as safe and sanitary) second dwelling units on their lot which were built before 1954. The City first approved the Second Unit Amnesty program in 2001, with a "sunset" clause in 2004. The program was extended to 2006. One of the considerations with the current proposed revision is making the program permanent. With the current proposed revisions some parts of the Second Unit Amnesty Program are not changed: • The second unit must have been built before 1954; • The processing procedure will remain the same, including inspection based on the Housing Code; • All development (primary and secondary units) on the lot will be required to be within current lot coverage and floor area maximums; and • Property owners will have one year from the date of approval of their second unit to make any required maintenance repairs to make the unit safe and sanitary, or the second unit amnesty status will be lost. The proposed changes address the following changes: • The program will become a permanent part of the R-I zoning district regulations; • As with the present requirements, parking for the primary dwelling plus one uncovered parking space must be provided on the site; however, proposed is that all required on site parking spaces could be provided uncovered if the second unit is affordable for very low or low income residents; • Clarifies that the owner of the property must live in one of the two units on the site; • If the second unit is damaged/demolished in a natural disaster it may be replaced; • If the primary dwelling is demolished and the second unit retained, covered parking as required by the code must be provided for the new primary dwelling, the second unit parking may be uncovered; ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM. March 1, 2004 • A second unit permit would expire if the primary dwelling is purposely demolished, on site parking is not provided as required, the agreement with the city for affordability is breached and covered parking for the primary dwelling is not being provided. City Council Study City Council reviewed this item at study on February 17, 2004. There were no questions of staff. Staff noted that this item would return to the City Council for a public hearing and action on March 1, 2004. There would be a notice published in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 25.59 to Permanently Institute an Amnesty Program for Pre-Existing Secondary Dwelling Units and to Allow Variations in Certain Requirements for Approval. Annotated Proposed Revisions to the Second Unit Amnesty Program, November 17, 2003 City Council Staff Report, February 17, 2004, Introduce Ordinance to Amend the Second Unit Amnesty Program and Implement Changes to the Second Unit Zoning Regulations, with attachments. Notice of Public Hearing, Published February 21, 2004. 1) 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.59 TO PERMANENTLY INSTITUTE AN AMNESTY PROGRAM FOR PRE-EXISTING 3 SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS AND TO ALLOW VARIATIONS IN CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to convert the current amnesty program for 8 secondary units from a two-year program to a permanent program. It is hoped that this will 9 encourage property owners to apply for amnesty over time. In addition,the limitations on on-site 10 parking spaces have created some hardships on property owners, and this ordinance attempts to 11 reduce those hardships in exchange for a commitment to sustain the affordability of secondary 12 dwelling units. 13 14 Section 2. Section 25.59.010 is amended to read as follows: 15 25.59.010 Purpose. 16 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a means for property owners in the R-1 districts 17 of the city to legalize the existence and usage of secondary dwelling units that were built as 18 dwelling units before January 1, 1954. This chapter provides an owner the opportunity to apply 19 to the city for review and approval of such a second dwelling unit in the single family zone and 20 then complete all improvements to bring the unit into compliance with the health and safety 21 standards of the Uniform Housing Code. The health and safety improvements must be completed 22 within one year following the approval of the unit. If the primary dwelling on the site is 23 demolished,the secondary dwelling unit cannot be retained or replaced. This chapter also provides 24 basic protections to the surrounding neighborhoods by requiring off-street parking, owner 25 occupancy of one of the two units located on such a property, and limitation on the number of 26 occupants. 27 28 Section 3. Section 25.59.040(a) is amended to read as follows: 2117/2004 1 I Any person owning a secondary dwelling unit that was built as a dwelling unit not later than 2 December 31,1953,and that has been in substantially the same use and envelope since that time 3 may apply to the city,for a special permit to legalize the existence,use,and occupancy of the 4 secondary dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter. 5 6 Section 4. Section 25.59.060 is amended to read as follows: 7 25.59.060 Performance standards. 8 A secondary dwelling unit shall meet all of the following requirements to qualify for 9 approval under this chapter: 10 (a) On site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling and 11 one(1)space for the second unit shall be provided as follows: 12 (1) Parking for the primary dwelling as required by chapter 25.70;and 13 (2) No more than two (2)of the required on-site parking spaces shall be in tandem 14 configuration,covered or uncovered;and 15 (3) No required parking may be provided in the front setback or yard,except in the 16 driveway;and 17 (4)All parking shall be provided on a hard,all-weather surface and properly drained to the 18 public street;and 19 (5)Notwithstanding subsection(a)(1)above,up to three(3)of the parking spaces required 20 for the property by this title may be uncovered if,but only if,the secondary dwelling unit is only 21 used for"affordable housing"as defined in chapter 25.63. As a condition of approval under this 22 subsection,the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement 23 generally in conformance with section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the secondary 24 dwelling unit. 25 (b)No more than two(2)persons may occupy the secondary dwelling unit. 26 (c)An owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units on the 27 property at all times. 28 (d)The floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall not exceed 640 square feet. 2/17/2004 2 I (e)The secondary dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health 2 and Safety Code, Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. 3 4 Section 5. A new subsection 25.59.070(b) is added as follows: 5 (b) Any special permit approved pursuant to this chapter that has not been brought into 6 compliance with the requirements of this chapter within one year of approval shall lapse and be of 7 no further force and effect. 8 9 Section 6. Section 25.59.080 is repealed. 10 11 Section 7. Subsection 25.59.090(d) is amended to read as follows: 12 (d)If the secondary dwelling unit is demolished,the special permit shall lapse and be of no 13 further force and effect,and all on-site parking requirements of chapter 25.70 shall be met for the 14 primary dwelling on the site. 15 16 Section 8. Section 25.59.100 is amended to read as follows: 17 25.59.100 Revocation of special permit. 18 A special permit granted pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked when: 19 (a) No owner of the subject property resides on the property; or 20 (b) The secondary dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or 21 (c) The parking required by section 25.59.060 is no longer provided; or 22 (d) The primary dwelling on the site is purposely demolished; or 23 (e) Parking is not being provided in conformance to this chapter; or 24 (f) The agreement between the owner and the city regarding affordability of the secondary 25 dwelling unit has been breached by the owner and covered parking is not being provided in 26 accordance with chapter 25.70. 27 28 2/17/2004 3 1 Section 9. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 2 3 Mayor 4 5 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 6 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17' day of February, 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ 7 day of , 2004, by the following vote: 8 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 9 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 10 11 City Clerk C:\FILES\ORDINANCIsecondunits2004.p►n.wpd 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2/17/2004 4 November 17, 2003 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units 25.59.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a means for property owners in the R-1 districts of the city to legalize the existence and usage of secondary dwelling units that were built as dwelling units before January 1, 1954. This chapter provides an owner the opportunity to apply to the city for review and approval of such a second dwelling unit in the single family zone and then complete all improvements to bring the unit into compliance with the health and safety standards of the Uniform Housing Code. The health and safety improvements must be completed within one year following the approval of the unit. ides i complete all neeessar-y impr-evements-te "Wing the unit iffl.w eemplianee with the health and safL4 standards rte, Uniform Housing r„a If the primary dwelling on the site is demolished, the secondary dwelling unit cannot be retained or replaced. This chapter also provides basic protections to the surrounding neighborhoods by requiring off-street parking, owner occupancy of one of the two units located on such a property, and limitation on the number of occupants. Annotation: The update of the Secondary Dwelling Unit regulations would remove the "two year window" for processing an application, and simply require that health and safety improvements be completed within a year of finding the second unit complies with the performance standards of the ordinance. This section clarifies the intent of the ordinance which is to retain these smaller, less expensive rental units in the housing stock and to ensure that they provide safe and sanitary accommodations for tenants. Recognizing existing second units as a part of the legal housing stock will allow property owners to evict unruly tenants which is difficult if a property owner believes his unit to be illegal and fears it will be abated if the tenant reports it to officials. 25.59.020 Applicability. This chapter applies to any secondary dwelling unit that was built as a dwelling unit not later than December 31, 1953, and that has been in substantially the same use and envelope since that time. Annotation: No change is proposed to this provision. December 31, 1953 was chose because the zoning regulations for the R-1 district regarding second units changed in January 1954. Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003 _ Annotation: No changes to the processing procedures of these applications is proposed. Over the several years this program has been in effect, this process has worked very well, as a result no change is proposed. 25.59.050 Appeals. (a) Appeals from the decision of the city planner shall be made in writing to the planning commission within seven (7) days after the public notice of the decision of the city planner is mailed. Any member of the planning commission or the city council may request a review of a decision of the city planner by making such a request to the city planner within seven(7) days of the date of the mailing of the notice. (b) Upon receipt of an appeal or a request for review, the planning commission will set the application for hearing, and notice of the public hearing will be given as set forth in Chapter 25.16. (c) The planning commission shall determine;if the application meets the requirements of this chapter. If the application meets all of the requirements of this chapter, the planning commission shall approve the application with those: conditions necessary to ensure conformance with this chapter. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this chapter,the planning commission shall deny the application. (d) The decision of the city planner shall be final seven(7) days after the mailing of public notice of the city planner's decision if not appeal in writing has been filed by any person or if no request for review has been made by any planning commission or city councilmember. (e) A decision of the planning commission under this chapter is appealable pursuant to the procedures contained in chapter 25.16. Annotation: No change is proposed to this section. It should be noted that this zoning chapter refers to performance standards for second units in single family zones. The applicant either conforms to the performance standards or does not. On appeal, if the request conforms to the standards set out in the code, it cannot be denied by the Commission. On the other hand, on appeal, if the request does not conform, it must be denied by the Planning Commission. This section makes these limitations on review actions clear. Variances or exceptions cannot be granted. 25.59.060 Performance standards. A secondary dwelling unit shall meet all of the following requirements to qualify for approval under this chapter: (aite paFking shall 'Be provided for-the pfi tary dwell'.-. ,Rl unit as fequir-ed by this eede, and additionalpar-king existing for-the sece ry dwelling unit shall be at least one uneovered par-kin-, spaee whieh may be provided in tandem to anothef Y a spaee- On site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling _ 3 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003 25.59.030 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter,the following definition applies: Secondary dwelling unit."Secondary dwelling unit"means an additional dwelling unit on a single-family residential lot or parcel which dwelling contains one or more rooms and one kitchen,designed for occupancy by not more than two(2)persons for living and sleeping purposes. Annotation: No change is proposed to this provision. 25.59.040 Procedure. (a) Any person owning a secondary dwelling unit that was built as a dwelling unit not later than December 31,1953,and that has been in substantially the same use and envelope since that time may apply to the city no later-than June 3n 2004 for a special permit to legalize the existence,use,and occupancy of the secondary dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter. Annotation: This change removes the"sunsets(e.g.expiration date)from this ordinance. With this change this program becomes a permanent part of the citys zoning regulations. (b)Applications for such a special permit shall be in writing and filed with the city planner on a form approved by the city planner. In addition to the requirements for such an application,the application shall contain a declaration under penalty of perjury detailing the history of the secondary dwelling unit demonstrating that it was built before January 1,1954,and that since that time,it has been used as a dwelling unit in the same size and configuration as shown in the application. (c)As established by council resolution,a fee will be charged for an application for a special permit under this chapter. (d)Upon application for a special permit pursuant to this chapter,the city planner will review the application and determine if all of the information required has been provided. If the application meets all of the requirements of this chapter,the city planner shall approve the application with those conditions necessary to ensure conformance with this chapter. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this chapter,the city planner shall deny the application. (e)Notice of approval of a special permit pursuant to this chapter shall be mailed by the city planner to owners of property within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property,with information regarding the right to appeal the decision of the city planner. 2 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7, 2003 and one (1) space for the second unit shall be provided as follows: (1) Parking for the primary dwelling as required by Ch 25. 70; (2) No more than two of the required on-site parking spaces shall be in tandem configuration, covered or uncovered; (3) No required parking may be provided in the front setback or yard, except in the driveway; (4) All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface and properly drained to the public street; and (5) Nothwithstanding subsection (a)(1) above, up to three (3) of the parking spaces required by this title may be uncovered if, but only if, the secondary dwelling unit is only used for "affordable housing" as defined in chapter 25.63. As a condition of approval under this subsection, the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement generally in conformance with section 25. 63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the secondary dwelling unit. Annotation: The subcommittee recommended that it should be an objective of the second unit program to have all the required parking for the primary unit (2 or 3 parking spaces depending upon the number of bedrooms) and the secondary unit (1 space) provided on site (section (a)). For three parking spaces It was less important that the covered parking requirements be met or that the uncovered parking was provided in the driveway in tandem configuration, as long as no more than two cars were parked in tandem. For larger primary dwellings where two covered parking spaces are required by code (e.g. 5 or more bedrooms), the revisions suggest that at least on covered parking space be required. This reduces the "parking lot" appearance which could be created in the single family district where a large paved area to accommodate four uncovered parking spaces is clearly out of character with the existing development section (5)). However, the Subcommittee felt that it was important to the neighborhood character that applicant's not pave their front setbacks or front yards in order to meet the off street parking requirements (section (3)). It was important also that all parking spaces be paved (e.g. covered with a hard, all weather surface) so that there is incentive for them to be used in bad weather and they look like parking spaces from the street (section (4)). This further discourages tenants and property owners from parking on lawns in front yards and setbacks. A hard all-weather surface can be concrete, bricks, interlocking tiles, the or other similar materials approved by the Public Works Department which also can meet the on-site drainage requirements (section (4)). Finally, the section addresses the situation where the garage was converted to a second unit before covered parking on-site was required or the garage was converted before 1954. In this case all on-site parking may continue to be provide uncovered. However the second unit must be rented as an "affordable" unit as defined by California HCD and maintained as compliant affordable housing for very low and low income individuals or couples, as along as the second unit remains on the property and required covered parking is not provided on-site. The Planning action will be conditioned on the property owner recording with the county such a deed 4 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003 restriction. (b)No more than two(2)persons may occupy the secondary dwelling unit. (c)An owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units on the property at all times. (d)The floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall not exceed 640 square feet. (e)The secondary dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code,Section 17920.3,and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. Annotation: The only change proposed to these sections is a clarification that the property owner live in one unit"on the property'. Otherwise,these performance standards have worked well over the past several years and do not need modification at this time. 25.59.070 Conformance. (a) An applicant for a special permit pursuant to this chapter that has been granted on conditions that it conforms to the requirements of this chapter may perform work to bring the secondary dwelling unit into conformance,such as reducing the size of the living unit,improving or constructing parking,and correcting violation of Health&Safety Code section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housing Code. However,in no event shall any improvements to the secondary dwelling unit exceed fifty percent(50%)of the replacement value of the unit. (b) Any special permit approved pursuant to this chapter that has not been brought into compliance with the requirements of this chapter within one year of approval shall lapse and be of no further force and effect. Annotation: A primary reason for acknowledging older second units was to be sure that they provided safe and sanitary housing as well as less expensive housing. Recognition of the unit is the carrot (incentive)to get the property owner to make life safety improvements to the existing building. On that basis it is important that the city be sure that the improvements are made. Part of the sunset clause was that applicants would be given one additional year to make the structural improvements. With the removal of the sunset clause it is important to retain the one year obligation to make the life safety corrections. Section(b)establishes the obligation to make the improvements within a year or the right to use the second unit will be lost. Approval of a second unit includes a list of the corrections required.Many,if not all of the corrections,require a building permit. 25.59 non Time ftafne 5 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003Any appreyed Applications for appFOYal ef a special peFmit shall be made on eF befoFe June 3 0, 2004. speeialpeFmit that has not eempliedrequirements this seetion shall lapse and be of no flifther-fiaree and effiaet on June 30, 2 Annotation: This section sets the time frame for the "sunset' of the ordinance. The Subcommittee has suggested that the City now has enough experience testing the effectiveness of the performance standards of this ordinance, and should make the regulation a permanent part of the citys zoning regulations. Further the provisions of the code have been effective in meeting the objectives of the citys Housing policy to support the continuation of existing more affordable housing in a safe and sanitary condition. 25.59.090 Remodeling and improvement. Following the completion of the requirements contained in section 25.59.060 above, the following limitations on remodeling, expansion, improvement, or reconstruction shall apply: (a)No increase of more than thirty(30) square feet of floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall be allowed. (b)No remodeling or improvement to the secondary dwelling unit that exceeds fifty percent (50%)of the value of the secondary dwelling unit shall be allowed. (c) Any remodeling affecting the exterior of the secondary dwelling unit shall be matched to generally conform to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel. (d) If the secondary dwelling unit is demolished, the special permit shall lapse and be of no further force and effect, and all on-site parking requirements of chapter 25.70 shall be met for the primary dwelling on the site. Annotation: The Subcommittee wanted it to be very clear, if the on-site parking requirements were to be relaxed e.g. allow all required parking uncovered, then it needed to be clear that the exception did not extend a property right should the secondary dwelling be demolished. Moreover, if the second dwelling unit is demolished, then the primary single family dwelling must meet all on site parking requirements, even if the parking did not comply with the current code parking requirement at the time the property was originally developed. (e) If the secondary dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe, the secondary dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area as it existed immediately before the catastrophe; Annotation: The Subcommittee also wanted it to be clear that should the second unit be destroyed by a disaster it could be replaced. In that case the development on the site may be replaced exactly 6 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003 as it was, including uncovered parking and maintaining the second unit as affordable. (f) In no event, shall any increase or improvement in the secondary dwelling unit be allowed to cause the improvements on the subject property to exceed the maximum floor area ratio or lot coverage. Annotation: No change is proposed to section (f). This provision mandates that all development on the site be within the current lot coverage and FAR regulations for the site. For example, this provision over-rides the regulation that allows a 30 SF addition to an existing second unit if the total of the house plus the second unit and any accessory structures on the lot exceeds the allowed FAR and lot coverage for the site. Amended Text (see italics) 25.59.100 Revocation of special permit. A special permit granted pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked when: (a)No owner of the subject property resides on the property; or (b) The secondary dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or (b) The parking required by section 25.59.060 is no longer provided; or (c) The primary dwelling on the site is purposely demolished; or (d) Parking is not being provided in conformance to this chapter; or (e) The agreement between the owner and the city regarding affordability of the secondary dwelling unit has been breached by the owner and covered parking is not being provided in accordance with chapter 25.70. Annotation: The purpose of these three additions to the revocation list( (c), (d), and (e) ) is to make it clear when the second unit right expires. This section clarifies that the second unit, if approved, is not a right which goes with the property indefinitely. The added concept that the second unit remains when 3 on-site parking spaces are uncovered only if it is maintained as affordable is emphasized here as well e.g. subsection (e). Since these older, second units have been the city's housing stock for more than 50 years, are small, and have been occupied on an on-going basis, their rents have been modest and managed by the homeowners. Generally these units have been occupied by family members or relatives at low or no cost, or rented at reasonable rates to young people or older residents. However, the Subcommittee felt that those owners who would benefit from a reduction in the on-site parking requirement(providing all parking 7 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003 uncovered)should be required provide affordable rents as a condition of the parking benefit. Since the city does not manage properties, this is accomplished by having a third party, non- profit housing group, manage the property and assume responsibility for guaranteeing that the rent is maintained as affordable for the duration of the second unit use and/or the uncovered parking exception on the property. 25.59.110 Variances prohibited. No variance under chapter 25.54 shall be granted from any requirement of this chapter 25.59. Annotation: It is the intent to continue this program as an administrative program based on performance criteria. A project either complies with the performance criteria or it is not approved. No variances are possible. This prevents arbitrary opposition based on "popularity" or one unfortunately irritating tenant. Recognizing the second units as a part of the legal housing stock will allow property owners to evict unruly tenants which is difficult if the property owner believes his unit to be illegal. Tenants occasionally refuse to pay rent for a unit they think is illegal because in order to evict them they know that the landlord must reveal the illegal unit and -� probably remove it. This program protects the property owner from such actions, and retains units which because of their age have no additional impact on the existing residential area. U:\Zoninglssues\SecondUnityAmnesty\TextRev3 PC Study 11.17.03.doc 8 CITY STAFF REPORT BUR1.0iGAME AGENDA ITEM# It MTG. -•' DATE 2.17.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBMITTED BY DATE: JANUARY 20,2004 APPROVED PROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUWECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENT CHANGES TO THE SECOND UNIT ZONING REGULATIONS. Introduction: City Council should set the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amend the zoning regulations implementing the second unit amnesty program to provide for changes to the program. Staff would recommend that this item be set for public hearing at your meeting on March 1, 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 As a part of implementing the Work Program for the 2001 Housing Element, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission reviewed the city's Second Unit Amnesty Program and made recommendations to the Planning Commission which address: (1) making the program permanent and (2) adjusting the requirements based on the past two year's experience. At their meeting on January 12, 2004, the Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent)to recommend the amended program and zoning changes to the City Council for action. During their discussion of the program changes the Commissioners asked for clarification of several issues: How appeals would be handled? Any action of the City Planner can be appealed to the Planning Commission, the Second Unit Amnesty Program is the same. How will affordable unit be managed? The provisions of CS 25.63.020(c)which apply to inclusionary affordable multi family units will apply to the second unit program. Essentially, the homeowner will be required to work with a non-profit housing group to select/place tenants and insure the unit remains affordable in exchange for being allowed to have no covered parking on site. How will the qualifying criteria be enforced? Compliance with the safe and sanitary criteria would be done through inspections for compliance with any building permits issued. Otherwise enforcement would be on complaint but the owner would be allowed to repair the unit rather than remove it. .1.....,.,.,.,.. .,,W1.-. .. ...,--- --..--- ... ...- -- . . --_----­ -- - . . THE SECOND UNIT ZONING REGULATIONS FEBRUARY 17 2004 BACKGROUND: The Second Unit Amnesty Program, effectuated through CS 25.59 of the zoning code, is a program to preserve second units built on single family zoned lots before 1954. These units have been an on-going part of the City's housing stock for many years. The impacts of these second units have been absorbed by the neighborhoods in which they are located. Because of their small size they provide more affordable housing for single people starting out and for the city's older residents. Because of the age of these second units and their uncertain status,the City has been concerned about the condition of these units. To provide property owners incentive to retain and upgrade the quality of this component of the city's housing stock, the city instituted the Second Unit Amnesty Program in May 2001. The second unit amnesty program is an administrative program, based on performance criteria set out in the zoning code. Any existing second unit built before 1954 which complies with the performance criteria can become a legal part of the City's housing stock. Becoming a recognized part of the city's housing stock may protect the property owners from a variety of abuses from their tenant and neighbors. The Housing Element Implementation Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has reviewed our experience with the current Second Unit Amnesty Program adopted in 2001 and suggested several changes to the performance criteria. The Subcommittee has also recommended that the sunset clause in the program be removed so the program can become a permanent part of the City's housing programs and zoning regulations. Some of the parameter of the current program which are not recommended to change are: ➢ The 1954 eligibility date. To be eligible the second unit must be documented to have been built before1954. — ➢ No change is proposed to the processing procedure. The procedure for processing of these units, including the building inspection and review based on the Housing Code, has worked well. ➢ All development on the lot, including the second unit, will still be required to be within the current code maximums for lot coverage (401/6) and floor area ratio. Proposed Changes to the Performance Criteria While the eligibility and processing framework of the current program will remain the same, the Housing Element Subcommittee has recommended a number of changes to the performance criteria for second units as follow: ➢ The program and ordinance become permanent. This is done by removing the June 30, 2004 sunset clause. ➢ The purpose section has been expanded to state the goal of the program which is to make these second units safe and sanitary and a reminder has been added to property owners that they have one year from city action in which to accomplish safe and sanitary standards or their approval expires. ➢ Modifies the on-site parking requirements from one covered and one uncovered parking space for the primary dwelling unit plus one uncovered parking space for the second unit. The new on site parking criteria is more detailed: o On site parking for the primary dwelling based on the number of bedrooms as required by the current zoning code; THE SECOND UNIT ZONING REGULATIONS FEBRUARY 17, 2004 o Plus one on-site parking space for the second unit based on the following: ■ Not more than two of the parking spaces required on site (covered or uncovered) may be in tandem configuration (one behind the other); • No required parking shall be in the front setback or yard except in a driveway; ■ All parking provided shall be on a hard, all weather surface and drained to a public street; and ■ All on-site parking spaces may be uncovered if the second dwelling unit is used as "affordable" housing for very low or low income individuals or couples for the duration of its existence, or for the time that all the on-site parking is uncovered. This will be formalized and enforced by requiring the property owner to record the low or very low income affordability limitation on the second unit on the deed to the property. ➢ Clarifies that the property owner must live in one unit on the site. ➢ Clarifies that the property owner has one year to make the unit safe and sanitary. After that time the approval to have a second unit will lapse. ➢ The remodel and improvement section has been clarified to note that if no covered parking was provided on-site for the primary unit and the primary dwelling unit is demolished, the new primary unit must meet the city's current off-street parking requirements, e.g. provide covered parking. ➢ Should the second dwelling unit be demolished or damaged in a natural catastrophe the second dwelling unit can be replaced just as it was (based on the plans submitted when it entered the amnesty program). 1 ➢ Clarified the three circumstances when a second unit permit expires: the primary dwelling unit is purposely demolished; on-site parking is not provided as required; and the agreement with the city for affordability is breached and covered parking for the primary dwelling is not being provided. Attachments: Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes, January 12, 2004 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program, Annotations, November 17, 2003 Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units, Burlingame Municipal Code Second Unit Amnesty Tracking, project review history, August 5, 2003 Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 25.59 to Permanently Institute an Amnesty Program for Pre-Existing Secondary Dwelling Units and to Allow Variations in Certain Requirements for Approval. Planning Commission Staff Report, January 12, 2004, with remaining attachments City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 1",vvv the office use(682.5 SF)and auto repair and service shop area(4927.5 SF)on this premise,including the location of the paint booth and three vehicles lefts, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 18,2003;2)that the parking variances shall only apply to an auto repair- use epairuse at this site with a maximum of one paint booth and three vehicle lifts,and shall become void if the use is intensified or if the building is ever expanded,demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 3)that the applicant shall obtain a special encroachment permit from the Public Works Department to install a curb cut to provide vehicle access to parking behind the building prior to installing the paint booth and vehicle lift;only after receiving an encroachment permit shall the applicant obtain a building permit to install the paint booth and vehicle lifts;4)that the area to the north of the building between the structure and the property line accessed from Marsten Road at 1317 Marsten Road shall be paved prior to issuance of the building permit to install the paint booth and vehicle lifts;5)that there shall be a maximum of two employees on site at any one time including the owner and all employees; that an increase in the number of employees shall only be allowed with an amendment to this parking variance;6)that the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; 7)that any changes in the hours of operation,floor area,use,or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this permit; and 8) that the use and 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.Vistica. Commissioners noted that the conditions require that the variance goes with this use and any increase in the number of employees would require an amendment to the parking variance. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1(Cers.Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 7. ACTION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENTING ZONING REGULATIONS—(NEWSPAPER NOTICE)PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 12,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the proposed changes to the present Second Unit Amnesty Program and required changes to the zoning code to implement them. Commissioner asked how very low and low income units would be managed. CP Monroe noted that the City has a process in the inclusionary zoning provisions which would be applied to qualifying second units; in general the very low and low income units would be managed by a third party,usually a non-profit housing group. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Lee Tanton,Linden Avenue,spoke noting that it was recently reported in the newspaper that the city had received an"F"for meeting its affordable housing needs,clearly the current second unit program is inadequate and needs this improvement; he reviewed the history of the city's second unit amnesty program; he noted thatt people don't come forward to have their second units legalized because they do not trust government;city needs to do more to open up the process and create public trust;he is the only one making noise about this,ifthere were 50 people in the room the city would do something;you know that the units are out there,they can be used because they are nonconforming,but people cannot make improvements. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed- 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes C. Auran moved to recommend the changes to the second unit amnesty program and implementing zoning changes to the City Council for approval action The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: staff should be complimented on the amount of time they put into preparing this revision and for the quality of the work done. CP Monroe noted that she appreciated the extra time and effort, over a number of months, the Planning Commission Subcommittee put in as well. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the second unit amnesty program and the implementing zoning changes to the City Council for approval action. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keele absent). This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS,REAL ESTATE OFFICES, HEALTH SERVICES AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (349 RADIUS NOTICE/95 MERCHANTS NOTICED/STREET POSTED/NEWSPAPER NOTICE) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 12,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the application to add four uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area,noting that if these uses were found to be consistent with the General Plan designation for the Broadway Center, CEQA issues would be addressed. Commissioners asked: if one of these uses were allowed for a trial period, say 24 months,by condition could the commission limit the lease to 24 months. CA responded it would be a problem for enforcement,leases are not city business,if the use were conditional the city could make it"temporary"and limit the use permit to 5 years for example, as we do on the Bayfront and the conditional use permit would be subject to review and could be revoked at that time;however, in general it should be expected that if uses are allowed and spaces _ filled that they will remain as the currently non-conforming uses in the Broadway Area have. In 1969 when the General Plan was approved any use was allowed them in 1984 the uses were limited, why? In the early 1980's the city was looking at Burlingame Avenue to create a high pedestrian traffic retail center(subarea A), Broadway merchants and property owners asked to be treated the same; so the Broadway Commercial Area was created with the same regulations as Subarea A of the Burlingame Commercial Area. How many store fronts are vacant at this time? CP did not know exact number at this time. Can the same kind of limitation of number and type used for food establishments be created for financial institutions and real estate offices. CA responded we do not have enough information to be able to determine the correct number; with food establishments we started with the number in the area at the time we established the regulation,that would not work here since the issue is creating opportunity for more of each of these four uses. Regulating the number and mix of uses needs to be based on a plan for Broadway. There is no plan or vision for Broadway which addresses the appropriate number of each of these four uses. Commissioner asked if any limit on the maximum square footage of each of these uses is proposed. CP noted no,in general the lots are small on Broadway and that limits the size of the individual commercial areas. Commissioner asked if two of each use could be allowed and the city could develop a lottery system to decide how to fill the opportunities. CP noted that the city had some experience with a lottery system as the food establishment regulations evolved and it was unhappy. Would not like to repeat. Do these uses address issues like Pilates? CP noted the City has other regulations in effect now which address physical fitness and training in the Broadway area. There were no further questions or comments from the commission. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. David Hinkle, 1616 Sanchez; John Root, 1407 Montero;Virginia Vince, 1301 Paloma; Maida Bezdjian, applicant, 1199 Broadway; Garbis Bezdjian, applicant, 1199 8 November 17, 2003 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units 25.59.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a means for property owners in the R-1 districts of the city to legalize the existence and usage of secondary dwelling units that were built as dwelling units before January 1, 1954. This chapter provides an owner the opportunity to apply to the city for review and approval of such a second dwelling unit in the single family zone and then complete all improvements to bring the unit into compliance with the health and safety standards of the Uniform Housing Code. the health and safety improvements must be completed within one year following the approval of the unit. This-,ehaptef�prevides a windew-efatota} f two (2)years within which sueh an f c,�pply to the eity-fof-feview and appy. tea;a-then cem nts-to bringthe unit- cemplia neeo:ith-the-heahh wW-safety �niferrn llousingode If the primary dwelling on the site is demolished, the secondary dwelling unit cannot be retained or replaced. This chapter also provides basic protections to the surrounding neighborhoods by requiring off-street parking, owner occupancy of one of the two units located on such a property, and limitation on the number of occupants. Annotation: The update of the Secondary Dwelling Unit regulations would remove the "two year vyindov ' for processing an application, and simply require that health and safety improvements be completed within a year of finding the second unit complies with the performance standards of the ordinance. This section clarifies the intent of the ordinance which is to retain these smaller, less expensive rental units in the housing stock and to ensure that they provide safe and sanitary accommodations for tenants. Recognizing existing second units as a part of the legal housing stock will allow property owners to evict unruly tenants which is difficult if a property owTWX believes his unit to be illegal and fears it will be abated if the tenant reports it to officials. 25.59.020 Applicability. This chapter applies to any secondary dwelling unit that was built as a dwelling unit not later than December 31, 1953, and that has been in substantially the same use and envelope since that time. Annotation_ No change is proposed to this provision_ December 31, 1953 was chose because the zoning regulations for the R-1 district regarding second units changed in January 1954. Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7, 2003 Annotation: No changes to the processing procedures of these applications is proposed. Over the several years this program has been in effect, this process has worked very well, as a result no change is proposed. 25.59.050 Appeals. (a) Appeals from the decision of the city planner shall be made in writing to the planning commission within seven (7) days after the public notice of the decision of the city planner is mailed. Any member of the planning commission or the city council may request a review of a decision of the city planner by making such a request to the city planner within seven (7) days of the date of the mailing of the notice. (b) Upon receipt of an appeal or a request for review, the planning commission will set the application for hearing, and notice of the public hearing will be given as set forth in Chapter 25.16. (c) The planning commission shall determine if the application meets the requirements of this chapter. If the application meets all of the requirements of this chapter, the planning commission shall approve the application with those conditions necessary to ensure conformance with this chapter. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this chapter, the planning commission shall deny the application. (d) The decision of the city planner shall be final seven (7) days after the mailing of public notice of the city planner's decision if not appeal in writing has been filed by any person or if no request for review has been made by any planning commission or city councilmember. (e) A decision of the planning commission under this chapter is appealable pursuant to the procedures contained in chapter 25.16. s Annotation_ No change is proposed to this section. It should be noted that this zoning chapter refers to performance standards for second units in single family zones. The applicant either conforms to the performance standards or does not. On appeal, if the request conforms to the standards set out in the code, it cannot be denied by the Commission. On the other hand, on appeal, if the request does not conform, it must be denied by the Flaming Commission. This section makes these limitations on review actions clear. Variances or exceptions cannot be granted. 25.59.060 Performance standards. A secondary dwelling unit shall meet all of the following requirements to qualify for approval under this chapter: (a code, and additional paddng for the secondafy dwelling unit shn-1-1. b-e M. JeMst on space. On site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling 3 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003 25.59.030 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter,the following definition applies: Secondary dwelling unit."Secondary dwelling unit'means an additional dwelling unit on a single-family residential lot or parcel which dwelling contains one or more rooms and one kitchen,designed for occupancy by not more than two(2)persons for living and sleeping purposes. Armotation: No change is proposed to this provision. 25.59.040 Procedure. (a) Any person owning a secondary dwelling unit that was built as a dwelling unit not later than December 31,1953,and that has been in substantially the same use and envelope since that time may apply to the city no-lateptharrJune-30;-2894,for a special permit to legalize the existence,use,and occupancy of the secondary dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter. Annotation: This change removes the"suiser(e.g.expiration date)from this ordinance. With this change this program becomes a permanent part of the city's zoning regulations. _ (b)Applications for such a special permit shall be in writing and filed with the city planner ona form approved by the city planner. In addition to the requirements for such an application,the application shall contain a declaration under penalty of perjury detailing the history of the secondary dwelling unit demonstrating that it was built before January 1,1954,and that since that time,it has been used as a dwelling unit in the same size and configuration as shown in the application. (c)As established by council resolution,a fee will be charged for an application for a special permit under this chapter. (d)Upon application for a special permit pursuant to this chapter,the city planner will review the application and determine if all of the information required has been provided. If the application meets all of the requirements of this chapter,the city planner shall approve the application with those conditions necessary to ensure conformance with this chapter. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this chapter,the city planner shall deny the application. (e)Notice of approval of a special permit pursuant to this chapter shall be mailed by the city planner to owners of property within 100 feet ofthe exterior boundaries of the subject property,with information regarding the right to appeal the decision of the city planner. 2 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003 and one (1) space for the second unit shall be provided as follows: (1) Parking for the primary dwelling as required by Ch 25.70, (2) No more than two of the required on-site parking spaces shall be in tandem configuration, covered or uncovered; (3) No required parking may be provided in the front setback or yard except in the driveway, (4) A11 parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface and properly drained to the public street; and (5) Nothwithstanding subsection (a)(1) above, up to three (3) of the parking spaces required by this title may be uncovered if, but only if the secondary dwelling unit is only used for "affordable housing"as defined in chapter 25.63. As a condition of approval under this subsection, the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement generally in conformance with section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the secondary dwelling unit. Annotation: The subcommittee recommended that it should be an objective of the second unit program to have all the required parking for the primary unit(2 or 3 parking spaces depending upon the number of bedrooms) and the secondary unit(1 space) provided on site (section (a)). For three parking spaces It was less important that the covered parking requirements be met or that the uncovered parking was provided in the driveway in tandem configuration, as long as no more than two cars were parked in tandem. For larger primary dwellings where two covered parking spaces are required by code(e.g. 5 or more bedrooms), the revisions suggest that at least on covered parking space be required. This reduces the 'parking lot" appearance which could be created in the single family district where a large paved area to accommodate four uncovered parking spaces is clearly out of character with the existing development section (5)). However, the Subcommittee felt that it was important to the neighborhood character that applicant's not pave their front setbacks or front yards in order to meet the off street parking requirements(section (3)). It was important also that all parking spaces be paved (e.g. covered with a hard, all weather surface)so that there is incentive for there to be used in bad weather and they look like parking spaces from the street(section(4)). This further discourages tenants and property owners from parking on lawns in front yards and setbacks. A hard all-weather surface can be concrete, bricks, interlocking tiles, the or other similar materials approved by the Public Works Department which also can meet the on-site drainage requirements (section (4)). Finally, the section addresses the situation where the garage was converted to a second unit before covered parking on-site was required or the garage was converted before 1954. in this case all on-site parking may continue to be provide uncovered. However the second unit must be rented as an 'affordable" unit as defined by California HCD and maintained as compliant affordable housing for very low and low income individuals or couples, as along as the second unit remains on the property and required covered parking is not provided on-site. The Planning action will be conditioned on the property owner recording with the county such a deed 4 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program November 7,2003 restriction_ (b)No more than two(2)persons may occupy the secondary dwelling unit_ (c)An owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units on the property at all times. (d)The floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall not exceed 640 square feet. (e)The secondary dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. Annotation: The only change proposed to these sections is a clarification that the property owner live in one unit `on the property . Otherwise, these perfomnance standards have worked well over the past several years and do not need modification at this time. 25.59.070 Conformance. (a) An applicant for a special permit pursuant to this chapter that has been granted on conditions that it conforms to the requirements of this chapter may perform work to bring the secondary dwelling unit into conformance, such as reducing the size of the living unit, improving or constructing parking, and correcting violation of Health& Safety Code section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housing Code. However, in no event shall any improvements to the secondary dwelling unit exceed fifty percent(50%)of the replacement value of the unit. (b) Any special permit approved pursuant to this chapter that has not been brought into compliance with the requirements of this chapter within one year of approval shall lapse and be of no further force and effect. Annotation: A primary reason for acknowledging older second units was to be sure that they provided safe and sanitary housing as well as less expensive housing. Recognition of the unit is the carrot (incentive)to get the property owner to make life safety improvements to the existing building: On that basis it is important that the city be sure that the improvements are made_ Part of the sunset clause was that applicants would be given one additional year to make the structural improvements. \Wiith the removal of the suet clause it is important to retain the one year obligation to make the life safety corrections. Section (b)establishes the obligation to make the improvements within a year or the right to use the second unit will be lost Approval of a second unit includes a list of the corrections required.Many, if not all of the corrections, requre a building pemtit 2559080 Time Pira e. 5 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Progrmn November 7, 2003 IAYIO TAT /fY11lTt1t)/f� A? .1 I-..Alt/1� TAt-Mt+ [.tl/11� �A tYt/f�A Avf AY llATi1TA 11 A <n �nn� IVIly iVi MV ViV ♦l.i Vi M V�VV/Nl VV1 lIll1 Vllµll VV Jll.{VV VIl Vl VVIVJV lU1lV JV, (VVT Amy appreved spee�a • • 1 this section- ball lapse and be o€no-further--force andeffleE s. Annotation: This section sets the time frame for the "sunset" of the ordinance. The Subcommittee has suggested that the City now has enough experience testing the effectiveness of the performance standards of this ordinance, and should make the regulation a permanent part of the citys zoning regulations. Further the provisions of the code have been effective in meeting-_ the objectives of the city s Housing policy to support the continuation of existing more affordable housing in a safe and sanitary condition. 25.59.090 Remodeling and improvement. Following the completion of the requirements contained in section 25.59.060 above, the following limitations on remodeling, expansion, improvement, or reconstruction shall apply (a) No increase of more than thirty (3 0) square feet of floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall be allowed. (b) No remodeling or improvement to the secondary dwelling unit that exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the value of the secondary dwelling unit shall be allowed. (c) Any remodeling affecting the exterior of the secondary dwelling unit shall be matched to generally conform to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel. (d) If the secondary dwelling unit is demolished, the special permit shall lapse and be of no further force and effect, and all on-site parking requirements of chapter 25. 70 shall be met for the primary dwelling on the site. Annotation: The Subcommittee wanted it to be very clear, if the on-site parking requirements were to be relaxed e.g. allow all required parking uncovered, then it needed to be clear that the exception did not extend a property right should the secondary dwelling be demolished. Moreover, if the second dwelling unit is demolished, then the primary single family dwelling must meet all on site parking requirements, even if the parking did not comply with the current code parking requirement at the time the property was originally developed. (e) If the secondary dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe; the secondary dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area as it existed immediately before the catastrophe; Annotation: The Subcommittee also wanted it to be clear that should the second unit be destroyed by a disaster it could be replaced. In that case the development on the site may be replaced exactly 6 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program Novemker 7,2003 as it was,including uncovered parking and maintaining the second unit as affordable. _ (f)In no event,shall any increase or improvement in the secondary dwelling unit be allowed to cause the improvements on the subject property to exceed the maximum floor area ratio or lot coverage. Mnotation: No change is proposed to section(f). This provision mandates that all development on the site be within the current lot coverage and FAR regulations for the site. For example,this provision over-rides the regulation that allows a 30 SF addition to an existing second unit if the total of the house plus the second unit and any accessory structures on the lot exceeds the allowed FAR and lot coverage for the site. Amended Text(see italics) 25.59.100 Revocation of special permit. A special permit granted pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked when: (a)No owner of the subject property resides on the property;or (b)The secondary dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes;or (b) The parking required by section 25.59.060 is no longer provided;or (c�,`The primary dwelling on the site is purposely demolished;or (d)Parking is not being provided in conformance to this chapter,or (e) The agreement between the owner and the city regarding affordability of the secondary dwelling unit has been breached by the owner and covered parking is not being provided in accordance with chapter 25.70. Annotation: The purpose of these three additions to the revocation list((c),(d),and(e))is to make it clear when the second unit right expires. This section darifies that the second unit,if approved,is not a right which goes with the property indefinitely. The added concept that the second unit remains when 3 on-site parking spaces are uncovered only if it is maintained as affordable is emphasized here as well e.g.subsection(e). Since these older,second units have been the cit,/s housing stock for more than 50 years, are small,and have been occupied on an on-going basis,their rents have been modest and managed by the homeowners.Generally these units have been occupied by family members or relatives at low or no cost,or rented at reasonable rates to young people or older residents. However,the Subcommittee felt that those owners who would benefit from a reduction in the onsite packing requirement(providing all parking 7 Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program I November 7, 2003 uncovered) should be required provide affordable rents as a condition of the parking benefit Since the city does not manage properties, this is accomplished by having a third party, non- profit housing group, manage the property and assume responsibility for guaranteeing that the rent is maintained as affordable for the duration of the second unit use and/or the uncovered parking exception on the property. 25.59.110 Variances prohibited. No variance under chapter 25.54 shall be granted from any requirement of this chapter 25.59. Annotation: It is the intent to continue this program as an administrative program based on performance criteria. A project either complies with the performance criteria or it is not approved. No variances are possible. This prevents arbitrary opposition based on "popularity" or one unfortunately irritating tenant. Recognizing the second units as a part of the legal housing stock will allow property owners to evict unruly tenants which is difficult if the property owner believes his unit to be illegal_ Tenants occasionally refuse to pay rent for a unit they think is illegal because in order to evict them they know that the landlord must reveal the illegal unit and probably remove it. This program protects the property owner from such actions, and retains units which because of their age have no additional impact on the existing residential area. U:\ZoningIssues\SecondUnityAmnesty\TextRev3 PC Study 11 .17.03.doc 8 Chapter 25.59 _ the city no later there June M 2004,for a special pernoit " to legalrie the"eaistence,rise, and y of ihE= SECONDAR7(DWEI1:INt;UNITS. sex y dwcHi*t 'pmiahi to d ir'cLapte - 2559.0 A- ' - �: T• 'L• ..-- -- . _ _--@)_A.P_�1x;�layns for snch_a specrdl •"t si_�altlie=• - - _ m vviitmg and ticf�wi�h'tTic cit}'-Pla��3 -fori"n 255l)efi 9.03D nitigns. - by ao P In addition 'k) 2553.940 Prod; , for such an-application,-tlie`applitatioi t .. :. shall contain a declaration under penalty of`perjnsy 2559:06!1 :Pert �� det�hng histrny.of the secondary dweIlmg.umlt,- ormxnce �rrf! ¢ 25.59.070 Conformanc r`"•_�`- -- '' - t was bin7tefgge f ]t j: j�` g���� . of sur int time,rt haslicca illi as ' 255-4. T1!H)e fs7ID�'w• m the same srze and i 2559:990 "R'etiriod - configitaLanas s �Yn m the" elw abd�m ►rovemeal." application - 25-59.100 Reyocatioa otspetial permit.. e) :. 2559.118 Vaiiiites p-e 'b(t1 =''� fcwmc�resolubon�a fee w�71. cargd for ari ap►ltio®;foias `` 1 => -�-` - -- - °>_ ;-� . ;�.:_t-. - .�_-•_ this •.., - •. -- - _P���u�- __.. - - p° se a, Edy hcafion fora ThePurpose-'oi'thrs cha ieiis Las` ode a` ' p to for. wners m the R=1 � - _ . � =�1�'-. �:-���aunrr•.�1._�tv�cyr'-�' - - - .. Pj�_ tY 9- _� _ -_ of`t$t`cify:to appIicatioii'arid-determine°if _--. • ail bf ,,o omaa Legaliie the e�s3stence and usage oeco dI�Og iupred has been If the app "'i'' - -Wq �atWD �... ups that v►�ere Tint as dv el #lif'Qi�J`aj►1; rcgiiiemcnfs.of t>iis Aaptei' Ud 1954:This c krp"videsefttvo" shall _oYe "-appfica opt Mn# diose ;2)years within whim 3vcli?wr`ocvne�can ioi t7ta` to ensure co for review t nt"ormance wrtlL pity and oval and then ca kte all'. cab ?Pik mp the appli uu doeslwt meet a11•oi'ihei _ Yemen to the- unit iu o_ this c " leCetsary s, hap the C] lanncr shall w.r tel, _ J F rt e =offo WJt�a C1JCal[UaD� Oftlri: a p_ Si 1103 f r sa'efy�tandard4 (e)No onWO p specral pem� Surant Jmifoim Horsing Code. Ii the primar)r dtivellm§bit the to thii'clia mac :` t �' t ate demo _': - tY �. t �s hsbed;the secondary vel ng'iinit.caunoi owDCrS of psroperty within 100 frC o tick* 3 eats..' >e retai>ed of repboundaries-of the subject property, with'infoiruation )a6c.protections to the surrounding neig borboods by regarding the right to appeal the decision of thc.,e ty.• - Egsntsmg of `stteef pailQug3'o�ner occupancy ofone of planner_ be two umits.located onsuch a propeit r,and 3ation (I l87§2,ArneadedT 06/0WQl)2 -1 b53§ (part llddod, �n the nuirn$e of occtipaiiti_ - 0510M001) 1653 13(part),Added,05/07!200)) . 25.59.050' 559.020 Applicabibtyi, Appears fi6tfi the decision of t}a crty lannet� ' Thi4chapterapplttsoanysecfi -_ n �. f wePfim nit Sha$bt made:iiq wiitiiig fo P f' hat was buu7t ' than the )arming:conmorsspta as.A_dvi it ng:tirit not )area'. withih'seven (7�`Jays?fter t&p ice'of tfi f' > er 31,1953,ani ttiaf Iiaa been'in �%fantially", - decision .of his city plaiiber is.nm Any-- SA k same use and enyckpe since that tidos the planriiizg on or t the 1653§ (P�i;Added,05021) city 'tzay� r a revrew�of a•i1- � >: - •: t`•�' eCiSronof the citji . making such a request i4 the city-p}anmer within Seven•':- 559_030 Definitions. (7)days of the:date of t)ie�g.ofFor tbc`notic e pwposes of thio chapter, the following (b) Upon receipt of an appeal.or revjew►, .the planning com�fi on`- Secondazy :,;;,71 set_ M -- dwe]li maiujt y������' �� appn t_G f hearirig�-and noliiaC`of ClicDir lice meant.•f dwelling Ve s T om�ly residential lot or unit on a smglF even 21 set forth Paine which dwelling tc) c pL•uiia co4ia sion.shalt i j t f lie or more rooms and one kitchen designed for applicaZian me e!so f` .._ >i:= living applicatio�i meets_all oG theurs 3 ' XuPancy by not more than two(#persom for tbc- r. zd sleeping prrtposes c the ptanuiug oommnission shall 653 13(part),Added,05/'07/2W1 �� ° 't - ) applicatioA wilth those condifiorss necessary to conformance Ertl;this chi�If tbG tioa cages -_ L59A40 Procafnre. not msxt all of the (a) Any perms uwnmg a ic9uuemenls of d*, ,the. scconc}ary dwelling writ 1•- - -- s at was built as a dwellingP ° '9n-shall :the appfica2itrr_- ._ unit not bier than (d[ The drxision of the city plaieuier shaU:be =nibcr 31, 1953,and that has been in substantially seven(7)days after the marjkng of ppbtic noticx oflhe r same use and envelope since drat time may apply Ao f- _ - cih'planinces decision ifnot appeal in wntmg Las bcez+r (25.5 � 9) 2 t�t�plamninF or if iuo ieq►nest for icvuew ha;.Been of floor area of the"secondary dwelling unit shall be :.or city allowed courrenlmennber. (b) No -remodeling of improvement--to the (e)A decision of iFie planning cc"J!�under secondary dwelling unit that exceeds fifty. McCIA'a, slits cliaptei is appealatik Pmt]o t procedures (50'/e)of the value of the secondary dwelling unit __. contained w hapte 25-16 be allowed (t ti53§ 3(" Added,OSA712001) (e)Any remodeling affccfm&`the'eaerioi of ilk ti secondary dwelling unit shall be matc_l�d,io ge j�, 25.59 Yerioi iiia>ice sta<iidards conform to the exterior treatment of tine A set ondary"dwe(}ing unit shad;iioeet p aI1 of the: dwelling unit on the _parce foBovirig'reclimements to gttiahy tot approval under, (d) If the secondary dweItmg unit u demohshcst� this chapter - - the l permit shall lapse and be of iii finisher i specs (a) On site.parlong:shall_be provided for the and effect t prmsary dwklld uirif as recjtured by this and (e)If the l sero dv►welimg unit is destro or.- addifi n pazkmg for the secoiidaty dwelling unit shall damaged b a na ca= see - . g Y �' be at kart one uncovered pang space,whit$ Y be dwelling ' may be reconstructed in exactly saml�" provSded n'tandcm io another ex sprig patlang sliace; envelope and ilo_o_r area as it existed">muii }iateljrbelore (b)No more than two(2)persons m0y occupy.tie the catastrophe - secoai d�c►�eWng ._ (e)_In no eveiot,shall any increase or mnpiovemot '(c�1�ii owner of the sublecf piap ity s1iall rc w In:' in the secondary dwelling bAiE ally o.cause ilie at s at alltSmes. '` rovements:on;the-sub ect `. '(djTbc,t7oo1=• oft* � ;. , .-:. . -:.:, . J. h'to.extend 11i� ;:.•. arca of the seeovdiji:dwelling► ') im�m�flooi area ratio or lot coverage. sh2M no eiteeed 640`squaic feet. ;- _ (1653. art);Added;Os/07l2001) secondary dweIliig niuif"shall`conform to the requnr"entente of tine Caliiomia I e�liti and°SaTety„ 2559.100 Iie"vocatian of sp batptrfuuf: Cole,SectXoii_:I7920 3 and the U�n}brnt} ousng Code A spec3l permit granted t`to as fc G �puursttat► Section 77922. shall be rev addp_ b3i o)edyvincn , {16533(peit),Added;05/ti7rZtNf1)` (a NO fliesujectpiopeiiyresSdesantbc 2539 070 Conformance. (b)Tie secondary dwelling-umd is no lox*ilse-d" An applicant for a special_permit pursuant tq ifilk" for residentiAl-'urpo3es;or ehapterthat bas been granTed on conditions_"that: t:. (e)Thcparloiigregiriredbysection?559:060itjiSv r conform to theis of this c '�. requuemen hapte ma"ji longer provided_ perform work to bring.the secondary 5 yMHing unit into. (1653§3(Pmts Added,05/07!2001) confornance, such,as reducing slit sizc:'of.thc living unit;;i rb?'h!8 or co>xstnucting parl�ng,and 64�e g.-- 2559.110 Variances prohibi[ed: violation p I Safety section.l?920 3 a - `s e - Co a No vartancx tinder cbaptei 2534 gran the�Jmtomi:"Housing Code I ovvevet; nu�no'event . fiom aaoy rt q�iirement of this ch Lt 25. 9 shalt any imrovemcnts to i 'sccbndazjtv�eliing umt (1653§3 Ad.lcd;US/0'/l2001) exeet�fiftypercent(SQ'/.)o�tlicrEplaccinent-va�iie of- - - - :'. "- •-. ""• t - the nmrt,' _ (1633 13(Vart�Added.0107nou.l _ 25.59.480 'rode tr ;• . Apprkatiow i o approa!a*sj),Ccialpermt stall ``` ,•`:` be mack'on of De lupe 31,200 ., Any appioYcd = special permrt that•Las not tornupbed within the tip '-£ regdirinens c4ntauned m tint sectio$shall lapse and: j•; be ofnit`6tber Tone amidclled'akJuine 30,-2005-' (18$7'§'3;AntcDdEd;06A3l2002 t�b53§+3�t)S Adder• - - ' - _. . . '-' „• __,,:. 2539.090' Iteinodt��andiidiprer' � l; ' . •; � - - Follor�mg. contained iu sectitia-- 39.060 above;the folbwmg" - Iimitation4 tie iemodchan&expanciou,>agxovemeat,or_ - _ - - V Ie1071.slradl�y' :i. - - (a)1Vo incriasc ofmore t 'thisty(30)srliruc feet July 2002 (25.50)_2 SECOND UNIT AMNESTY TRACKING M nn R j-�• i_W ........... vwg ,ONE 2 P Addrqsj MUM,In, 4 IrP, '', ,.Y',4,11 j,�\: ., � �' ,Y.4 , ���f,�". '•?f,'•, �}�:K1„..i}!.'1 J� +1 g..:. A;f l.. {��� .•�,'�,J 4TlI M11 �1' row t 0 • door in furnace room to be 1609 324 SF, weather-stripped approved Albemarle 6,26.01 legalize second detache 2 windows and none permit finaled EL filed 1,28.02 Way unit d within 3' of property finaled 4,23.02 line must be removed and alternative venting provided cannot meet main dwelling covered filed 2,6.01 (insp, 845 Linden legalize second 399 SF, pending parking deposit refund) Avenue 7,11.01 unit attache none with requirements/ --- EL filed 4.11.03 ($70 d issues application noticing fee) withdrawn 4.11.0.5 legalize second 1413 Bernal unit in order 635 SF, existing fuse permit finaled Avenue 10.25.01 complete attache box to be replaced by approved none 10.10,02 EL filed 3.1.02 addition to d a breaker panel main dwelling 0existing outlets must be replaced with legalize second 374 SF, ground-fault circuit 1232 Bernal detache in order detache interrupter outlets permit finaled Avenue 12,21.01 complete d over 0 main-line approved none 10.10.02 EL filed 3,1.02 addition to plumbing vent must main dwelling garage be extended 0 automobile access to garage must be installed s:/2ndurdtamensty/trackshect updated 8,05,03 tatus applicant required to remove 2" code unit(kitchen enforcement on onbecause filed 8.2.02 (insp. 826 Alpine addition to main 392 SF, applied to deposit refund and Avenue 1,17.02 dwelling reveals attached N/A denied --- amnesty as the EL $70 noticing fee) second unit on result of code site enforcement- Bldg. Dept, red tag,did not voluntarily apply legalize second 141 Pepper unit in order 414 SF, Avenue 1.28.02 complete detached over none approved none none required EL filed 3.1,02 addition to main garage dwelling • water heater vent must legalize second 416 SF, have 6 inches 804 Alpine unit in order to detached clear Avenue 4.9,02 make interior behind main 0 temperatur approved none none required so filed 7,26.02 improvements to dwelling e pressure relief unit valve must be metal pipe and ran to exterior of unit 0 unit 1570 Cypress neighbor 300 SF, gutted-see May 2, no Bldg. complaint detached 2002 Bldg, Avenue 4,16.02 regarding behind main Official's memo- approved none permit filed as so filed 7,24,02 addition to unit dwelling must apply of 7,25.03 various permits s:/2ndurdtamensty/trackshect updated 8.05,03 ' ' � ' temperature no Bldg. 212.5 SF pressure relief valve permit req'd detached at must be metal pipe for 1255 Berrial 6.20,02 Legalize second rear of and run to exterior of approved none corrections/ so filed 9.5.02 Avenue unit detached unit Plng. garage 0 smoke inspection detector indicates compliance window at ;athroom must be 200 SF boarded up 1249 Legalize second attached in 0 5/8 no Bldg. Vancouver 6.26.02 front of sheetrock on garage approved none permit filed as so filed 9.5.02 Avenue unit detached side wall of 7,25.03 garage 0 smoke detector rwo windows in East wall removed 0 sealed combustion heating unit vents relocated; legalize second 0 combustion unit in order 281 SF unit air openings added to no Bldg. 12 Dwight 2.14.03 complete attached to rear laundry room approved none permit filed as EL filed 8.6-03 Road of detached pipe for of 7,25.03 addition to main garage dwelling temp and pressure relief valve from water heater cut 5/8 inch thick Type X gypsum wallboard installed on the garage side of the common wall s &05.O3 | / ) � ' ` I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.59 TO PERMANENTLY INSTITUTE AN AMNESTY PROGRAM FOR PRE-EXISTING 3 SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS AND TO ALLOW VARIATIONS IN CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to convert the current amnesty program for 8 secondary units from a two-year program to a permanent program. It is hoped that this will 9 encourage property owners to apply for amnesty over time. In addition,the limitations on on-site 10 parking spaces has created some hardships on property owners, and this ordinance attempts to 11 reduce that hardship in exchange for a commitment to sustain the affordability of secondary 12 dwelling unit. 13 14 Section 2. Section 25.59.010 is amended to read as follows: 15 25.59.010 Purpose. 16 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a means for property owners in the R-1 districts 17 of the city to legalize the existence and usage of secondary dwelling units that were built as 18 dwelling units before January 1, 1954. 19 20 21 - - - - 22 23 two(2)years wiffibi which such mi owner cmi apply to the city fbr review mid appiL Oval mid then 24 complete all I . provenients to bring the unit into compliance wit],the health mid safety 25 If the primary dwelling on the site is demolished,the 26 secondary dwelling unit cannot be retained or replaced. This chapter also provides basic 27 protections to the surrounding neighborhoods by requiring off-street parking,owner occupancy of 28 one of the two units located on such a property, and limitation on the number of occupants. 1 I Section 3. Section 25.59.040(a)is amended to read as follows: 2 Any person owning a secondary dwelling unit that was built as a dwelling unit not later than 3 December 31, 1953, and that has been in substantially the same use and envelope since that time 4 may apply to the city ,for a special permit to legalize the existence,use, 5 and occupancy of the secondary dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter. 6 7 Section 4. Section 25.59.060 is amended.to read as follows: 8 25.59.060 Performance standards. 9 A secondary dwelling unit shall meet all of the following requirements to qualify for 10 approval under this chapter: 11 (aOn-site12 code,and additional Paiking fbji the secondarydwellingunit shall beat least One Uncoveledpaiking 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 _ 25 - 26 27 28 2 I (b)No more than two (2)persons may occupy the secondary dwelling unit. 2 (c)An owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units on 3 at all times. 4 (d)The floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall not exceed 640 square feet. 5 (e)The secondary dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health 6 and Safety Code,Section 17920.3,and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. 7 8 Section 5. A new subsection 25.59.070(b)is added as follows: 9 (b) Any special permit approved pursuant to this chapter that has not been brought into 10 compliance with the requirements of this chapter within one year of approval shall lapse and be of 11 no further force and effect. 12 13 Section 6. Section 25.59.80 is repealed. 14 15 Section 7. Section 25.59.090 is amended to read as follows: 16 25.59.090 Remodeling and improvement. 17 Following the completion of the requirements contained in section 25.59.060 above, the 18 following limitations on remodeling, expansion,improvement, or reconstruction shall apply: 19 (a)No increase of more than thirty(30)square feet of floor area of the secondary dwelling 20 unit shall be allowed. 21 (b)No remodeling or improvement to the secondary dwelling unit that exceeds fiflypercent 22 (501/o)of the value of the secondary dwelling unit shall be allowed. 23 (c)Any remodeling affecting the exterior of the secondary dwelling unit shall be matched 24 to generally confonm to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel. 25 (d)If the secondary dwelling unit is demolished,the special permit shall lapse and be of no 26 further force and effect, 27 28 (e) If the secondary dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe, the 3 I secondary dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area as it 2 existed immediately before the catastrophe; 3 (f)In no event,shall any increase or improvement in the secondary dwelling unit be allowed 4 to cause the improvements on the subject property to exceed the maximum floor area ratio or lot 5 coverage. 6 7 Section 8. Section 25.59.100 is amended to read as follows: 8 25.59.100 Revocation of special permit. 9 A special permit granted pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked when: 10 (a) No owner of the subject property resides on the property; or 11 (b) The secondary dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or 12 (c) The parking required by section 25.59.060 is no longer provided; 13 14 15 16 17 =- 18 19 Section 9. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 20 21 22 Mayor 23 I,ANN T.MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 24 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of ,2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_ 25 _day of2004, by the following vote: 26 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 27 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 28 4 1 City Clerk 2 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\secondunits2004-pin-wpd 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 City of Burlingame Item # Action on Proposed Changes to the Second UnitAmnesty Action Calendar Program and Implementing Zoning Regulations Meeting Date: 1/12/04 Action: The Planning Commission Should hold a public hearing and vote on whether to recommend to the City Council the proposed changes to the Second Unit Amnesty Program and the implementing zoning regulations. This item has been noticed in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law. Summary: The Second Unit Amnesty Program, effectuated through CS 25.59 of the zoning code, is a program to preserve second units built on single family zoned lots before 1954. These units have been an on-going part of the City's housing stock for many years;their impacts have been absorbed by the neighborhoods in which they are located. Because of their small size they provide more affordable housing for single people starting out and the city's older residents. Because of their age and uncertain status,the City has been concerned about the condition of these units. To provide property owners incentive to retain and upgrade the quality of this component of the city's housing stock,the city instituted the Second Unit Amnesty Program in May --- 2001. The second unit amnesty program is an administrative program, based on performance criteria set out in the zoning code. Any existing unit which complies with the performance criteria can become a legal part of the City's housing stock. Legality protects the property owners from a variety of abuses from tenant --. and neighbors. The Housing Element Implementation Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has reviewed the current program adopted in 2001 and suggested several changes to the performance criteria. The Subcommittee has also recommended that the sunset clause in the program be removed, and the program become a permanent part of the City's housing programs and zoning regulations. Some of the parameter of the current program which are not recommended to change are: ➢ The 1954 eligibility date. To be eligible the second unit must be documented to have been built before1954. ➢ No change is proposed to the processing procedure. The procedure for processing of these units, including the building inspection and review based on the Housing Code, has worked well. ➢ All development on the lot,including the second unit,will still be required to be within the current code maximums for lot coverage(40%) and floor area ratio. Proposed Changes While the elgibilty and processing framework of the current program will remain the same, the Housing Element Subcommittee has recommended a number of changes to the performance criteria for second units. These follow. ➢ The program and ordinance become permanent.This is done by removing the June 30,2004 sunset clause_ ➢ The purpose section has been expanded to state the goal of the program which is to make these second units safe and sanitary and reminds property owners that they have one year from city action Action on Proposed Changes to the Second UnitAmnesty Program and Implementing Zoning Regulations January12,2004 in which to accomplish that, or their approval expires. ➢ Modifies the on-site parking requirements from one covered and one uncovered parking space for the primary dwelling unit plus one uncovered parking space for the second unit. The new criteria is more detailed: o On site parking for the primary dwelling based on the number of bedrooms as required by the current zoning code; o Plus one on-site parking space for the second unit based on the following: ■ Not more than two of the parking spaces required on site (covered or uncovered)_ may be in tandem configuration (one behind the other); ■ No required parking shall be in the front setback or yard except in a driveway; ■ All parking provided shall be on a hard, all weather surface and drained to a public street; ■ All on-site parking spaces may be uncovered if the second dwelling unit is used as "affordable" housing for very low or low income individuals or couples for the duration of its existence, or for the time that all the on-site parking is uncovered. This will be formalized and enforced by requiring the property owner to record the low or very low income affordability limitation on the second unit on the deed to the property. ➢ Clarifies that the property owner must live in one unit on the site. ➢ Clarifies that the property owner has one year to make the unit safe and sanitary. After that time the approval to have a second unit will lapse. ➢ The remodel and improvement section has been clarified to note that if no covered parking was provided on-site and the primary dwelling unit is demolished, the new primary unit must meet the city's current off-street parking requirements, e.g. provide covered parking. ➢ Should the second dwelling unit be demolished or damaged in a natural catastrophe the second dwelling unit can be replaced just as it was(based on the plans submitted when it was made legal). ➢ Clarified the three circumstances when a second unit permit expires. the primary dwelling unit is purposely demolished;on-site parking is not provided as required;and the agreement with the city for affordability is breached and covered parking for the primary dwelling is not being provided. Planning Commission Study At their meeting on November 24, 2003, the Planning Commission studied the proposed changes to the second unit amnesty program. The commissioners asked four questions: ➢ Page 3 talks about appeals,but thought that second units have to meet the requirements and there is no appeal. 2 Action on Proposed Changes to the Second UnitAmnesty Program and Implementing Zoning Regulations Januaryl2,2004 Any action of the City Planner may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The point being made on page 3 of the annotated changes, is that if the application conforms to all the performance criteria the _ Planning Commission must up hold the City Planner's action. ➢ Who will manage the affordable unit? The City's inclusionary zoning requirements establish in CS 25.63.020(c) that the developer, in this case the owner of the property on which the second unit is located is responsible for presenting to the city a below market rate housing program. Generally such programs are developed between a property owner and a third party, non-profit which manages low income housing. The third party has the responsibility of finding a qualified individual or couple for the available unit; and continues to find appropriate tenants so long as the unit remains in the city's affordable housing stock. The Planning Department can assist the property owner in finding an appropriate third party, non-profit. ➢ How often will the requirements for the affordable unit be evaluated? The non-profit housing manager will have the responsibility of determining that the tenant is qualifieg this is a standard practice. When the property owner applies to the city for any building permit or change on his property, the Planning Department in their review of the building permit application would identify if the proposed action would change the second unit requirements on the property. ➢ How will the three criteria for the unit to remain be enforced? Staff will work with the property owner of the qualified property as they do now to insure that the — second unit qualifies for the program, that the improvements needed are identified by the building department, that a buildingpermit is taken out andfinaled, and, ifrequired, that a contract to manage the unit for a very low andlor low income household is signed between the property owner and a third party, non-profit housing agency. If the unit is required to be affordable to a very low or low income household(one or two people), that requirement will be recorded with the deed to the property and will be made evident to any future purchaser. Otherwise, the performance requirements will be enforced when building permit applications are reviewed or upon complaint, as is the case at present. Attachments: Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 25.59 to Permanently Institute an Amnesty Program for Pre-Existing Secondary Dwelling Units and to Allow Variations in Certain Requirements for Approval Planning Commission Minutes,November 24, 2003 Planning Commission Study Staff Report,November 24, 2003, with attachments including.- Proposed ncluding:Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program, Annotated,November 17, 2003 Notice of Public Hearing, Published January 2, 2003 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 24, 2003 7.00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojues called the November 24, 2003, regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m_ II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojues, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent- Commissioners: Keele, Brownrigg Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; Senior Engineer;Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 12, 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 There were no public comments. - VI. STUDY ITEMS REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENTING ZONING REGULATIONS -PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Page 3 talks about appeals, but thought that second units either have to meet the requirements and there is no appeal; • Who will manage the affordable unit; • How often will the requirements for the affordable unit be evaluated; • How will the three criteria for the unit to remain be enforced. CP Monroe explained that applicant can appeal on interpretation of how the second unit meets requirements similar to a determination,but that there are no appeals if they don't meet criteria. CP Monroe also explained that if a second unit is required to be"affordable"that a third party management company will manage and monitor the unit, and evaluate the rental when tenants change. CP Monroe noted that the hearing would have to be on the January 12,2003 agenda because of the holiday we can not meet newspaper noticing requirements for December 8_ This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. S:\MINUTESIPROTECTE\20031rninutes 11.24.doc City of Burlingame Item # Review of Proposed Changes to the Second Unit Amnesty Program and I Study Calendar Implementing Zoning Regulations Planning Commission Action: This is the first presentation to the Commission of the Housing Element Implementation Subcommittee's recommendation for revisions to the Second Unit Amnesty program and implementing legislation. The Commission should review and discuss the proposed changes to Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units which will make these provisions permanent and will modify certain ofthe program's performance criteria. Staff should be directed about any changes to this proposal that the Commission would like to consider at the public hearing. There is no public hearing at the study meeting since this is the opportunity for the Commissioners to discuss the proposal. However, after discussion with staff, Commission may wish to set the public hearing date at the meeting. Summary: For several months the Housing Element Implementation Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been reviewing the code requirements which implement the city's second unit amnesty program. This program applies to second units in single family zoned areas which were built before January 1, 1954. On e of the items in the 2001 Housing Element work program was to evaluate this program, initiated as a temporary program in May of 2001. Subcommittee reviewed the success of the program and the impacts of the program on the existing residential areas. As a result ofthat study the Subcommittee is recommending several changes to the requirements of the program. (See Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program Annotations,November 17,2003)_ Most importantly the Subcommittee is recommending that this - administrative program to legalize second units built before 1954 become a permanent part ofthe Municipal Code. The Second unit Amnesty Program, effectuated through CS 25.59 of the zoning code, is a program to preserve second units built on single family zoned lots before 1954. These units have been an on-going part of the city's housing stock for many years,their impacts have been absorbed by the neighborhoods,and because oftheir small size they provide more affordable housing for single people starting out and our older residents. Because of their age and uncertain status, the: city has been concerned about the condition of these units. To provide property owners incentive to retain and upgrade the quality of this component of the city's housing stock, the city instituted the Second Unit Amnesty Program in May 2001. This is an administrative program. The zoning code sets out performance criteria for these units, any unit that complies with those criteria can become a legal part ofthe city's housing stock. Legality protects property owners from a variety of abuses from tenants and neighbors. In their review,the Housing Element Implementation Subcommittee of the Planning Commission suggests several changes to the performance criteria as well as recommending that this program and its enabling regulations become a permanent part of the city's housing programs and zoning regulations. Some parameters of the current program are not recommended to change: ➢ The 1954 eligibility date. To be eligible the second unit must be documented to have been built before]954. ➢ No change is proposed to the processing procedure. The procedure for processing of these units, including the building inspection and review based on the Housing Code, has worked well. ➢ All development on the lot, including the second unit,will still be required to be within the current code maximums for lot coverage(40%) and floor area ratio_ Review ojPreposed Changes to the Second DndAmnesty Program and Implementing Zoning Regulations November 24,2003 The Subcommittee's suggested changes to the performance criteria are as follows: Proposed Changes to Performance Criteria from the Current Regulations ➢ The program and ordinance become permanent.This is done by removing the June 30,2004 sunset clause. ➢ The purpose section has been expended to state the goal of the program to make these second units safe and sanitary and reminds property owners that they have one year from city action in which to accomplish that. ➢ Modifies the on-site parking requirements from one covered and one uncovered parking space for the primary dwelling unit plus one uncovered parking space for the second unit. The new criteria is more detailed: o On site parking for the primary dwelling based on the number of bedrooms as required by the current zoning code, o Plus one on-site parking space for the second unit based on the following: • Not more than two of the parking spaces required on site(covered or uncovered) may be in tandem configuration(one behind the other); • No required parking shall be in the front setback or yard except in a driveway; • All parking provided shall be on a hard,all weather surface and drained to a public street; ■ All on-site parking spaces may be uncovered if the second dwelling unit is used as "affordable"housing for very low or low income individuals or couples for the duration of its existence or the time that all the on-site parking is uncovered.This will be formalized by requiring the property owner to record this limitation on the second unit on the deed to the property. ➢ Clarifies that the property owner must live in one unit on the site. ➢ Clarifies that the property owner has one year to make the unit safe and sanitary.After that time the approval to have a second unit will lapse. ➢ The remodel and improvement section has been clarified to note that if no covered parking was provided on-site and the primary dwelling unit is demolished,the new primary unit must meet the city's current off-street parking requirements,e.g.provide covered parking. ➢ Should the second dwelling unit be demolished or damaged in a natural catastrophe the second dwelling unit can be replaced just as it was(based on the plans submitted when it was made legal). ➢ Clarified the three circumstances when a second unit permit expires:the primary dwelling unit is purposely demolished;on-site parking is not provided as required;and the agreement with the city for affordability is breached and covered parking for the primary dwelling is not being provided. 2 Review of Proposed Changes to the Second Unit Amnesty Program and Implementing Zoning Regulations - November 24,2003 Attachments: Proposed Revisions to Second Unit Amnesty Program, Annotated, November 17,2003 Municipal Code Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units, current zoning regulations Second Unit Amnesty Tracking, Project Log and Project Status, November 2003 Second Unit Amnesty Program Handouts and Application Forms, November 2003 r 3 llistory:. The City of Burlingame first adopted a zoning code in 1921. Revisions to the zoning code in January-1954 prohibited second units on an R-1 property. Because second units were allowed under the zoning code up to January 1954 and because many of units were built during the housing crisis associated with WWII,the focus of the amnesty program is on these early units. Purpose of the Amnesty Program: The purpose of the program is two fold. First, to retain these second units as a legal part of the city's housing stock,based on the idea that because they are smaller,older,and_ scattered they are both lower cost and an attractive housing alternative for:single individuals with limited_ incomes. Second, since the targeted units were known to be older, often built without building permits, and designated nonconforming or illegal,many have been neglected and have over time become unsafe and/.or unsanitary. Getting these units made safe and sanitary for current and future tenants is also an important to community priority. Duration of the Amnesty Program: The amnesty program established will be in.effect for two years. _applications for special permits will be accepted in the Planning Department until June 30, 2004. Applications for building permits to bring the second units into compliance with Health and Safety codes will be accepted"in the Building Department until June 30,2005. Qualifying for the Amnesty Program:All of the following requirements must be met in order for an existing second unit to qualify for the amnesty program: the second unit must be located in an R-1 zone; the second unit must have been built before January 1, 1954; • required on-site parking shall be provided for the primary dwelling,and additional parking for the secondary dwelling unit shall be at least one uncovered parking space,which may be provided in tandem to another existing parking space; no more than two(2)persons may occupy the secondary dwelling unit; • an owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units at all times; AMNFSTYEXPLAN.Sirr • the floor area of the secondary dwelling shall not exceed 640 SF;and the secondary dwelling unit shall be able and.made to eonform.to the requirementsof the California Health and Safety Code. — How the Program Works: Application to the:amnesty program must be initiated by the property owner_ The legalization process will progress in the following manner. I. Applicant submits complete application materials and fees to the Planning Department. Please see the Second Unity Amnesty Application and Submittal Requirements(attached lilac form)for details_ 2. An appointment is scheduled for a Building Inspector to inspect the second unit and write a report on its age and its condition in relation to the applicable standards of California Health and Safety Code. 3. Given the Building Inspector's findings, the app licant will decide if he/she wishes to pursue the special permit. 4. If the applicant chooses to pursue the special permit,neighbors within 100`.of the property will be noticed of the request to legalize the existing secondunit. If no neighbor appeals within 7 days, the special permit will be granted to the property. If an appeal is received by the Planning Department, The request for the special pen-nit to legalize the existing second unit will go before the Planning Commission for review at a public hearing. If the request is denied,the existing second unit will continue to be allowed as a nonconforming dwelling unit subject to the applicable provisions of the zoning code. Approval of the Special Permit for a Second Unit: Once;a special permit for a second unit is approved by the Planning Department,the applicant has until June 30,2005,to submit to the Building Department for building permits to bring the second unit into compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the California Health and Safety Code. With the granting of amnesty,the following limitations will apply to the property: • no improvements to the secondary dwelling unit can exceed fifty percent(50%)of the replacement _ value of the unit(replacement value to be determined by a Building Inspector); • no iperease of more than thirty(30)square feet of floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall be allowed; AN NESIYEXPILAN_SHT any remodeling affecting the exterior of the secondary dwelling unit shall be matched to generally conform to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel; • if the secondary dwelling unit is demolished,the special permit shall lapse and be of no fiuther force_ and effect; • if the secondary dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe,the secondary dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area as it existed _ immediately before the catastrophe; in no event,shall any increase or improvement in the secondary dwelling unit be allowed to cause the improvements on the subject property to exceed the maximum floor area ration or lot coverage;and • required on-site parking for the primary dwelling and one on-site uncovered parking space for the second unit shall be provided and maintained When all Building Permits are issued and the second unit has received a final inspection by the Building_ Department,notice will be sent to San Mateo County to legalized the second unit.- Note: nit:Note: Property owners and applicants will not be penalized if the second unit on the property does not meet the amnesty requirements: AMNFSTYFXPLAN.Sirr CITY OF B URLINGAME SUBMITTAL REQ UIREMENTS FOR SECOND UNIT AMNESTY - Application to the Planning Department must include certain minimum information_ The applicant is responsible for submitting this information as listed below. All submittal information must be clear, and easily readable. Incomplete or illegible information cannot be accepted and will cause delays in the processing.of the application. [ ] COMPLETED APPLICATION FORM: with original applicant and property owner signatures. Photocopies or faxed signatures are unacceptable. Please write clearly in ink or type application forms. Identify the contact person with the most knowledge of the project with an asterisk(#)_ [ ] NOTICING FEE: S 70.00 [ ] INSPECTION DEPOSIT: $ 375.00 ] VERIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP: If new owners. [ ] DOCUMENTATION TO VERIFY AGE OF SECOND UNIT: Can include building permits, dated pictures, signed testimonials, etc. to prove that unit existed prior to January 1, 1954: If inconclusive documentation or no documentation is provided,the building inspector will determine the approximate�age for the second unit upon inspection. [ ] PLANS: (2 sets of plans drawn to scale, 8 % x 11 minimum and at least one set must be 8 %2 X 11) lot dimensions and graph paper can be obtained from the Planning Department Outlined below are guidelines for completing plans. All plans must be drawn to scale: [ ] SITE PLANt* drawn to scale showing the property lines, easements, and include the dimensions and location of the sidewalk, driveway,and all structures on site. ] FLOOR PLANS: show floor layouts for all floors in the main dwelling and the second unit. Partial floor plans are not acceptable. Please label rooms, identify all existing interior walls and windows, and include the interior dimensions for any garage areas(examples of symbols will be provided). [ ] BUILDING ELEVATIONS: elevations showing the second-unit, dimension to show plate height,ceiling height,building height to highest ridge,windows and doors. Note: Property owners and applicants will not be penalb:ed if the second unit on the property does not meet the amnesty requirements. CrI Y OF BURL IISGAME PLANNM DEPARTMENT 50i PREWROSE ROAD P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 -CF" - - SECOND UNIT AMNESTY APPLICATION-- Project Address: Parcel Number. ---------------- APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: Name: Address: Address: City/State/Zip: CitAtatetZip: Phone(w): -Phone-(w): (h): (h)= Please indicate with an.asterisk:* the contact person for thisproject. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the informatimi given herein is true and correct to the best of>ny knowledge-and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: ------------- I know about the pnoposed-application and'hcreby authorize the above applicant to submit this - application to the Planning Department. Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: Note:Property owners and applicauts'vvill not be penalized if the second unit on the property does not meet the amnesty requirements. JL ,....rt I., .r _�. ., ,.L. ~.1... �_ ..k_..r.. i. L..._ .. _r.._,?.~.}....�.... ..j._! _;.,,,. II �,~..1,_....�_... 1....I ,.i. ...;. 44L .......... ....... ............ .......... L 77­ r- JL .......... -4-4--H... SAN MATEO COUNTY • -HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY - OFFICE OF HOUSING j T. OUSIN-G & COM-MUNITY DEVELOPMENT -262 Harbor Blvd. - Bldg.A Belmont,CA. 94002 (650)802-5050- Fa-4650002-5049 Housing Rehabilitation Loan Application For Rental Rehabilitation Program Thm*yam,for your interest in the low interest housing rehabilitation loan programsoffered by Housing and Comfrxmity DeveloprnenL As this application padcage is lengthy and will require several different_ Sources of information, it is recommended that you follow the suggestions as listed below for your consideration. I• Allow yourself a sufficient amount of time to complete this application in its entirety. Do not turn in an incomplete application. Those applications which do not have the required information are returned to the applicant for completion. This will cause a delay in processing- 2. Read the application entirely before you begin filfing in the information. Gather the necessary supporting data and documents and complete the application,in order of information requested. 3. if you have questions or need further direction, contact the Housing Specialist for your area at the _ number above, prior to sending it in for processing. 4. After you have completed the application, review it again to ensure its correctness,and fill in any open - data spaces.- It is usually best to put an 'N/A' in those spaces that do not apply to your particular situation. S. Make a photocopy of the entire application for your records prior to turning it in for processing. 6. Be sure to include any supporting documents that are required, incclWing the non-refundable AppTim6m -Fee of$250.00. -These-must accompany your completed application in order to be considered by Housing and Community Development. 7. Be patient. -As this program is available to all investment property owners within the , are usually several applicants who are in various stages of processing. Your application "/7- in a timely nmaruier. _ 8. Detach and maintain the yellow sections for A X19 y� your records---....... o Q � `eo 10� 9. Detach, copy,and disbiuse white sections to your tenants............ /4co'yc , F'OT9�i�: 10. Detach,copy,and have tenants sign associated Lead Based Paird documents at back of green section. Retum signed documents with application padcage. (Documnents Aist be signed for all uruts)- Jr.i .� '. , _ • • - } R nfial R a iti�afioril RR-) Pro rami D-senption - tJf L\'/.YV ti-i}=. _ - .i��,�+•ii-�fl"t"_- • f z �.�'-i•' _ ._ T `` ♦•1 The purpose of the loan is to finance the moderate and rehdbtlttati011 bulkfr s . which the- c `�' 4 cx mere-re>idential rental units in property Owner.is required:tQ maintain a hinirr"n of 60%ocavwxy'by low or very law income tenants ii&affbrdable t : rY- :W :- defined by the uS Dept.Of blousing and urban Development arunrally y be fi,Iy fixicied by the Cmty of San Mateo Ren!Rehabifit&m Prog a.m required beyond.progaarn limits as:*sa abed:below must tie:p"ri by'itie:Proper h,p�- Tm-IntS occupying the units may qualify for,but are not guaranteed, Secbon 8 assistance through the Saar-. Mateo County Housing Authority, subject to eligibility and procedures as defi rthned- =ttie }jng Ato*. - _. • .. ApmJCA r El JQBnm The.Wgstcx:m9er m_ ust meet Janlong. danris. credit.v►rotthi �:.. r�ss. ari� :PrespertY must(�a61� toff nce aposit ye(or net-$0)'cash fi*after'-:rehabilitation. If tw, awn y is b tair►�r5 tu�/her pic�rtion- of .projectcosts:friorn.a IoeFiseow ctbjrthe property.the P�rriertts-onthisYiew kiari nits[b�`�actoreci'::: EM"8 LF$qtr rt Trus Efigble rental unit structures must have a rrinimurn of 60%k:pw or very krnr income tenants as of the date of the application OR an equivalent number of low or very low income tenants and vaarKies:' Eligible rentalare these:wl",.need nehabr7itation. 'Need-rehafir�itation '�defined=::as-fiibc ems` which do notmeet U,S,:.l-iomi &-Uriian,pevelop, ent+r>ir�irrxwrri housing qualitj;siabdards a`tocai building health and safety,slandands. .. APPLK'ABLE RENTS :`• . - , ... - ..: _• . .-' y ?: . . - --. . - •.�s n'"-' - ' X.least 60%of the ur>itts(distributed among unit sizes in proportion to thebveraqutior�-nf 6r&H sizes,in t!a¢. developn?ei ); t be;.rend to k;w or:very k>vwit .t6ro*at-`affo able=rte': =` "Aifordabl c ,':6 defined•bu f<W for its HOME-Investrrierrt-Paraie ;;•- For-a period of one(1)year-from completion of the work.the - . ' Property Owner shall be regi�rrred-to - maintain evs".pyre-rehab: repts on all edits. One r;- _ . .. Y'�tri�e f�g_�'t>:�'I`�Ic�ioe cif�;vrr�pletioin�: HCD wA nogy the Owner of the Affable Pmts and Household biomes applying;at'tt�f lin its will apply to the 60%of the units. In the event evsbng rents are*ea*NSW than the Affordable the owner wry not be requiied ` to reduce the rens but must keep ti ie rent static until the Affordable Rent meets or e)reeds the e>vsting rent_ FEW ftopertyOwnershal pay a Application Fie of$250 sub rnittM with the Loan app!ication: This fee shat cower HM e)q)enses Inreviewing theapocation. If the avvrierpert .meet lendings urds. the Properiy Owner shall.be iriforrned of the estirt�ated costokthe Ott and any other erected co ts, tfde-(�+ +fier chooses al il-k time-t proceed with the loan,.a`tm4kiJa1 Loan�cl`�250 axis€be s pail -- Te-e miners tide reports, 6-�ilk reports, recordingf3rep�ration aril processus costs Owner..shall- be.requk*d tci provide HCD wifli a currerit`apjiratrsA. The appraiser shall be selected by- Countj%HCf tht appraisershall-be rWdur eciij,bj;.6wher_ Additional Xmay:tie: iniwred ft* tenrxte arldtf[ tural Pestori d rePa is, en6peedrig and bh�epnrsts If airy of these items are'`required,and#)6y- -are paid iorby F iCD-in advance,they must be. reimbursed from prviceetls. the ban. .Pioperij!Ovvrier.rriaji:elect to pay these costs in advance. NOTE: fltnpei ty'aiwriet shat-agrt 'in:writing-t+o~tie resporm le foF a1 of the above items and,:n:tt event Of-withdravra!_fr+onri the. pr yarn prior to ban dosing, will reimburse HCD -within 45:days of _ notificat%ri to-&5, Any Fees a,.ei¢ews:Paids6y tfie Owner maybe 6e reimbursed from the proceeds of ttie loan ailer payment of afl.costs of the coristrijction: CONTINGENCY. -. - �-- An appropriafie coritirigeixy`ariToecxit is included in the loan amount brH.each project and may be used for' discovery work only. If the contingency isnot used.the remaining balance is applied directly to the loan". principal. The contingency .,be used.for General Property Improvements, upgrades.,or substaritiai vvo c rat specified at the preconski"oh conkrence that:would not:reasonably. be considered.` "Discovery VNork'related to conU acted iterris. ENATION OF HCD LOWS ' subordination in# .arnouto} thena6 :f . seniorloan(s)'phis the costs of is aaoeple as bng as aPpraisak indicate tine ban tovalue ratio standards are not exceeded and the is to lessen the borrnaver' The P P f. s mo fily financial obfigafions; ler insi'ibubon requesti�ig a sut�ordiriation must pri�ivide 1=1:t .D.:vvrt#i_ copies of the proposed loan doamM rIlia" No SUbOrYf t10f15 VVI 00(l1rVYf11C#1 V11Ould p7�VIde'cash or eq*be ngtalaen fiYN11 the property: Note : AN pro am V idelines and procedures may not be detailed above. Other program guidefrnes and requiremerds may apply. Full program explanation wig be available upon request SAN MATED COUMY HOUSING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - 262 Hwbor BMd Bldg- A Belrnortt,CA 94004: ' 650 SOSQ F 650}8U . -_ 2-5049. .:-- PINTURAS A BAS DE PLOMO NOTIVICACION A PROPRIETARIOS E INQUIt1NOS DE VIVIENDAS CONSRUIDAS ANTES DE Ig76- ' 'ATENCION/fit.ENVENENAMIENTO POR,PINTURAS A BASE DE PLOMO' D eddioo que°cepa a►jota pronto sera rehahiftado abajo del programa fixAado federal de relu v nofificaaori sera ' de vrviertdas: para usfed abajo del Dgwtmento de Desarrollo.U&ano_de..viviendas Regla.24CFk Pane Sfi� 511:-574;y 590:_.. ESTE PROPI EDAD f e corrtrtida antes de 1978. Existe la `� bTdad de P� g ontenga ptnCura a base'de-' - 4 ' rtae' ! s$ue - rr�Orrrtaciort riefacionada coni el envertertamiert6�poc pirihra a )ase plorno: Jaueriesmascan para siiperficie o se corrterr asttllas de pirrhxa aal se desprende de prntura dartada sulierctesfa, { de pirtttxa a � _ . .- ; P�Tp P�ser pefigroso. Pomo vettenoso es pc�lignoso especralmente en nmos menores:de;(6�sas-;arios - 1'treda�rr eon el tiernpo ea[rsar-serios problemos a su salad iiieluso posrbildades de rietardacion mental ceduera:paral`rsis;;o hasta`la�-.._'- muerta Fuentes de to pintura a base de pbmo. EI interior de las casas y departamentos mas antiguos con h ecuenciapresertta de , pirtttra a base de ' en las los alfe'izares de las ventahas,.las puertas y los Marcos de las, Plorno paredes,-los cielorrasos, pintCrra y los apres#adores a base de plorrto tamb'ren pueden Naber lido t"izados en Balcones extei ores barartdas escaleras de ineertdio -� • Y Poste de iluminacion. Cuando la pintura seastrlla;-se descascara o se desprende, puede.:existir.4xi,_ .. verdadero pefigro,para los ninos pequenos. Los ninos pueden llevarse a la txxa las astillas de pintira o_reorder las barandas _ P'txjas,los alfeizares de las vebnas u otras partes piritadas cuando sus laadres no esdn cerea- Tambien pueden ingerir el plomo ain cuardo no se:hayan bevalo espy a la boca las asUlas de piedra.: Pormn. ne ._ eel gue hay asUlas sued de Puthxa o pw*ulas de polvo que coritienen porno,etas pueden adU eriseles a lasrriartos,y A Oev&selas a la Boca, ingerir rata cardidad pelignosa de pk-xno. Pergros de to Pitura a d s tge e plorno. El envenenarriiento con ploMo es pe iigroso,es pecialmente para los_ K60S merlores de N'". Pueden Hegar a producir atraso mental,ceguera a aim a muerta. 5'i turas del erwenenamitnto,por pn#ua a base de pbmo. 6u ninos ha estado es�tertte o caprictioso' irrrtable, tl-ierte Jobres de esthmagn o v6r ? ISe W*de dobres de a beta? iNo ohne jugar? Estos pueden ser sintomas de enwrearnierta plorrto. Sin embargo,amelias reces rD se preserga s*xm algurto. EI hecho.deue,no se q _. presenten sirttomas:no quiereAecir-= Iue usted no deba Preocuparse si su rano ha estado expuesto a to pintura -base de pbmo. Donvierxia Y disponbdidad.de bs examenes para de6errrtinar el mitre)de porno enha sarlgre-- Si.ust d saspecha que su ii%se ha brado a la bora astgas de pir i o alguien se lo dijo, debe lavar to al medico o a una criruca para que lo examinee. Si el examen nuestrra que el Hato tierce un alto nivel de porno en a sangre, existe tratamiento para elo_- SoGcite_ayuda o mss iAxrnacion a su-- nedco o etdep&UT"to,de salad.n-&cercano. El.program Medicaid coritempla el examen.y el tratamierrtto del Plorno Panilas tersorias eligibles. Si se ida tea un alto rive(de porno en sangr a de:su.r»no,. no*ue irrtrriedeatattierrte a faON,c'rna-de.Desarrdlo- -amul itario u otro organisrno al que usted o el.propietario de su.ed6e o hayan soGcitado asistenaa para rehabirrtacion.para que ieiedan tomarse las rnedidas necesarias para inpeccioiw la unrdad y dcAactar el riesgo de pirtttra a base=de porno- Si)a-criidad` - iene prntura a base de plorno, usted puede recibw asistencia para e6rnirtar ese riesgo. *uuuxles Para preveru-el eDvenenarn ento por pintura a base de porno. El o por pintura a base de-plorno oueda evitarse tomardo algur>as rnedidas de marteniniento prever ti . Observe las paredes.los cielorrasos, los marcos de las metas y bs ages de las ventanas_ i Existen lugares a st los que la pw*L ra este descascarartdose.asbgartdose, des Prer-rdier>dose, 'Pu venz&x ase? En esos caws. hay c"tas rneddas que puedo tornar-de inrndediato para proteger a su rtino: SAN MATEO COUNTY 0 HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY = 0diff OF�HOUSING L O U S C_CJ.M.M.-U-_N- l-T Y -- D-E-V E t P:M-ENT. 262 Harbor Blvd. WHO A Belrrion CA..� 940()2 (b50)»02=5050_..Fa)(650M,C:049 Ho�lsing Rehabditai- loan APplica onFor Renfal Rehabilr ation Program: _ (P inlr k.or Type Please) Please read and complete this application thor o�v Ar�Y�nc°mPlet a ir�forrr tion yv�1 i iise a delay in proee3ss`ng and- the application maybe n ,rried,to you in its entirety Where-the iraforrriation requested does rim appCj!fo you;&ttr NIA lf: need:assistance, an HCD ; Applicant Name Social Security Nixiibec Co-Applicant Name nr'Spouse... Social Security:Number.. Mailing Address _ C'dy/Zp L hone 1Nork Phone f: ressY�p unix - w Many of: (�sb�,dios ) #:i br (#2br ):.(#3br+"anager NameUnit l�firnber _ n ' . ger`T, leept�orie Family Size and lnCtx Ljlo Qualify Fcr`Prc�grcn _ The chart below S'6 r the rr>a> xm albwable fiaaehbid noorne AW-far. s¢e in oder to gioVy for al RC.D.Loan Piograrris. t . Wod anrRW f)01 io{d inc im is LESS than theirrrls sftoriri bw.aobrx rig i6 l vi�j►size for your ..rou..project MAY be eigible for assis ar .- These i<�o me units are ad�rsted;arrw*and noticbe, _ Income Limits FY01-02 :- t ...... .-. - limits may change without notice. Family Size&Marimu+on Annual Household Income - l (I)547;600 (2)-554;400 (3)561,200 (4)568,000 S j$73,450,; 578 900 7 $84 300 8 $89 750 - - i Mortgage Information I st Lenders Ful!Name =j' Address •• " F,' " E)af1 PrigiM Loan - . Bata� . f`1or?tfifY..PIff)ent -.. 2rid Leaders RA Name Address Loan No. - Ct&d Loan Anicut _ Balance - N 34Lenders Full Nxiie _ r Address Loan No. OP&W Loan.Arnourrt. Balance M _ orrthly Payment Specify AA Other Debt On This Property order.forTl�s to be comideved 0416 � lefie,the 'AJVNIJ. - itsirety for ap units witt�n ibis fodovh SURVEY'must.be'filed in poject.- h is the' S form Shouldx' K -Owners) obtain and Year project be efi6Fite and meted _ auired to provide an meted •ANNUAL TFiVAi�(T SURVEY•eadi ttroio f prima'the Owners):w tie . Year for the dwa�tion of the mcxtgage. _ u may oopy ttus.doan"i if more space is required. SAN MATEO COUNTY HOUSING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 262 Harbor Btui. Bldg. A BeW t,CA. 9-4002' (650)802-5050 Fa)(650)BD2-5049 Note: Blank Form Prior To G"npleting If More-Than One Fot rn is Needed Verification of Mortgage a)Applicant to fil in and complete aA information requested on fines I through 9. b)Applicant to sit and date the form on fine 10- c)Applicant to return this form with the attached program application_ . Note:Incomplete forms win not be processed. ------------------------------ 1.App"Name 2:Mailing Address I City,State,Zip 4.Address of Property - 5.City.State,Zip 6.Mortgage Loan Number 7.Lender Name 8.Lender Address 'ity,State,Zip You are hereby requeked and authorized as my Lender to release the information below. Please complete the lower portion of this form and return it to the agency designated at the top ofthis form. 10. Signature Date -Do Not Write In This Box Lender FPleaseonplete the information below and.return it to the agency designated above at the earliest possible date.lgage TYPe oed OVariable OBalloon Lien Position ❑lst �rxl 03rd OOUaerna ture rgMortgage Date Loan Maturity Date Origrral loan Amount Cunent Loan Balance Monthly PA Payments Monthly I_ and Account Payments Are Payments Current Oyes UNo If?,W,What Is Arrearage A cunt and Title of Person Comple' This Form Date SAN MATEO COUNTY HOUSING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 262 Harbor BW. Bldg. A Beknor k CA. 94002 ' (650)802-5050 "650)802-5049 - Note :Photoc Blank Form Prior To Completing If More Than One Form Is Needed Verification of Mortgage a) Applicant to fig in and complete all information requested on tines I ttuaugh 9. b) Applicant to sign and date the kxTn on fine 10. C) Applicant to return this form with the attacfined program application. Note: Incornplete forms will not be processed_ .AfVkant Name 2. Mailing Address 3.City, State,.Zip 4.Address of Property 5. Gty, State, Zip 6. Mortgage Loan Number 7. Lender Name 8. Lender Address 9.City, State, Zip _ender fou are hereby requested and authorized as my Lender to release the information below. Please complete the lower xxtion of this form aril return it to the agency designated at the top of this form. 0. agmahire Date- kait- Do Not Wtite In This Box Lender Please complete the information below and return it to the agency designated above at the.earfiest possible date. Mortgage Type OFwd Wariable OBalloon Lien Position 01st 02nd 03rd OOther �� ale Date Loan Maturity Date Original Loan Arnotmt Current Loan Balance Mor" PA Payments Morrthly Irrpaxmd Account Payments Are Riyrneam Current Dyes ONo If 1W,What Is Arrearage Amount �i hire and Title of Person C ti This Form Date List The Type Of Work Required For Your Project F7 List The Name,Address, Telephone, and License Number Of All Contractors You Wish To Bid On Your Project I/We certify that the above irdonnation is true and correct to the best of"ft)or bxAvledge. I/We authorize Housing and Conrrxxvty Developrneat to w_*such incl rnabon including, but not limited to, a-edit. financial, employment, and personal histories. Further,I/We authorize the release of such information to other agencies, institutions, and/or entities in connection With this application. I/We have read and understand the infomaabon and requirements contained in this application and agree to abide by all as designated. I/We also understand that there may be additional requirements in conjunction with the particular program type being applied for. ❑ Non-Refundable fee of$250.00 is enclosed with this application.. (Mandatory) 'Wicant:Signature Date Co-Appliont Signahrre Date Do Not Write In Box Below- H.0 D Use Dame Recd Date Reviewed' Strvey Date , D Rental Ftehabation 5%Vacancy Factor Total Gross Rents Total Avaible Loan Amount 15%Operating Costs Annual Roperty Taxes Feting Debt Ratio Notes Annual Mortgages AN Loans Other Income Number of Units Net Irc xne from P SAN MATEO COUNTY HOUSING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .262 Hxbor Blvd. Bldg. A Be4rjorC CA 94002 (650)802-5050 Fa<650)802-5049 LANDLORD REQUIREMENT Concerning Notification of Possible. Lead Based Paint Hazard Federal law requires that each tenant in a building_re habrTrtated under a federally funded rehabilitation' program receive a copy of the attached "Notification of Possible Lead. Based Paint Hazard". In order to ensure compliance, we are requiring ou- p1 , eq g that �y , the Owner, provide an original and copy of this notice to each of your tenants. The tenants must acknowledge receipt of this form by signing and .returning the original. -A copy of this notice with Spanish-translation has been provided with this form: = It is your responsibility to copy the enclosed forms in a sufficient amount so that all tenants receive-the appropriate notice, and sign as receiving such notice. Housing and. Community Development will not finalize the application process until the appropriate forms have been provided in conjunction with the program application. IlWe hereby understand and agree to-provide the attached "Notice of Possible Lead Based Paint Hazard- to-each azardto-each tenant and obtain the required signatures as a part of the application process. Signature of Owner Date This. Form And The Following wed Forms , Must Be Included With Your Appkation. - HOUSING andOf`!It`1UNtTY,DEVELOPM - 2621 Facbzx BMd: Bidg4:A - Beir or CA .�9900r _ A&�0M-5- 050 FRD{650 8p2-5(M9 . Notificafion of Possible Lead Based Palm Haz-4d' TOOWNERSAND pE Wp Off.HQu-SINS-eoNsTRUCTED;BE -. "MUCROUT PORF LEAD BASED.:PAiNT-POISONING' The bang youo t*,is.soon to bis r abiTi ed°i des= "federal :s - .4 rtabon'Y =` raoicad�on:is fY' �gr-rehabi7Pr' LTt '.�; 511570 a90..'- -to you under Departiiri«enf of Hocisirg&Urban D�etoprneit Ri.�e��:��ft`Par`t�s SU;::`i - cid 5 - - IF THI :PR TYvvn.cons -acted before 1978,tf)e' r-e_is a possibility- L-cornai s lea based= read mfonrrtabon oonceriw�g lead`=based•paint -Young chkiren often chewon,painted surfaces or eat paint chips which have cam roff lamaged�. • Painrted siirfaces;:the��,esboi of- lead based paint may be hazardous. Lead-poisoning is dangerous.esped*_to children under the age of six(6).'it can eventually' cause seriocs t>ealtM`problems iricluduig possible "mentaltardation: blindness:paralysis-or every datfi _ Sources of Lead Based Paint• The interiors of older homes.and apartments often have layers of lead-based pa"on the w'alfs,. ceilirigs,,window sills.doors-and door frames. Lead-based Paint and primers may also have been-used on outside porches,rail"►ngs, g8es:fiie epes and`lariip:posfs: When ttie: •. o<peels off;there rriaY tie a-na1"danger for-babies acrd y«xig - chr it eri:="�Fwldreri may eat.—iimt`c}vps'ix chev+r 04a htfRljmi ngs windcW s& oi`other item v+iFieri parerrfs"ane riot around: C vlreri can also irgest lead even7itiey`ijo not SP Y eat Paint chips. Fc i_exam-1 ple;when diadnen:play in an area where tli6te asepairiE'drops or-dust partici' -cbrilaimii lead,.theyTriaY:get these particles.on theirhands.puttheir and ingest a dangerous arr�6tkf of lead:` hands unto# r mouths,.- Hazards of LeadT3ased Pairs :Leadpoisoning is danigen5us=espetiaNyto children under the age'.of six,(6).' It can eventually cause mental retardation, bfir ness and even death. Sympt+orrn of Lead-Based Paint Poisorwi& Has your dirld been espec*CM*of u 6taW? Is he.or she eating nominal Y? Does your diM hoot' and wmi ing? Doesher.she complain about headaches.? Is your child unw�ng to play. These may be signs d lead poi�orir Ntarryiimes r,.ih .are.tie syrriptorns:at aN.,._Because#xem ane nn symptoms does not mean that_ - you should no be concerned rfyou befieine your chdd:has been exposed toMvisabklead-ba ed paints < aril Availabtr of Blood Lean Leke! ffyotr.stespect that ycxar c�1d:has eatenips-d paint tor.scxpevne you this,you should take your trait to the doctor or dmic for testing. if the test 3liovws than. - cW has an ele�blood lead-' level..treaunerd is available- Contact your doctor or local health department for h*bf nic*e irknTialim.Cear#stiff rug aind treatrnent are available through the Medicaid Progam,for those who are ef.gibte. If your child is identified as having an elevated. blood lead level, you shouid"n-x diately�ify Eormr mty Devebpri 66t:`f other'a*4i to wf-Mch you or-y�otir apofirig for dation assistance so the necessary steps can be taken to test your uiit for lead-•based paint hazards..ffyour trniit does have lead�fased Paint.you may be e�ble for-assnee to abate that hazard_ _ Precautions to Take to Never#.Lead-Based P,*t_Poisonj7g, You can avoid lead-based paint poisoningl by pertorrrbng-some preventive maintenance_ l=ook at your walls. ceilings,doors, door frames and window sills_ Are there places where the pairit is Peefin&&Ad &dipping,or Powdering? ff so,there are some things you can do irnrnediately to protect your child: CALIFORNIA HEALTH& SAFETY CODE 17920.3_Substandard building; conditions Any building or portion thereof including any dwellingunit;guestroorn or suite of rooms,. orthe premises on which the same is located,in which:there exists any of the following_listed " conditions to an extent`that endangers the life,limb,health,property,safety,or welfare of the. public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is-declared to be a substandard building: (a)Inadequate sanitation shall include,but not be limited to,the following: (1)Lack of,or improper_water closet,lavatory,or bathtub or shower in a dwelling unit. (2)Lack of,or improper water closets,lavatories,and bathtubs or showers per number of guests in a hotel. . (3)Lack of,or improper kitchen sink. (4)Lack of hot and cold running water-to plumbing fixtures in a hotel. - (5)Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit_ (6)Lack of adequate heating. (7)Lack of,or improper operation of required ventilating equipment. (8)Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation required by this code: (9)Room and space dimensions less than required by this code. (10)Lack of required electrical lighting: (11)Dampness of habitable rooms_ (12)Infestation of insects,vermin,or rodents as determined by the health officer: - (I3)General dilapidation or improper maintenance. (14)Lack of connection to required sewage disposal system- (1 5) ystem.(15)Lack of adequate garbage and-rubbish storage and removal facilities as determined by.-the-health officer. l . (b)Structural hazards shall include,but not be limited to,the following: (1)Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. (2)Defective or deteriorated flooring or-floor supports. (3)Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (4)Members of walls,partitions,or other vertical supports that split; lean;list,or buckle due to defective material.or deterioration. (5)Members of walls,partitions,or other vertical supports that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (6)Members of ceilings,roofs, ceilings and roof supports,or other horizontal members which sag,split,or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. (7)Members of ceiling,roofs,ceiling and roof supports,or other horizontal members-that -are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. (8)Fireplaces or chimneys which list, bulge,-or settle due to defective material or deterioration. (9)Fireplaces or chimneys which are of insufficient size or strength to carry imposed _ loads with safety_ (c)Any nuisance. (d)All wiring,except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation if it is currently in good and safe condition and working properly. (e)All plumbing,except plumbing that conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time.of installation and has been maintained in good condition,or that may not have _conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly,and that is free of cross connections and siphonage between fixtures. (f)All mechanical equipment;including vents,except equipment that-conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the,time of installation and that has been maintained in good and safe condition,or that may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the.time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly_ (g)Faulty weather protection,which shall include, but not be limited to,the following: 2 (1)Deteriorated,.crumbling,or loose plaster. (2)Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls,roof, foundations,-or floors, including broken windows or doors_ (3)Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings,-including.lack of- paint,or weathering due to lack of paint or other-approved protective covering. (4)Broken,rotted,split,or buckled exterior wall`coverings or roof coverings. (h)Any building or portion thereof,device-,apparatus, equipment,combustible waste,or vegetation that,in the opinion of the chief of the fire department or his deputy,is in such a condition as to cause a fire or explosion or provide.a ready fuel to augment the spread and --intensity of fire or explosion arising from any cause. (i)All materials of construction,except those-which are specifically allowed or approved by this code, and which have been adequately maintained in good and safe condition. (j)-Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds,vegetation,junk,dead organic - matter, debris,garbage,offal,rodent harborages, stagnant water,combustible materials,and similar materials or conditions constitute fire,health,or-safety hazards_ (k)Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building due to - inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code- (1)All buildings or portions thereof not provided with adequate exit facilities as required by this code,except those buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and that have been adequately maintained and increased in relation to any increase in occupant load,alteration or addition,or any change in occupancy.- When-an unsafe condition exists through lack of,or improper location of,exits,' additional exits may Abe required to be installed. (m)All buildings or portions thereof that are not provided with the fire-resistive construction or fire-extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code;except those -buildings or portions thereof that conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire-resistive integrity and fire-extinguishing systems or equipment-have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any increase in occupant load,alteration. or addition,or any change in occupancy. - (n)_All buildings or portions thereof occupied for living,sleeping;cooking,or dining purposes that were not designed`or intended to be used for those occupancies- 3 (o)Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces_ "Substandard building" includes a building not in compliance with Section 13143.2_ However,a condition that would require displacement of sound walls or ceilings to meet. height,length,or width requirements for-ceilings,rooms,and dwelling units shall not by itself be-- considered sufficient existence of dangerous conditions making-a building a substandard building,unless the building was constructed,altered, or converted in violation of those requirements in effect at the time of construction,alteration, or conversion. 17922.Administrative code rules and regulations; 'uniform housing code requirements; local requirements (a)Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,the building standards adopted and. submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935)of Part 2.5 and the other rules and regulations,which are contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code,adopted,amended,or repealed from time to time pursuant to this chapter shall be adopted by reference,except that-the building standards and rules and regulations shall include any additions or deletions made by the department. The building standards-and rules and regulations shall impose substantially the same requirements_as are contained in the most recent editions of the following uniform industry codes as adopted by the organizations specified:" (1)The Uniform Housing Code of the International Conference of Building Officials, except its definition of"substandard building_" (2)The Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of Building Officials. (3)The Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical'Officials. (4)The Uniform.Mechanical Code of the International Conference of Building Officials and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. (5)The National Electrical Code of the National Fire Protection Association. In adopting building standards for approval pursuant to Chapter 4(commencing with Section 18935)of Part 2.5 for publication in the State Building Standards Code and in promulgating other regulations, . the department shall consider local conditions and any amendments to the uniform codes referred to in this section. Except as provided in Part 2.5(commencing with Section 18901),in the absence of..adoption by regulation,the most recent editions of the uniform codes referred to in this section shall be considered to be adopted one year after the date of publication of the 4 uniform codes_ (6)Appendix Chapter 1 of the Uniform;Code for Building Conservation of the International Conference of Building Officials. (b)Except as provided in Section 17959.5,local use zone requirements,local fire zones, building setback,side and rear yard requirements, and property line requirements are hereby specifically and entirely reserved to the local jurisdictions notwithstanding any requirements found or set forth in this part_ (c)Regulations other than building;standards which are adopted,amended, or repealed by the department;and building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4(commencing with Section 18935)of Part 2.5, governing alteration and repair of existing buildings and moving of apartment houses and dwellings shall permit the replacement,retention,and extension of original materials and the continued use of original methods of construction as long as the Hotel,lodginghouse,motel;apartment house,or dwelling, orportions thereof,or building and-structure accessory-thereto,complies with the-provisions published in the State Building Standards Code and the other rules and regulations of the department or altemative local standards adopted pursuant to subdivision(b)of Section 17920.7 or 17958.5 and does not become or continue to be a substandard building_ Building additions.or alterations which increase the area,volume, or size of an existing building,and foundations for- apartment orapartment houses and dwellings moved, shall comply with the requirements for new buildings or structures specified in this part, or in building standards published in the State Building Standards Code,or in the other rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this part. However,the additions and alterations'shall not cause the building to exceed area or height limitations applicable to new.construction. (d)Regulations other than building standards which are adopted by the department and building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 18935)of Part.2.5 governing alteration and repair of existing buildings shall permit the use of altemate materials,appliances,installations,devices, arrangements,or methods of construction if the material,appliance,installation,device,* arrangement,or method is,for the purpose intended,at least the equivalent-of that prescribed in this part,the building standards published in the.State Building Standards Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant,to the provisions of this part in performance,safety, and for the protection of life and health: Regulations governing abatement of substandard buildings shall permit those conditions prescribed by Section 17920.3 which do not endanger the life,limb, health,property,safety,or welfare of*-public or the occupant thereof. (e)No local enforcement agency may prohibit the use of materials,appliances, installations, devices;arrangements,or methods of construction specifically permitted by the 5 t • department to be used-in the-alteration or repair of existingbuildings,but such niaferials, appliances,installations,devices, arrangements,or methods of construction may be specifically- _ prohibited by local ordinance as provided pursuant to Section-17958.5_ (f)No local ordinance may permit any action or proceeding to abate.violations of regulations-governing maintenance of existing buildings,unless the building is a substandard building or the violation is a misdemeanor_ G 6 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.59 TO PERMANENTLY INSTITUTE AN AMNESTY PROGRAM FOR PRE-EXISTING 3 SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS AND TO ALLOW VARIATIONS IN CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The purpose of this ordinance is to convert the current amnesty program for 8 secondary units from a two-year program to a permanent program. It is hoped that this will 9 encourage property owners to apply for amnesty over time. In addition,the limitations on.on-site 10 parking spaces has created some hardships on property owners, and this ordinance attempts to 11 reduce that hardship in exchange for a commitment to sustain the affordability of secondary 12 dwelling unit. 13 14 Section 2. Section 25.59.010 is amended to read as follows: 15 25.59.010 Purpose. 16 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a means for property owners in the R-1 districts 17 of the city to legalize the existence and usage of secondary dwelling units that were built as 18 dwelling units before January 1, 1954. 19 20 21 22 1 1 ains-chapter provides a window of a total of 23 two(2)years withfii which such an owner can apply to the city for review mid apmyal wid flien 24 cornpide all necessary imp,o v emen o bring the wift into cornplimice with the health and safid., 25 . If the primary dwelling on the site is demolished, the 26 secondary dwelling unit cannot be retained or replaced. This chapter also provides basic 27 protections to the surrounding neighborhoods by requiring off-street parking,owner occupancy of 28 one of the two units located on such a property, and limitation on the number of occupants. 211712004 1 1 Section 3. Section 25.59.040(a)is amended to read as follows: 2 Anyperson owning a secondary dwelling unit that was built as a dwelling unit not later than 3 December 31, 1953, and that has been in substantially the same use and envelope since that time 4 may apply to the city no later than June 30,2004,for a special permit to legalize the existence,use, 5 and occupancy of the secondary dwelling unit pursuant to this chapter. 6 7 Section 4. Section 25.59.060 is amended to read as follows: 8 25.59.060 Performance standards. 9 A secondary dwelling unit shall meet all of the following requirements to qualify for 10 approval under this chapter: 11 (a ) On-site12 code,and additionalparking fbrthe secondary dwelling unit shallbe at least one nneoveredparking 13 space,whichmaybepiovided in twidein to miother existingpaTking space. 14 15 16 3 17 18 19 20 4 21 22 23 24 OEM 25 26 27 �: 28 2/17/2004 2 I (b)No more than two (2)persons may occupy the secondary dwelling unit. 2 (c)An owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units on 3 at all times. 4 (d)The floor area ofthe secondary dwelling unit shall not exceed 640 square feet. 5 (e)The secondary dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health 6 and Safety Code, Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. 7 8 Section 5. A new subsection 25.59.070(b)is added as follows: 9 (b) Any special permit approved pursuant to this chapter that has not been brought into 10 compliance with the requirements of this chapter within one year of approval shall lapse and be of 11 no further force and effect. 12 13 Section 6. Section 25.59.80 is repealed. 14 15 Section 7. Subsection 25.59.090(d)is amended to read as follows: 16 (d)If the secondary dwelling unit is demolished,the special permit shall lapse and be of no s 17 further force and effect, 18 19 20 Section 8. Section 25.59.100 is amended to read as follows: 21 25.59.100 Revocation of special permit. 22 A special permit granted pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked when: 23 (a) No owner of the subject property resides on the property, or 24 (b) The secondary dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or 25 (c) The parking required by section 25.59.060 is no longer provided; 26 27 28 2/17/2004 3 . 1 2 3 4 Section 9. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 5 6 Mayor 7 8 I,ANN T.MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 9 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of ,2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_ 10 _day of ,2004, by the following vote: 11 AYES: COUNCRIAEMBERS: 12 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 13 14 City Clerk C:\FILES�ORDINANC\smondunits2004.pin.wpd 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2117/2004 _ 4 m a: m ji� � WU A i �c'Ty STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6d w�Dq Som MTG. ADAATED JUNE6 DATE March 1,2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED 11 BY DATE: February 24, 2004 APPROVE FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY 650-558-7222 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Sale of Bonds and Execution of cuments in Connection with Sale RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the City Council Hold Public Hearing 2. That the City Council Approve Resolution BACKGROUND: The City Council is being asked to reaffirm the actions taken on January 5, 2004 because the Notice of Public Hearing was not published in the newspaper. The proposed resolution authorizes the sale of up to $23 million in revenue bonds for water and sewer improvements. This is the second of a planned series of revenue bond issues that finance the ten-year capital improvement plans for the water and sewer systems. The City Council approved the ten-year plans in February 2002. This issue is larger because last year's borrowing (January 2003) was less than was originally envisioned. The City opted to limit the 2003 issuance to $8.7 million given that low water consumption had negatively impacted sewer and water revenues. Rather than borrowing funds to finance three years worth of projects, the City borrowed funds to cover one-year of projects and subsequently implemented a new water and sewer rate structure to stabilize future revenue collections and repay the debt. The firm of Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson served as rate consultants for the water and sewer funds. They devised a strategy to ensure that future fluctuations in water consumption would not impact revenues so markedly. Their recommendations were implemented as part of the FY 2003-04 water and sewer rate setting process. The bonds will be sold on a competitive basis on March 2, 2004. The city will receive the funds by the end of month. Copies of the Preliminary Official Statement, Trust Agreement, Installment Sale Agreements,Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds and Notice of Sale are available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk. Electronic copies are also available for e-mail to Council members as well as interested members of the public by contacting the City Clerk. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY OF NOT TO EXCEED $23,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS OF THE CITY; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF INSTALLMENT SALE AGREEMENTS; APPROVING FORM OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THE TAKING OF ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS RELATING TO THE FINANCING WITH THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (the "City") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Burlingame (the "Agency") have heretofore executed a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated as of May 15, 1995 (the "Joint Powers Agreement"), by and between the City and the Agency, which Joint Powers Agreement creates and establishes the Burlingame Financing Authority(the "Authority"); and WHEREAS,pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California(the "Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985") and the Joint Powers Agreement, the Authority is authorized to issue bonds for financing public capital improvements whenever there are significant public benefits to be realized; and WHEREAS,the City desires to approve the Authority's issuance of not to exceed $23,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Burlingame Financing Authority Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds, Series 2004 (the "Bonds")for the purpose of financing the construction of certain improvements to the water and wastewater systems of the City(the "Projects"); and WHEREAS, in order to finance the Projects,the City desires to enter into an installment sale agreement(water system) and an installment sale agreement(wastewater system) (collectively, the "Installment Sale Agreements"); and WHEREAS,there have been submitted and are on file with the City Clerk proposed forms of the Installment Sale Agreements, an Official Statement with respect to the Bonds proposed to be sold by the Authority, and a Trust Agreement by and between the Authority and BNY Western Trust Company(the "Trust Agreement"); and 1 WHEREAS, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority and the execution and delivery of the Installment Sale Agreements will result in significant public benefits through demonstrable savings in the effective interest rates and bond issuance costs expected to be paid for the bonds issued to finance the Projects, and that it furthers the public purpose to assist in such financing, NOW THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby finds, determines, declares and resolves as follows: 1. All of the recitals set forth above are true and correct, and the City Council so finds and determines. 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed$23,000,000,to finance the Projects. The City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer of the City are hereby directed to perform the duties, if any, imposed upon each of them by the provisions of the financing documents approved herein, including the Trust Agreement for the Bonds and the Installment Sale Agreements, and the Finance Director/Treasurer of the City is hereby authorized and directed to hold the funds and accounts created in said financing documents and directed or permitted to be held by the City. 3. The proposed form of Installment Sale Agreement(Water System) by and between the City and the Authority, on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The City Manager and the Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City, to execute and deliver an installment sale agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officers may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance for the Bonds), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof; provided, however, that: (i)the term of said installment sale agreement shall end no later than April 1, 2033; and(ii) the maximum annual amount of said installment sale payments shall not exceed$1,100,000. 4. The proposed form of Installment Sale Agreement(Wastewater System)by and between the Authority and City, on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the City,to execute and deliver an installment sale agreement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officers may require or approve (including changes as may be necessary to obtain municipal bond insurance for the Bonds), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof, provided, however, that: (i)the term of said installment sale agreement shall end no later than April 1, 2033; and(ii)the maximum annual amount of said installment sale payments shall not exceed $700,000. 5. The proposed form of Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"), on file with the City Clerk, is hereby approved. The City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized, for and in 2 the name and on behalf of the City,to execute the final Official Statement, and to deliver the Official Statement in substantially said form, with such changes therein as such officers may require or approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery thereof. Distribution by the financial advisor of a Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds is hereby approved. 6. The City Manager and Finance Director/Treasurer,jointly and severally, are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute a Continuing Disclosure Certificate containing such covenants of the City as shall be necessary to comply with the requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of such Continuing Disclosure Certificate. 7. The officers and City Council members of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents and certificates which they deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the execution and delivery of the documents mentioned herein and otherwise to effectuate the purposes of this Resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby, including but not limited to obtaining bond insurance. 8. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Council of the City with respect to the financing of the Project are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved. 9. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption and approval and supersedes and replaces Resolution No. 1-2004. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk, hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Burlingame at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1 st day of March, 2004, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 3 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE I,ANN T. MUSSO, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify as follows: The foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by a vote of a majority of the City Council of the City of Burlingame at a regular meeting of said Council duly and regularly and legally held at the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, on March 1, 2004, of which all of such members had due notice, as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief description of said resolution appeared on said agenda. I have carefully compared the foregoing with the original minutes of said meeting on file and of record in my office, and the foregoing is a full,true and correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes. Said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its adoption and the same is now in full force and effect. Dated: March_, 2004. Clerk of the City of Burlingame 4 AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM # 83 DATE 3/01 /04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: MARCH 1 , 2004 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPT RS 11 .04 AND 12 . 12 TO RESTORE OBLIGATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS PURSUANT TO STATE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council begin adoption of the attached ordinance to restore the obligation to property owners for the maintenance and repair of sidewalk 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: In the past, the City has undertaken an annual sidewalk maintenance and repair program using City general funds. In light of the current budget shortfall, it is difficult to continue to fund sidewalk replacement in this manner. As a part of 2003-04 budget discussions, Council directed staff to develop a modified sidewalk replacement program in accordance with the attached California Streets and Highways Code which requires the adjoining property owners to be responsible for sidewalk repairs and replacement. DISCUSSION: The first step in the modified program involves public notification. Staff will notify the respective property owners to perform repairs to the damaged adjoining sidewalk in a given area based on the tripping hazard list. A tripping hazard is defined as a sidewalk lift of 3/4" or more. The notification will include the type of repairs and time frame within which the repairs must be done. Property owners will have the option to apply for an encroachment permit to perform the necessary repairs in accordance with City standards. However, if the repairs are not performed by the property owners within a set time, the City will perform the work through its contractor. Staff will notify the property owners of the cost of repairs and a public hearing will be held by the Council to approve the assessments before posting them on property tax rolls at the County Assessor's office. Prior to starting the modified program in May, staff will prepare informational brochures as well as press releases in the local newspapers. The affected property owners will also receive notices at each stage of the process which will describe the work involved and the available options. EXHIBITS : Ordinance, California Streets and Highways Code, Flowchart of Program Procedures BUDGET IMPACT: Property owners will be responsible for the costs of the program. The City will continue to be responsible for disability ramps and sidewalks fronting City-owned properties. c: City Clerk, City Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Sidewalk2004.wpd I ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTERS 11.04 AND 12.12 TO RESTORE OBLIGATION TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR MAINTENANCE 2 AND REPAIR OF SIDEWALKS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW 3 4 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 5 6 Section 1. For the past ten to fifteen years, the City of Burlingame has been in the fortunate 7 position of being able to provide for the routine maintenance and repair of public sidewalks in residential 8 neighborhoods without asking for contribution from the residential property owners in most cases. 9 However,the continued inability of the State government to develop a balanced�nd responsible budget 10 and the State's insistence on seizing local monies to pay its own debts mean that the City cannot 11 continue the sidewalk funding for the time being. This ordinance returns the obligation to maintain and 12 repair sidewalks in residential neighborhoods to the adjacent property owners as provided in the Streets 13 & Highways Code and is consistent with the practice in other Peninsula communities. Commercial 14 property owners will continue to be responsible for maintenance and repair as in the past. 15 16 Section 2. Section 12.12.005 is amended to read as follows: 17 12.12.005 Responsibility for damaged sidewalks. 18 The city shall be responsible fbr daniaged sidewatks caused by city street trees, as provided in 19 Section i E04.00. eity repair of damaged sidewalks shall be made to the extent fands are provided mi 20 the wnittal budget and to the extent efficient scheduling of the work is possible. Except as provided i 21 Section i2.12.015,The property owner shall be responsible for all other sidewalk repairs.As used in this 22 chapter, "sidewalk" shall refer to curb, gutter, sidewalk or other such improvements within city 23 right-of-way. 24 25 Section 3. Section 12.12.010 is amended to read as follows: 26 12.12.010 Notice to repair defective sidewalks. 27 When, the city engineer zany portion of any sidewalk is so atrt 28 of repair or in such#condition �y_ - 1 the piil?lic, as to endanger persons or property passing thereon, or so as to interfere with the pubfic 2 convenience in the use thereof,the city engineer is authorized to notify the owner or owners of any lot 3 fronting on such portion of said sidewalk so out of repait ot in such condition as aforesaid, bye 4 notice pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code to maintain and repair the sidewalk in writing to be 5 , requiting such owner 6 to repair, or reconstruct, . . forthwith, in stich marmer and with such material as the city 7 , said portion of said sidewalk in front of the lot of which lie i 8 owner. 10 , he shall cause to be 11 begun such reconstruction, or such rinprovetner t, as may have been determined by the 12 city engineer, and directed in the notice affiresaid to be made, and diligently and without interruption; 13 prosecute the smne to completion. 14 15 Section 4. Section 12.12.015 is repealed. 16 17 Section 5. Section 12.12.020 is amended to read as follows: 18 12.12.020 Cost of repair as lien on property �lfflo`" 19 If any owner refuses or neglects to make such repair, or reconstruction, or improvement, as 20 hereinabove provided,when required and directed in conformity with the provisions of this chapter,the 21 city engineer shall cause such repair,or reconstruction,or improvement to be made. and P90 int 22h r i tatg �grs`C� the cost and an sum of money-�_. .� ��? .. � ��....,. �< �.. Y Y necessarily 23 expended by the city in making such repair, or reconstruction, or improvement, sliall become 24 a lien upon the property wu ,t t 25 iadp ,and maybe recovered in an action 26 brought therefor in the name of the city. 'he such cost and expenditure may be'j �; o e�aX 27 MOO, ark W� laced upon the-city tax bill f6i the propertrand collected in the same manner and at the 28 same time as the city taxes 1�irt are collected. I Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 2 3 Mayor 4 5 I,ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing 6 ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of ,2004, and 7 adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 8 2004, by the following vote: 9 AYES: COUNCII,MEMBERS: 10 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 11 12 City Clerk 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE 5600. As used in this chapter "sidewalk" includes a park or parking strip maintained in the area between the property line and the street line and also includes curbing, bulkheads, retaining walls or other works for the protection of any sidewalk or of any such park or parking strip. 5601. This chapter shall only apply to maintenance and repair proceedings, whether upon work originally done under this division or otherwise, and shall not be used for the construction of new improvements. The "Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931" shall not apply to proceedings taken under this chapter. 5602. This chapter constitutes a separate and alternate procedure for performing the work specified herein and, except for the provisions of Part 5 of this division, no other provisions of this division shall apply to proceedings instituted hereunder. 5610. The owners of lots or portions of lots fronting on any portion of a public street or place when that street or place is improved or if and when the area between the property line of the adjacent property and the street line is maintained as a park or parking strip, shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with the public convenience in the use of those works or areas save and except as to those conditions created or maintained in, upon, along, or in connection with such sidewalk by any person other than the owner, under and by virtue of any permit or right granted to him by law or by the city authorities in charge thereof, and such persons shall be under a like duty in relation thereto. 5611. When any portion of the sidewalk is out of repair or pending reconstruction and in condition to endanger persons or property or in condition to interfere with the public convenience in the use of such sidewalk, the superintendent of streets shall notify the owner or person in possession of the property fronting on that portion of such sidewalk so out of repair, to repair the sidewalk. 5612. Notice to repair may be given by delivering a written notice personally to the owner or to the person in possession of the property facing upon the sidewalk so out of repair, or by mailing a postal card, postage prepaid, to the person in possession of such property, or to the owner thereof at his last known address as the same appears on the last equalized assessment rolls of such city or to the name and address of the person owning such property as shown in the records of the office of the clerk. 5613. The postal card shall contain a notice to repair the sidewalk so out of repair, and the superintendent of streets shall, immediately upon the mailing of the notice, cause a copy thereof printed on a card of not less than 8 inches by 10 inches in size, to be posted in a conspicuous place on the property. In lieu of posting a copy of the mailed notice on the property as provided in this section, the superintendent of streets may, not less than seven days nor more than 10 days after the mailing of the first postal card notice, mail an additional postal card, postage prepaid, marked "Second Notice," to the person to whom the first postal card notice was addressed. The second notice shall otherwise contain the material required by this article, but shall not extend the time for commencing repairs specified in Section 5614. 5614. The notice shall particularly specify what work is required to be done, and how it is to be done, and what materials shall be used in the repair and shall further specify that if the repair is not commenced within two weeks after notice is given and diligently and without interruption prosecuted to completion, the superintendent of streets shall make such repair, and the cost of the same shall be a lien on the property. 5614.1. The legislative body may adopt a resolution determining that bonds shall be issued and assessments collected and enforced pursuant to Part 5 of this division. In such event, the notice to repair shall specify that bonds shall be issued to represent the security of the unpaid assessments, payable over a period of not to exceed six years, and shall further recite a maximum rate of interest to be paid on the indebtedness, which shall not exceed 7 percent a year, payable semiannually. 5615. If the repair is not commenced and prosecuted to completion with due diligence, as required by the notice, the superintendent of streets shall forthwith repair the sidewalk. Upon the written request of the owner of the property facing the sidewalk so out of repair, as ascertained from the last equalized assessment roll of the city, or as shown in the records of the office of the clerk, the superintendent may repair any other portion of the sidewalk fronting on the property that is designated by the owner. The superintendent shall have power to prescribe the form of the written request. The cost of repair work done by request pursuant to this section shall be a part of the cost of repairs for which, pursuant to this chapter, subsequent notices are given, hearings held and assessment and collection procedures are conducted. 5616. Upon the completion of the repair, the superintendent of streets shall cause notice of the cost of the repair to be given in the manner specified in this article for the giving of notice to repair, which notice shall specify the day, hour and place when the legislative body will hear and pass upon a report by the superintendent of streets of the cost of the repair together with any objections or protests, if any, which may be raised by any property owner liable to be assessed for the cost of such repair and any other interested persons. If bonds are to be issued, the notice shall also contain the information required by Section 5614.1. 5617. Upon the completion of the repair,the superintendent of streets shall prepare and file with the legislative body a report specifying the repairs which have been made, the cost of the repairs, a description of the real property in front of which the repairs have been made and the assessment against each lot or parcel of land proposed to be levied to pay the cost thereof. Any such report may include repairs to any number of parcels of property, whether contiguous to each other or not. 5618. Upon the day and hour fixed for the hearing the legislative body shall hear and pass upon the report of the superintendent of streets, together with any objections or protests which may be raised by any of the property owners liable to be assessed for the work of making such repair and any other interested persons. Thereupon the legislative body may make such revision, correction or modifications in the report as it may deem just, after which, by motion or resolution, the report as submitted, or as revised, corrected or modified, shall be confirmed. The legislative body may adjourn the hearings from time to time. The decisions of the legislative body on all protests and objections which may be made, shall be final and conclusive. 5625. The cost of the repair may be assessed by the legislative body against the parcel of property fronting upon the sidewalk upon which such repair was made, and such cost so assessed, if not paid within five days after its confirmation by the legislative body, shall constitute a special assessment against that parcel of property, and shall be a lien on the property for the amount thereof which lien shall continue until the assessment and all interest thereon is paid, or until it is discharged of record. 5626. The superintendent of streets may file in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the parcel of property is located, a certificate substantially in the following form: NOTICE OF LIEN Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Improvement Act of 1911, I did, on the day of , 19_, cause the sidewalk, curb, or park or parking strip, bulkheads, retaining walls, or other works (as the case may be) in front of the real property hereinafter described, to be repaired and improved, and the legislative body of said city (county, or city and county) did, on the day of , 19_, by Resolution No. assess the cost of such repair upon the real property hereinafter described, and the same has not been paid nor any part thereof, and the said city (county, or city and county), does hereby claim a lien on said real property in the sum of dollars ($ ), and the same shall be a lien upon said real property until the said sum, with interest at the rate of percent per annum, from the said day of , 19_(insert date of confirmation of assessment), has been paid in full and discharged of record. The real property hereinbefore mentioned and upon which a lien is claimed, is that certain piece or parcel of land lying and being in the (name of city, or city and county)the county of , State of and particularly described as follows: (Description of property) Dated this day of , 19_. Superintendent of streets 5627. From and after the date of the recording of the notice of lien, all persons shall be deemed to have had notice of the contents thereof. The notice of lien may include claims against one or more separate parcels of property, whether contiguous or not, together with the amount due, respectively, from each such parcel. The statute of limitation shall not run against the right of the city to enforce the payment of the lien. If any such lien is not paid the city may file and maintain an action to foreclose such lien in the same manner and under the same procedure, so far as applicable, as that under which delinquent bonds are foreclosed under this division. 5628. As an alternative method of collection of the amount of the lien, the legislative body, after confirmation of the report of the superintendent of streets, may order the notice of lien to be turned over to the assessor and the tax collector of the city, whereupon it shall be the duty of those officers to add the amount of the assessment to the next regular bill for taxes levied against the lot or parcel of land. If city taxes are collected by the county officials, the notice of lien shall be delivered to the county auditor, who shall enter the amount thereof on the county assessment book opposite the description of the particular property and the amount shall be collected together with all other taxes thereon against the property. The notice of lien shall be delivered to the county auditor before the date fixed by law for the delivery of the assessment book to the county board of equalization. 5628.1. The legislative body shall have the power, in its discretion, to determine that the payment of assessments of one hundred dollars ($100) or more may be made in annual installments, not to exceed five, and that the payment of assessments so deferred shall bear interest on the unpaid balance at a rate to be determined by the legislative body, not to exceed the rate permitted for bonds by Section 53531 of the Government Code. Interest shall begin to run on the 31 st day after the confirmation of the assessments by the legislative body. Determinations of the legislative body shall be expressed by resolution at any time prior to the confirmation of the assessments. 5629. Thereafter the amount of the lien shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary city taxes are collected, and shall be subject to the same penalties and interest and to the same procedure under foreclosure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary city taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of city taxes and county taxes are hereby made applicable to such special assessment taxes. 5629.1. If bonds are to be issued to represent the security of the unpaid assessments, upon confirmation of the report by the legislative body the superintendent of streets shall give notice to pay by mail and by publication substantially in the manner provided by Sections 4320 and 4321 of this code. The period for payment in cash stated therein shall be 30 days following the date of confirmation of the report. Upon completion of the cash payment period, the superintendent of streets shall file with the county recorder a certificate substantially in the form set out in Section 5626, giving notice therein that interest is payable at a rate to be fixed upon the sale of bonds, which rate shall not exceed the rate permitted for bonds by Section 53531 of the Government Code, and shall begin to run on the 31 st day after the confirmation of the report. Thereafter the provisions of Part 5 (commencing with Section 6400) shall be applicable and payments on assessments at bond shall be made as therein provided. The bonds may be issued and sold as the legislative body directs and may be dated at any time after the expiration of the cash payment period. 5630. Whenever the property fronting on a sidewalk required to be maintained and repaired pursuant to the provisions of this chapter lies within one city or unincorporated territory of a county, and the sidewalk required to be so maintained and repaired lies within another city or unincorporated territory of a county, the superintendent of streets of the city or county having jurisdiction over the sidewalk shall have full authority to serve notices to repair and do all work contemplated by Articles 2 and 3 of this chapter, notwithstanding the fact that the property fronting on the sidewalk lies within another city or unincorporated territory of a county. The legislative body of the city or county within which the sidewalk has been repaired pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall have jurisdiction to levy an assessment to pay the cost of any such sidewalk repairs against the parcel of property fronting on said sidewalk, notwithstanding the fact that said property lies within another city or unincorporated territory of a county and said assessment shall be a lien on said property for the amount thereof until the assessment and all interest thereon is paid or until it is discharged of record. The provisions of Sections 5628 and 5629 of this code shall be applicable to the collection and enforcement of all liens levied pursuant to the provisions of this section and the amount so collected shall be paid to the treasurer of the city or county as the case may be which conducted the proceedings. OVERVIEW OF SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Identify Council Awards Area Contract Site Project Construction Inspections and Completion of Project Cost Estimate Report of Repairs and Notices of Cost Repair to Property Owners Notice of Cost and Hearing Second Notice Within 7 to 10 Council Hearing on and Days of First Confirmation of Report of Notice Repairs and Cost Field Acceptance of Meetings Project by City Council Project Scoping [Finance Department] Forward Construction Costs Plans and to County Assessor to be Specifications Included with Property Taxes Payment Project Advertisement Received and Summary of Bids Received STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b 'coq 9 MTG. qAA 0 JUNE b DATE 3/1/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED � BY %lW.� DATE: February 23, 2004 APPROVE zl - �5/� FROM: Jim Nantell, City Mana ger(558-7205 _ BYi�" SUBJECT: Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider a resolution in support of the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act, sponsored by the League of California Cities' political action committee, CITIPAC which is to be placed on the November 2004 Ballot. BACKGROUND: Since 1991, the California State government has taken local taxes to fund State programs and services. The City of Burlingame has lost over $10 million dollars since this siphoning began. This is money, which had and would have gone into local street maintenance,public safety, building improvements, park improvements, and libraries. The arbitrary confiscation of local revenue increased with the State's adoption of their budget for the current fiscal year. An additional $400,000 dollars in local automobile registration revenue was eliminated. The State also set aside the 70-year old local government funding structure by putting in place a mechanism to take one- half of the city's sales tax to pay off loans that they are securing to cover the State deficit. This includes a "commitment"to keep cities and counties whole with an equal amount of property tax. This is the same commitment made in 1998 when the State started to take vehicle license revenue. In his proposed budget for the 2004-05 fiscal year, the Governor has proposed increased cuts in local revenue which would cost Burlingame an additional $0.3 million next year; and the leadership of the State Legislature has declared their intent to stop the VFL backfill which is over$1 million dollars annually to Burlingame. All of this suggests there is a reasonable chance the State will double it's current draw of$1.3 million from Burlingame, to over$2.6 million+ Local Taxpayer and Public Safety Protection Act It is very apparent the Legislature and Governor are either unwilling or unable to protect local revenue and services. When the State government repeatedly fails to address issues that are significant to the residents of California, a statewide initiative is the only recourse available to correct the problem. The specter of continued state appropriation of local revenue is the greatest threat to local residents since State inaction on rising property taxes spawned Proposition 13 in 1978. Failure to stop the State from arbitrarily taking more and more local revenue will lead to a significant deterioration of local services, quality of life, and property values. The League of California Cities, the umbrella organization for all 478 California cities, is sponsoring an initiative for the November 2004 ballot: The Local Taxpayer and Public Safety Protection Act. The initiative is also being sponsored by the California Association of Special Districts and is endorsed by The Executive Committee of the California State Association of Counties. The purpose of this initiative is very simple: to allow voters to decide whether local tax funds should be taken, confiscated, shifted, diverted, or otherwise used to fund State government operations and responsibilities. This initiative does not impose any new taxes. It does not take funds away from any other service or program. It will not restore what our communities have already lost. It will simply put voters in control to decide whether they want any more of their local taxes to go to State to balance their budget which were mismanaged during better financial times. The attached resolution supporting this measure is recommended for adoption. The resolution also directs the Council and staff to provide impartial informational materials on the initiative as provided for by State law and encourages Burlingame residents to become well informed on the initiative and its potential impacts on local services. Residents wishing to find out more about the initiative may go to the League of California Cities website www.cacities.or�. Attachment: 1. Guest Editorial "State Takes the Shift.- Taxpayers Get the Shaft"by Arne Croce 2. Graph showing the Percent of Personal Income growth between cities and the State. 3. Comparison of State and City Revenues adjusted for constant dollars. 4. Initiative Language for the "Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act" State Makes the Shift. Taxpayers Get the Shaft Arne Croce, City Manager City of San Mateo For the past twelve years, the Governor and State Legislature have been bleeding the quality of life and property values from the residents and businesses of California. This hidden cost to local taxpayers goes by the confusing, bureaucratic name of"ERAF Shift". "ERAF" stands for"Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund."This name gives the impression that your local tax dollars are going to provide additional funds for education. This is not the case. ERAF does not provide one cent of additional revenue to our local schools. The State has a constitutional mandate to fund education at a minimum level from State revenue. With the ERAF shift, the State takes local property tax dollars from cities and counties to meet its obligation for school funding. With this scheme, the State is able to use other revenue to fund State programs and services. It is sort of like stealing your neighbor's car, so you can use the money you would spend on a car to build a new swimming pool! This shift began in 1992 as a"temporary"measure for the State to balance its budget during the recession. Interestingly, the shift continued even when the State was rolling in surpluses during the late 1990's. This shift hurts local property owners by the steady erosion of the city services that maintain the quality of life in our communities and contribute to high property values. Every year, the City of San Mateo loses over$2.5 million in local property taxes to this "shift". This is money that should be spent on paving local streets, making our public safety facilities seismically safe, maintaining local parks, and providing library services. Over the past 12 years, this has cost City of San Mateo taxpayers approximately$30 million of local services and programs. The Governor's proposed budget for 2004/2005 would increase this annual shift by$700,000 from the City of San Mateo. ERAF is more than a shift of money. It is also a shift in responsibility and control. By taking away our local money, State legislators and the Governor have shifted the unpopular decisions of budget cuts and tax increases to local council members and county supervisors. By taking away local money, the State is assuming control over the use of this money from local voters and locally elected officials. The cities, counties, and special districts of California have said"enough". After working unsuccessfully with the State over the past 12 years to restore the integrity of local control and revenue, an initiative has been developed for voters for the November 2004 ballot: The Local Taxpayer and Public Safety Protection Act of 2004. This initiative is very simple and democratic. It does not raise taxes. It does not take money away from education or other government services. It does not even return the billions of dollars taken from our communities over the past 12 years. The initiative simply provides that should the State ever again seek to take local taxes and use them for State purposes, they must place the proposal on the ballot for the voters to decide. This measure will restore the ability of voters to determine how they want their local taxes spent. The San Mateo City Council has endorsed The Local Taxpayer and Public Safety Protection Act of 2004. This will be the most significant vote for local taxpayers since property taxes were capped in 1978. Just as Proposition 13 protected local homeowners by putting the brakes on runaway property tax increases, this initiative will put the breaks on the State government's insatiable appetite for local taxes. Failure to stop the State will result in decreased quality of life and property values in our communities and the loss of local control. California General Fund Spending up s.o°i° 21 as a % of personal income* 7.0% - State 6.0% - - 5.0% - - 4.0% 3.0% - -- -- 2.0% down - - - Cities 9% 1.0%i° N M to O ti 00 O O N M u7 (0 r- 00 O O N 00 00 00 00 0000 00 00 00 O CA 0) 0) }� 0)LLLL }� O O O LL LL LL u- } U- LCL LCL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL } LL LL .State revenues as a percentage of total state personal income;City revenues as personal income of city residents. SOURCES:Governor's Budget Summary(state$),State Controller reports(city$),Calif Dept of Finance(population#s), US Dept of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis(personal income data),computations by Coleman Advisory Services. California State and City Revenues Per Capita - Constant 1999-00 Dollars $2,632 $2,500 Other venues$260 Tobacco$35 $2,000 $1,882 Other Revenues$247 Personnal Income Tobacco$32 Tax$1204 $1,500 Personnal Income $1,279 $1,170 Tax$550 ;;,;,;;;i Servi ;Chane* §:.$!12 Insurance$46 Insurance$38. Service $1,000 ~~VLF&Reg$109 Other Revenues --VIII VLF&Reg$152 Charges $401 Estate Tax$30 $490 Estate Tax$43 Other Taxes Other Revenues$194 Sales&Use $315 Sales&Use $500 - Tax$593 - Intergovt Transf$97 Tax$705 Other Taxes$145 Liquor$16 Sales&Use Tax$146 Intergovt Transf$182 q Bank&Corp$245 ;Property Tax$208 Bank&Corp$198 Sales&Use Tax$130 tititititititi��titi:�:,; $0 � � �»> .�,.��.�.ti�:�����,.�.�.:<Property Tax$87 State 1977-78 Cities 1977-78 State 2000-01 Cities 2000-01 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL BEFORE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE LOCAL TAX FUNDS WHEREAS, state government annually seizes over $800 million in city property tax funds (ERAF) statewide, costing cities over $6.9 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years and seriously reducing resources available for local public safety and other services; and WHEREAS, in adopting the state budget this year the Legislature and Governor appropriated local vehicle license fee backfill and redevelopment property tax funds that are needed to finance critical city services such as public safety,parks, street maintenance,housing and economic development; and WHEREAS, the deficit financing plan in the state budget depends on a local property and sales tax swap that leaves city services vulnerable if the state's economic condition fails to improve; and WHEREAS, the adopted state budget assumes an ongoing structural budget deficit of at least $8 billion,putting city resources and services at risk in future years to additional state revenue raids; and WHEREAS, it is abundantly clear that state leaders will continue to use local tax funds to balance the state budget unless the voters limit the power of the Legislature and Governor to do so; and WHEREAS, the voters of California are the best judges of whether local tax funds should be diverted, confiscated, shifted or otherwise taken to finance an ever-expanding state government; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Voting Delegates of the League of California Cities at its September 10 2003 meeting voted to sponsor a statewide ballot initiative to empower the voters to limit the ability of state government to confiscate local tax funds to fund state government; and WHEREAS, the League has requested that cities offer support for a November 2004 ballot initiative that will allow voters to decide whether state government may appropriate local tax funds to fund state government operations and responsibilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Burlingame that the City hereby expresses its strong support for a statewide ballot initiative to allow voters to decide whether local tax funds may be taken, confiscated, shifted, diverted or otherwise used to fund state government operations and responsibilities; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Council and staff are authorized to provide impartial informational materials on the initiative as may be lawfully provided by the city's representatives. No public funds shall be used to campaign for or against the initiative; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the residents of the City are encouraged to become well informed on the initiative and its possible impacts on the critical local services on which they rely; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the city manager (or clerk) is hereby directed to send a copy to the Executive Director of the League of California Cities. ADOPTED this day of , 200 INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure: LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND REVENUES.STATE MANDATES.INITIATIVE CONSTITU- TIONAL AMENDMENT.Requires voter approval for any legislation that provides for any reduction, based on January 1, 2003 levels, of local governments' vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers and revenues,and proportionate share of local property tax revenues.Permits local government to suspend performance of state mandate if State fails to reimburse local government within 180 days of final determina- tion of state-mandated obligation;except mandates requiring local government to provide/modify: any protection,benefit or employment status to employee/retiree,or any procedural/substantive employment right for employee or employee organization.Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:This initiative would have the following fiscal effects,the magnitude of which would depend on future actions by the Legislature and state voters: Higher and more stable local government revenues than otherwise would have been the case,potentially several billion dollars annually.Significant changes to state finance,potentially including higher state taxes or lower spending on state programs than otherwise would have been the case.The state fiscal effect would be commensurate with the measure's impact on local governments. To the Honorable Secretary of State of California: We,the undersigned, registered, qualified voters of California,residents of County (or City and County),hereby propose amendments to the Constitution of California relating to local government funds and revenues and state mandates,and petition the Secretary of State to submit the same to the voters of California for their adoption or rejection at the next succeeding general election or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election or otherwise provided by law.The proposed constitutional amendments read as follows: THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT (e)The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act is designed to insure that the People of the State of California shall have the right to approve or reject the actions of state government SECTION ONE. Short Title. to take away local revenues that fund vitally needed local services. These amendments to the California Constitution shall be (f)The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act known and may be cited as the LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND strengthens the requirement that if the State mandates local PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT. governments to implement new or expanded programs,then the State shall reimburse local governments for the cost of those SECTION TWO. Findings and Purposes programs. (a)The People of the State of California find that (g)The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act restoring local control over local tax dollars is vital to insure that does not amend or modify the School Funding Initiative, local tax dollars are used to provide critical local services Proposition 98(Article XVI,section 8 of the California including,but not limited to,police,fire,emergency and trauma Constitution). care,public health,libraries,criminal justice,and road and street maintenance. Reliable funding for these services is essential for the (h) Therefore, the People declare that the purposes of security,well-being and quality of life of all Californians. this Act are to: (b)For many years,the Legislature has taken away local (1)require voter approval before the Legislature tax dollars used by local governments so that the State could removes local tax dollars from the control of control those local tax dollars. In fact,the Legislature has been Local Government,as described in this measure; taking away billions of local tax dollars each year, forcing local (2)insure that local tax dollars are dedicated to governments to either raise local fees or taxes to maintain services, local governments to fund local public services; or cut back on critically needed local services. (3)insure that the Legislature reimburses local governments when the State mandates local (c) The Legislature's diversion of local tax dollars,`.rom governments to assume more financial local governments harms local governments'ability to provide responsibility for new or existing programs;and such specific services as police,fire,emergency and trauma care, (4)prohibit the Legislature from deferring or public health,libraries,criminal justice,and road and street delaying annual reimbursement to local maintenance. governments for state-mandated programs. (d) In recognition of the harm caused by diversion of SECTION THREE. Article XIIIE is hereby added to the local tax dollars and the importance placed on voter control of California Constitution to read as follows: major decisions concerning government finance,and consistent with existing provisions of the California Constitution that give the ARTICLE XIIIE Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection:. people the right to vote on fiscal changes,the People of the State of Act California want the right to vote upon actions by the State government that take local tax dollars from local governments. Section 1. State-wide Voter Approval Required. 1 (a) Approval by a majority vote of the electorate, as (d) "Local Property Tax" means any Local provided for in this section, shall be required before any act of the Government's January 1, 2003 proportionate share of ad valorem Legislature takes effect that removes the following funding sources, taxes on real property and tangible personal property or portions thereof, from the control of any Local Government as apportioned pursuant to the Legislature's exercise of its power follows: to apportion property taxes as specified in Article XIIIA, section 1. "Local Property Tax" also means any Local Government's (1) Reduces,or suspends or delays the receipt allocation of the ad valorem tax on real property and tangible of, any Local Government's proportionate personal property pursuant to Article XVI, section 16. share of the Local Property Tax when the Legislature exercises its power to apportion (e)"Local Sales Tax"means any sales and use tax the Local Property Tax; or requires any imposed by any city,county,or city and county pursuant to the Local Government to remit Local Property terms of the Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax(Chapter 1 Taxes to the State,a state-created fund,or, of Part 1.5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code)in without the consent of the affected Local accordance with the law in effect on January 1,2003. Governments,to another Local Government; (f)"Special District"means an agency of the State, (2) Reduces, or delays or suspends the formed pursuant to general law or special act,for the local receipt of, the Local Government Base performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited Year Fund to any Local Government, geographic boundaries,including redevelopment agencies,but not without appropriating funds to offset the including school districts,community college districts,or county reduction, delay or suspension in an offices of education. equal amount; (3) Restricts the authority to impose,or (g) "State" means the State of California. changes the method of distributing,the Local Sales Tax; Section 3. Interim Measures (4) Reduces,or suspends or delays the receipt of, the 2003 Local Government Payment (a)The operation and effect of any statute,or portion Deferral; or thereof, enacted between November 1,2003 and the effective date (5) Fails to reinstate the suspended Bradley- of this Act,that would have required voter approval pursuant to Burns Uniform Sales Tax Rate in Section I if enacted on or after the effective date of this Act(the accordance with Section 97.68 of the "Interim Statute"),shall be suspended on that date and shall have Revenue and Taxation Code added by no further force and effect until the date the Interim Statute is Chapter 162 of 2003 Statutes;or reduces approved by the voters at the first statewide election following the any Local Government's allocation of the effective date of this Act in the manner specified in Section 1. If Property Tax required by Section 97.68 the Interim Statute is not approved by the voters, it shall have no while the Sales Tax Rate is suspended, further force and effect. (b) Prior to its submission to the electorate, an act (b)If the Interim Statute is approved by the voters,it shall subject to voter approval under this section must be approved nonetheless have no further force and effect during the period of by the same vote of the Legislature as is required to enact a suspension;provided,however, that the statute shall have force and budget bill and shall not take effect until approved by a majority effect during the period of suspension if the Interim Statute or of those voting on the measure at the next statewide election in separate act of the Legislature appropriates funds to affected local accordance with subdivision (c). governments in an amount which is not less than the revenues affected by the Interim Statute. (c) When an election is required by this section,the Secretary of State shall present the following question to the (c)A statute or other measure that is enacted by the electorate: "Shall that action taken by the Legislature in Legislature and approved by the voters between November 1,2003 [Chapter_of the Statutes of_],which affects local revenues, and the effective date of this Act is not an Interim Statute within be approved? the meaning of this section. Section 2. Definitions SECTION FOUR. Article XIIIB Section Six(6)is hereby amended as follows: (a) "Local Government"means any city,county,city and county,or special district. SEC. 6. (a)Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government, (b) "Local Government Base Year Fund"means the the State shall annually provide a subvention of funds to reimburse amount of revenue appropriated in the 2002-2003 fiscal year in such local government for the costs of such program or increased accordance with Chapters 1 through 5,commencing with section level of service,except that the Legislature may,but need not, 10701 of Part 5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, provide such subvention of funds for the following mandates: adjusted annually based upon the change in assessed valuation of vehicles that are subject to those provisions of law. In the event (a)(1) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency that the fees imposed by those provisions of law are repealed,then affected; the Fund shall be adjusted annually on July 1 by an amount not less (b)(2)Legislation defining a new crime or changing an than the percentage change in per capita personal income and the existing definition of a crime;or change in population,as calculated pursuant to Article XIIIB. (t)(3)Legislative mandates enacted prior to January 1, 1975,or executive orders or regulations initially (c)"2003 Local Government Payment Deferral"means implementing legislation enacted prior to January 1,' the amount of revenues required to be transferred to Local 1975. Government from the General Fund specified in subparagraph D of paragraph 3 of subdivision(a)of section 10754 of the Revenue and (b) The annual subvention of funds required by this section Taxation Code in effect on August 11,2003. shall be transmitted to the local government within 180 days of the effective date of the statute or regulation or order by a State officer or agency that mandates a new program or higher 2 level of service, or within 180 days of a final adjudication that SECTION SIX. If any part of this measure or its application to a subvention of funds is required pursuant to this section. For any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent purposes of this section, the Legislature or any State agency or jurisdiction,the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or officer mandates a new program or higher level of service when applications that reasonably can be given effect without the invalid it creates a new program, requires services not previously provision or application, required to be provided, increases the frequency or duration of required services, increases the number of persons eligible for services, or transfers to local government complete or partial financial responsibility for a program for which the State previously had complete or partial financial responsibility. (c)If during the f seal year in which a claim for reimbursement is filed for a subvention of funds, the Legislature does not appropriate a subvention of funds that provides full reimbursement as required by subdivision (a), or does not appropriate a subvention of funds that provides full reimbursement as part of the state budget act in the fiscal year immediately following the filing of that claim for reimbursement, then a local government may elect one of the following options; (1) Continue to perform the mandate. The local government shall receive reimbursement for its costs to perform the mandate through a subsequent appropriation and subvention of funds;or (2) Suspend performance of the mandate during all or a portion of the fiscal year in which the election permitted by this subdivision is made. The local government may continue to suspend performance of the mandate during all or a portion of subsequent f scal years until the fiscal year in which the Legislature appropriates the subvention of funds to provide full reimbursement as required by subdivision (a). A local government shall receive reimbursement for its costs for that portion of the fiscal year during which it performed the mandate through a subsequent appropriation and subvention of funds. The terms of this subdivision do not apply to, and a local government may not make the election provided for in this subdivision,for a mandate that either requires a local government to provide or modify any form of protection, right, benefit or employment status for any local government employee or retiree, or provides or modifies any procedural or substantive right for any local government employee or employee organization, arising from, affecting, or directly relating to future, current, or past local government employment. (d)For purposes of this section, "mandate"means a statute, or action or order of any state agency, which has been determined by the Legislature, any court, or the Commission on State Mandates or its designated successor, to require reimbursement pursuant to this section. SECTION FIVE. Construction. (a)This measure shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes,which include providing adequate funds to Local Government for local services including,but not limited to,such services as police,fire,emergency and trauma care,public health, libraries,criminal justice,and road and street maintenance. (b) This measure shall not be construed either to alter the apportionment of the ad valorem tax on real property pursuant to Section 1 of Article XIIIA by any statute in effect prior to January 1,2003 or to prevent the Legislature from altering that apportionment in compliance with the terms of this measure. (c)Except as provided in Section 3 of Article XIIIE added by Section Three of this Act,the provisions of Section 1 of Article XIIIE added by Section Three of this Act apply to all statutes adopted on or after the effective date of this Act. 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING A STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL BEFORE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE LOCAL TAX FUNDS RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, State government annually seizes over$800 million in city property tax funds (ERAF) statewide,costing cities over$6.9 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years and seriously reducing resources available for local public safety and other services; and WHEREAS, counties have been hit just as hard by the same seizure of county property tax funds running into the billions of dollars; and WHEREAS, in adopting the state budget this past year the Legislature and the Governor appropriated local vehicle license fee backfill and redevelopment property tax funds that are needed to finance critical city and county services such as public safety,parks, street maintenance, health services,housing and economic development; and WHEREAS, the deficit financing plan in the State budget depends on a local property and sales tax swap that leaves city and county services vulnerable if the State's economic condition fails to improve; and WHEREAS, the adopted State budget assumes an ongoing structural budget deficit of at least $8 billion, putting city and county resources and services at risk in future years to additional state revenue raids; and WHEREAS, it is abundantly clear that State leaders will continue to use local tax funds to balance the State budget unless the voters limit the power of the Legislature and Governor to do so; and WHEREAS, the voters of California are the best judges of whether local tax funds should be diverted, confiscated, shifted or otherwise taken to finance an ever-expanding State government; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly of Voting Delegates of the League of California Cities at its September 10, 2003,meeting voted to sponsor a statewide ballot initiative to empower the voters to limit the ability of state government to confiscate local tax funds to fund state government; and WHEREAS, the League has requested that cities offer support for a November 2004 ballot 1 initiative that will allow voters to decide whether State government may appropriate local tax funds to fund state government operations and responsibilities. NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council hereby expresses its strong support for a statewide ballot initiative to allow voters to decide whether local tax funds may be taken, confiscated, shifted, diverted or otherwise used to fund state government operations and responsibilities. 2. The City Council and City staff are authorized to provide impartial informational materials on the initiative as may be lawfully provided by the City's representatives. No public funds shall be used to campaign for or against the initiative. 3. The residents of the City are encouraged to become well informed on the initiative and its possible impacts on the critical local services on which they rely; and 4. The City Clerk is hereby requested to send a copy of this resolution to the Executive Director of the League of California Cities. 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 1ST day of March, 2004, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: City Clerk 2 CITY AGENDA 8c ITEM# Bt1R1.INGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. } DATE e TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI j. BY DATE: February 25, 2004 f APPROVED FROM: Netie Shinday (558-7204) BY SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Parking Commissioner resignation RECOMMENDATION Take action on Traffic Safety Parking commission appointment to replace Lisa DeAngelis. BACKGROUND Due to her family's impending relocation, Lisa DeAngelis has submitted her written resignation effective April 8, 2004. Council may choose one of the following, or other, options and direct staff accordingly.- Open ccordingly:Open the application period to the public and establish a filing deadline of Friday, March 19, 2004; and select a council interview team. • Open the application process to only applicants that have applied to City commissions in the last two years. • Appoint a candidate from the 2 unappointed applicants that were interviewed for this commission on January 6, 2004. BURLINGAME AGENDA STAFF REPORT ITEM# 9a MTG. 3/1/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED 00112Aa DATE: February 19, 2004 BY APPRO D FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING MARSTEN PIPELINE S ATION UPGRADE AND OUTFALL PIPELINE PROJECT TO ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION AND RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO MARSTEN PUMP STATION BUDGET - CITY PROJECT NO. 80520 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve the following resolutions for the Marsten Outfall Pipeline Phase 1: • Resolution awarding a construction contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in the amount of$965,000 to install a pipe line under the freeway with access manholes. • Resolution approving a transfer of$390,000 from various storm drain projects to the Marsten Outfall Pipeline budget. BACKGROUND: The first phase of the Marsten Pump Station Improvement Project involves construction of approximately 400 feet of 66-inch diameter concrete storm drain pipe from the Marsten Pump Station beneath Easton Creek and Highway 101 to the Hyatt Hotel parking lot. The pipeline will be installed using micro tunneling construction because of limited access under the freeway and poor existing soil conditions. This project is a continuation of the improvements along Easton Creek which will alleviate flooding in the adjacent neighborhoods and industrial areas when all phases are completed. DISCUSSION: On February 10, 2004, bids were opened for the pipeline project. Five bids were submitted and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction was the lowest responsible bidder with a price of$965,000. The bid price is about 13%higher than the engineers estimate. The increased construction costs are due to poor soil conditions discovered in the area where boring and receiving pits will be excavated and shored. Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction has met all the requirements for the project and has been engaged in the contracting business under the present name for more than eighteen years. Experience in work of a similar nature extends over a period of more than 35 years. In addition, Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction has installed pipe lines and pump stations for the cities of San Jose, Foster City, Tracy, Mountain View, and Stockton. Construction of the pipe line is expected to start in April, 2004 and be completed by fall to avoid the rainy season. Page 2 BUDGET IMPACT and TRANSFER OF FUNDS: Because of the higher construction costs, the project will require the transfer of funds remaining in other completed or postponed storm drain projects as follows: Funding Availability FY 2003-04 CIP Easton Creek improvements $ 800,000 Various budgeted storm drain projects: • CIP 79429 Safeway storm drain crossing (postponed) $ 154,000 • CIP 79411 El Portal, Gilbreth creek lining (completed) $ 70,000 • CIP 79390 Pipe line replacement(postponed) $ 50,000 • CIP 78520 Mills Creek cleaning (completed) $ 30,000 • CIP 80620 Burlingame channel cleaning (completed) $ 26,000 • CIP 79419 Easton Creek cleaning (completed) 60,000 Total $1,190,000 Expenditures Pipe line Construction $ 965,000 Construction contingency(15%) $ 145,000 Construction staff administration 80,000 Total $1,190,000 EXHIBITS: Resolutions, Bid Summary, Appropriation Transfer Request c: City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance Director, Public Works Director Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80520.stf.wpd RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MARSTEN PUMP STATION UPGRADE AND OUTFALL PIPELINE CITY PROJECT NO. 80520 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT DATE: Public Works-Engineering March 1,2004 1.REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUN DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRIPTION D 320 79420 220 Safeway $154,000 Storm drain crossing-postponed 320 79411 220 EI Portal ck lining $ 70,000 Project completed FROM: 320 79390 220 Pipe line replace. $ 50,000 Projects postponed 320 79410 220 Easton ck cleaning $ 60,000 Project completed 320 78520 220 Mills ck cleaning $ 30,000 Project completed 320 80620 1 220 1 B-game ck cleaning 1 $ 26,000 Project completed TO: 320 80520 220 Marsten pipe line $390,000 Construction of pipe line under freeway Justification(Attach Memo if Necessary): Construction costs increased due to poor soil conditions in boring and receiving pits DEPARTM HEAD (Refer to March 1,2004 council staff report) BY: DATE: •J�® 2.X COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED ❑COUNCIL ACTION NOT R UIRED Remarks: FINANCE DIRECTOR BY: DATE 3.❑APPROVE AS REQUESTED [-]APPROVE AS REVISED ❑DISAPPROVE Remarks: CITY MANAGER BY: DATE: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame,that WHEREAS,the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation,Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request:and WHEREAS,the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances,and the City Manager has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. MAYOR 1,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 .and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK BID SUMMARY* MARSTEN PUMP STATION UPGRADE AND OUTFALL PIPELINE-PHASE Project No.80520 BID OPENING DATE:February 10,2004 ITEM ESTIMATED Engineers Estimate Anderson Pacific JMB Construction KJ Woods James W.Fowler McGuire and Hester NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT City of Burlingame Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS SCHEDULE A-Basis of Bid 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $119,000.00 $119,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 Sheeting,Shoring,Bracing,Excavation,and 2 Dewatering 1 LS $79,230.00 $79,230.00 $260,000.00 $260,000.00 $330000.00 $330,000.00 $363,400.00 $363,400.00 $553,000.00 $553,000.00 $695,000.00 $695,000.00 3 Install 66-inch storm drain pipe by micratunneling 418 LF $1,281.63 $535,721.34 $1,550.00 $647,900.00 $1,500.00 $627,000.00 $1,700.00 $710,600.00 $1,500.00 $627,000.00 $1,640.00 $685,520.00 Construction survey,permits,equipment rentals,mics. 4 Imaterisla 1 LS $106,050.00 $106,050.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $112,000.00 $112,000.00 $42,500.00 $42,500.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 TOTAL(Items 1-4) $840 001.34 $965,900.00 $1,057,000.00 $1,236,000.00 $1,282,500.00 $1,470,520.00 SCHEDULE B 1 Furnish and install access manhole#1 1 EACH $93,247.00 $93,247.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $133,000.00 $133,000.00 $234,000.00 $234,000.00 2 Furnish and install access manhole#2 1 EACH $72,777.00 $72,777.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 $108,000.00 $106,000.00 $133,000.00 $133,000.00 $220,000.00 $220,000.00 SUBTOTAL(Items 1-2) $166,024.0 $140,000.00 $290,000.00 $198,000.00 $266,000.00 $454_000 00 TOTAL SCHEDULE A AND B $1,006,025.34 $1,105,900.00 $1,347,000.00 $1,434000.00 $1548,500.00 $1,924,520.00 *Microtunneling qualifications to be reviewed before final selection of contractor. Marsten Pipeline BID SUMMARY 80520 2-10-041.xis 2/18/2004BID SUM11:32 AM AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT MARSTEN PUMP STATION UPGRADE AND OUTFALL PIPELINE PROJECT - PHASE 1 CITY PROJECT NO. 80520 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS,on ,after notice duly given,the City Council of said City awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for said improvements; and WHEREAS,City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Specifications entitled:MARSTEN PUMP STATION UPGRADE AND OUTFALL PIPELINE PROJECT - PHASE 1, CITY PROJECT NO. 80520. 1 2. The Contract Documents. The Complete contract consists of the following documents: This Agreement,Notice Inviting Sealed Bids,the prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law, the accepted Bid Proposal,the complete plans,profiles,detailed drawings,and Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and all bonds,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 said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND dollars ($965,000.00). This price is determined by the unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. 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. 5. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail,postage prepaid. 2 Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: CITY ENGINEER CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION 1390 NORMAN AVENUE SANTA CLARA, CA 95054-2047 6. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 7. 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 appropriate Superior or Municipal Court in and for San Mateo County. 8. 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. 3 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, "CONTRACTOR" A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk SAA Public Works DirectoryTORMSTroject Forms\AGRMTPUB.wpd80520.wpd 4 AGENDA BURLINGAME S TA F F REPORT ITEM# 9b DATE 3/01/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED/Ima DATE: MARCH 1, 2004 BY APPROVE FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE CHANGE OF NAM OR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution changing the name for the Wastewater Treatment Plant operator from U.S. Filter Operating Services to Veolia Wastewater America Operating Services. DISCUSSION: Last year Council approved a five-year agreement with U.S. Filter Operating Services for managing the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, Council needs to approve any name change. This action neither affects the agreement commitments nor the current staffing at the plant. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Veolia Letter BUDGET IMPACT: None c: City Clerk S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\WWTPNAMECHANGE.WPD RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACKNOWLEDGING NAME CHANGE OF U.S. FILTER OPERATING SERVICES TO VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES IN OPERATION OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City has contracted with Wheelabrator EOS, Inc. and its successor U.S. Filter Operating Services for the past ten years to provide the operation of the City wastewater treatment plant and associated services; and WHEREAS, U.S. Filter Operating Systems is changing its name to Veolia Water North America Operating Services and will continue its agreement with the City under this new name, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The change in name of U.S. Filter Operating Systems to Veolia Water North America Operating Services is acknowledged and accepted. MAYOR 1, 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 -1- VE LIA Water Wednesday,February 11,2004 Mr.George Bagdon Director of Public Works City of Burlingame Dear George, As you know, we are in the process of changing our name to reflect that of our parent company. Hopefully by now you have received a letter from Mike Stark, the President and CEO of Veolia Water North America Operating Services, Inc. Mr. Stark's letter explains the name change that is effective immediately and was sent to you and the City council members at my request to assist with the explanation of the transition. Please be assured that our Contract with the City of Burlingame remains in full effect and Veolia Water North American Operating Services stands behind all previous commitments stated in the contract that was effective May 19,2003. Regardless of our name we have a strong commitment to service and operational excellence. Our team here at the treatment plant will continue to operate your facility in a way to ensure that we are protecting the environment and health of the citizens of Burlingame. Please let me know if you need any further information concerning this transition in name only. We look forward to being of service to the City. William E.Toci Plant Manager City of Burlingame WWTF Veolia Water North America Operating Services VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERICA 1103 Airport Blvd.Burlingame CA 94010 Tel 650 342-3727 Fax 650 342-3712 www.Veoliawaterna.com AGENDA 9C CITY c ITEM # 6BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT MAG.DATE 3 / 1 / 04 A7 Dawe s• TO: Honorable City Council SUBMITTED BY Alfred J. Palmer, ChM' LOLPC DATE: February 17, 2004 APPROVED FROM : Chief of Police BY SUBJECT: Increase in hourly pay rate for outside work details. RECOMMENDATION: That the pay rate for Police Officers working to provide security services, outside their normal work hours, be increased to reflect their current hourly time and one half pay. BACKGROUND The Burlingame Police Officers Association has requested that their pay rate for Security Services (Outside Details) be increased to reflect their current time and one half pay rate plus an administrative charge for the city. I agree with their request. The pay rate for these services has not been increased in a number of years. As you are aware, periodically, we receive requests to provide uniformed police officers to work special details that range from large parties to traffic control on a movie set. These officers are over and above those that work their normal duties. The officers, at all times, are under the supervision of our on duty supervisors and are considered on duty. The new pay rate: $70.00 per hour Breakdown: $57.00 per hour to the officer and $13.00 an hour to the city. Effective date: March 15, 2004. There is no budget impact, the customer is billed directly by us and we are reimbursed for our costs. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR POLICE SECURITY SERVICES WHEREAS,the City has established a master fee schedule for fees charged by the City for various services; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame Police Department offers the services of its officers for Security Services or Outside Details,such as large parties,conventions,and traffic control for special events; and WHEREAS,the fees should reflect the actual costs to the City at the established payrates, NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Master Fee Schedule is amended to add the following: SERVICE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Reference Security Service $50.00 per hour $70.00 per hour (Outside Detail) 2. This fee is effective March 15, 2004. 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 C:SFU,ESUtESO\masterfeeskedpoliceamend.pin.wpd CITYAGENDA 9d °t ITEM# BURL,NGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE 3/1/2004 9$4a TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED— T BY DATE: February 26, 2004 APPROVEt BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: APPOINT INTERIM ADVISORY BOARD TO DEVELOP PROPOSED BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Interim Advisory Board to develop proposed Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District (BID). DISCUSSION: A group of merchants, businesspeople, and property owners have been working a proposal to form a Burlingame Avenue BID. A good deal of effort has developed the outline of such a district. The Streets & Highways Code requires the Council to appoint an Interim Advisory Board to further develop the proposal and bring it to the Council for public hearing. The working groups has recommended the following persons for the Interim Advisory Board: Elio D'urzo Sam Malouf Janet Martin Eric Mendell Frankie Meyer It is expected that the Board will bring a proposal to the Council in April. Distribution Sam Malouf Burlingame Chamber of Commerce BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION February 5,2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson Hesselgren. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Hesselgren, Carney,Ellis, Grandcolas,Lauder, McQuaide, and Webb Staff: Director Schwartz, Parks Superintendent Richmond, Arborist Porter, and Administrative Secretary Harvey Guests: Bob and Jane Haddad(831 Crossway Rd.); Jennifer Pfaff(Burlingame Historical Society) MINUTES Minutes were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Superintendent Richmond to Teresa Ruvalcaba, 1360 Drake Avenue, informing her that the Commission voted to deny the appeal for the removal of one Cedar tree at her address. Letter from Director Shwartz to Farrok Kouchek-Ali(1537 Westmoor Rd.)and Peter Tokarski(1533 Westmoor Rd.)informing them that the date of the hearing tentatively set for the February 17th Council meeting will be confirmed upon receipt of a check in the amount of$250 per the Master Fee Schedule. Spring Garden Seminar Flyer, 'Composting for the Home Gardener' and letter to speaker Alane L. O'Rielly Weber,thanking her for consenting to being the speaker for this year's seminar. Memo from Steven Porter,City Arborist,regarding'Considerations/Guidelines use forProtected Tree Removal Permits'. Pictures of Commissioner Lauder and former Commissioner Locke wearing official uniform for the Adopt-a- Highway program at the 101/Broadway triangle. Letter from Director Schwartz to Bob and Jane Haddad,831 Crossway Rd.,informing them that a public hearing before the Beautification Commission had been scheduled for February 5'regarding removal of a protected Camphor tree @831 Crossway Rd. Staff Reportto Beautification Commission regarding the hearing concerning removal ofthe Camphortree @ 831 Crossway Rd. FROM THE FLOOR- (None) Chairperson Hesselgren requested the order of the agenda be changed to accommodate the applicants for the tree removal at 831 Crossway Rd. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing Regarding Removal of a Protected Camphor Tree(a)831 Crossway Road-Superintendent Richmond explained to the Commission that the permit application was submitted after the canopy of the Camphor tree had been removed by the applicants contractor. He added that the Commission must step back in time and decide whether findings presented by the property owners or others would be justification for approving or denying the permit and that denial of this permit does not mean that the tree will need to remain. Superintendent Richmond then referred the Commission to the Staff Report,under Commission Options,which explains examples of options available to the Commission if"approving"the Permit Application or if"denying" the Permit Application. Chairperson Hesselgren asked if the Commission had any questions of staff? Commissioner Ellis asked how long ago the aerial view had been taken and how much more the tree might have grown since the picture? Arborist Porter believed the aerial photograph had been taken in 1998 and that the tree would have grown anywhere from 6 inches to 1 foot each year. 1 Public Hearing Regarding Removal of a Protected Camphor Tree(CD,831 Crossway Road(Contd.) - Commissioner Webb asked Arborist Porter if,upon inspection,there was any evidence of foundation problems and if the landscaping was new? Arborist Porter responded that there was no apparent damage to the foundation and that the landscaping was new. Chairperson Hesselgren asked if roots from Camphor trees lift foundations? Arborist Porter responded that he has never seen a tree root"lift"a foundation. Commissioner Lauder asked if the tree had been properly maintained,trimmed and shaped, and root barriers installed would the root damage to the pathway and driveway had occurred? Arborist Porter stated that in his opinion the damage would not have occurred if the tree had been properly maintained and root barriers installed. Commissioner Ellis then asked if the tree could have been trimmed in such a way to show the house better? Arborist Porter responded"Yes". Chairperson Hesselgren asked the age of the tree? Arborist Porter responded 50-75 years and stated that Camphors can live to 150 years old. Commissioner Carney asked how much bigger the tree could be expected to grow? Arborist Porter stated that the tree is a mature tree and would not increase a great deal in size and added that the property owner could have maintained the tree to the size they wanted. Commissioner Ellis asked how removal of this tree came to the attention of the City? Arborist Porter stated that a member of the tree crew observed the removal and finding that no permit was on file in the office, stopped the removal. Commissioner Lauder asked if there are shade tolerant ground covers that would grow under the canopy of the Camphor tree? Arborist Porter responded that there are many ground covers that are shade tolerant and low maintenance that would grow under a Camphor tree. There being no further questions of staff, Chairperson.Resselgren recognized Bob and Jane Haddad and asked if they had any comments they wished to make to the Commission? Mr. Haddad stated that the removal of the Camphor tree occurred due to a misunderstanding between him and his contractor. That,the tree cracked the driveway,pathway,and the side of his house and that currently$25,000 had been spent to improve his property. He stated that at the bottom of the trunk of the tree,one foot had been lifted above the main area and was causing damage,and that nothing could be done to the 6"diameter roots. He added that the previous property owner had to have the sewer line and gas line replaced. The Contractor recommended removal of the tree and Mr. Haddad stated that he told the Contractor he would "take out a permit", but the Contractor misunderstood and thought that he, in fact,had a permit to remove the tree. Chairperson Hesselgren asked the age of the pathway? Mrs. Haddad said the pathway was very old and very unsafe and so they arranged with the contractor to repair those areas;and then,one thing led to another and more work was done and then the tree was removed. Mr. Haddad stated that he knew he would need a permit to remove the tree,that the City Arborist had told him to take out a permit,but the contractor understood that the permit had already been taken out. Mrs. Haddad stated that they did not know that the tree was going to be removed until she returned home from work and found the tree partially removed. The contractor then told her that someone from the City had stopped him from continuing the removal. Chairperson Hesselgren clarified that because of the aging sewer laterals in the City of Burlingame,it is required at the time of sale of a property,that the laterals be pressure tested and replaced if necessary at the cost to the seller. Commissioner Lauder asked if a professional looked at the cracks to determine that they were caused by the tree? Mr.Haddad stated,"No",that the tree is a problem;that they have spent a lot of money to improve the property, and the removal of the tree without a permit was unintentional. Commissioner Webb asked Mr.Haddad if he had paid the contractor for the tree removal? Mr.Haddad stated"Yes",$6,000 for the tree and additional paving work. Commissioner Webb asked if the contract included tree removal? Mr. Haddad stated that the first two jobs were part of the contract;the other work including discussions about the tree removal and replacement were verbal. Commissioner Webb clarified with Mr. Haddad that the driveway and walkway were by contract;but the brick wall,removal and replacement ofthe tree,and planting grass was a verbal contract. Mr.Haddad stated "Yes". 2 Public Hearing Regarding Removal of a Protected Camphor Tree Q 831 Crossway Road (Contd.) - Commissioner Ellis asked if permits were taken out from the City replace the driveway and pathway? Mr. Haddad stated he did not know. Commissioner Carney asked if there were problems with the roots in the lawn area? Mr.Haddad stated that the lawn would not grow under the tree because there were so many roots in the lawn. Chairperson Hesselgren then closed the hearing. Commissioner Ellis stated that she observed that the neighbor's driveway was also badly cracked but there was no evidence of roots in that area and that, age was the probable cause of the cracks. Chairperson Hesselgren stated that there was also no visible evidence that the tree affected the sewer. Commissioner Grandcolas commented that cracks in most driveways are caused by settling and age. Commissioner Ellis added that she was concerned that the contractor took the action of removing the tree without notifying the property owner. Commissioner Grandcolas responded that quality varies with contractors, contractors need to be managed,and that it appeared this contractor was out of control. Commissioner Webb added that it did seem out of order to replace a walkway before removing a tree. Commissioner Ellis remarked that the loss of this tree leaves a big void in the neighborhood, that there are no other trees. Commissioner Lauder agreed and commented that there are eight houses on Crossway that have paved planter strips. Following the discussion, Commissioner Carney moved that based on the findings that the tree was a viable, healthy tree and that, maintaining the roots and the pruning and thinning of the tree could have been alternatives to removal of this tree, the permit be denied;seconded Motion carried unanimously. Superintendent Richmond advised the Commission that they were now charged with identifying a recommended option for City Staff to pursue with appellant and gave examples of possible options. Commissioner Grandcolas asked the Commission if they had ever seen contractors lead people astray? Commissioner Grandcolas added that the property owners were making improvements to their property and that he would recommend there be a negotiated settlement with the property owners and they be required to plant an appropriate replacement tree. Commissioner Lauder suggested that the replacement tree be a 36"box size tree. Chairperson Hesselgren concurred that it did appear that the contractor ran astray. Commissioner McQuaide asked Mr.Haddad if the recommendation were to seek full cash value of the Camphor tree, would they also plant another tree? Mr.Haddad stated that they would plant another tree. He concluded that the house was a fixer upper and that they were only trying to improve their property. Following the discussion, Commissioner Webb moved that City staff seek a negotiated cash settlement with the property owner and that a 36"box size replacement tree be planted on the property;seconded(Lauder). Motion carried unanimously. Director Schwartz stated the appellants would be notified in writing ofthe Commission's decision and would also be advised of appeal procedures. Tree Replacement Program on El Camino Real-Guest Speaker Jennifer Pfaff-Superintendent Richmond introduced Jennifer Pfaff from the Burlingame Historical Society who has been meeting with City Staff and CalTrans representatives regarding the possibility of the replanting of disease resistant Elm trees on El Camino Real as the Eucalyptus trees are removed. Ms. Pfaff reported that she is a member of the Burlingame Historical Society and was interested in finding out more history about the Eucalyptus trees on El Camino. Superintendent Richmond assisted her by providing her access to the Parks & Recreation Department files. She stated that she knew that Elms had also been planted alternately along with the Eucalyptus by John McLaren, and wondered if the Elm might be an alternative replacement tree rather than the Eucalyptus Microtheca species that is currently being used to replace the removal of the Eucalyptus Globulus. 3 Tree Replacement Program on El Camino Real- Guest Speaker, Jennifer Pfaff- (Contd.) - Ms.Pfaff stated that after discussions with City Staff and CalTrans representatives as to whether the Elm would even fit within the certain criteria(utilities,set backs,etc.),all agreed that the Elm could be a viable alternative. Ms. Pfaff stated that she has spoken to many"experts"about the Elms and has researched the many different Elm varieties. She has looked at the Elms planted in the Oxford/Cambridge area as well as the Elm test site in Atherton. She added that since El Camino Real is on the State's historical register and that the State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that the grove of trees is still intact,the planting of Elms would be in keeping with the historical significance of the grove. Ms.Pfaff commented that currently,8-9 different Elm varieties are being considered for suitability of which 4-5 varieties will be chosen as replacement alternatives. She added that for historical reasons,her choice would be the American Elm but availability of the American Elm as well as the'Princeton' Elm is difficult because it is not grown in California. These varieties would need to be flown in and would only be bare root trees,needing to be cared for before they could be planted. She concluded that perhaps the Accolade Elm variety,which is readily available locally, could possibly be the replacement variety for the eleven Eucalyptus trees that are currently being removed by CalTrans. Chairperson Hesselgren thanked Ms.Pfafffor all her work and research in this area,and affirmed the importance of maintaining the historical component on El Camino Real in hopes of preventing future clear cutting of the trees. Commissioners Dinner-March 12',2004-Superintendent Richmond announced to the Commission the date ofthe upcoming Commissioners Dinner and that Commissioners will soon be receiving invitations regarding the event. OLD BUSINESS Arbor Day - Monday, March 8t' (a), 10:00 AM - Bayside Park - Superintendent Richmond informed the Commission ofthe upcoming Arbor Day ceremony to be held at the main field of Bayside Park and that Redwood trees would be planted to replace the removal of some Pine trees due to poor structure and pitch moth. He added that the schools and official representatives have been invited to participate. Spring Garden Seminar-March 20'-9:30 am- 11:00 am -Superintendent Richmond stated arrangements are set for the seminar and that as usual the Commission will provide cookies or breakfast cakes. (Alane O'Rielly Weber will be speaking on the topic of 'Composting for the Home Gardener'.) Public Education Regarding Tree Practices & Policies - Chairperson Hesselgren stated the committee consisting of Commissioner Carney,Lauder, and Hesselgren have met and are ready to discuss ideas with the Commission. She stated that it is important to get the word out to the community regarding the rules and regulations for City and private trees because it seems people don't know the rules and regulations. She then asked if this item could be held over to the next meeting so more time can be spent discussing this issue. The Commission agreed to hold item over to the next meeting. REPORTS -Superintendent Richmond - 1. The tree crew is currently trimming the Sycamore's in the northern part of this year's scheduled section (West of Vancouver to Alvarado between Easton and Adeline;and Edgehill to Mills between California Drive and ECR). 2. A mature Elm tree was removed on Carmelita due to a safety issue. 3. Removal of 11 Eucalyptus trees on El Camino Real due to extensive heart rot decay. Trees to be removed have been marked with an orange dot and are mostly located North of Broadway. All of the removed trees will be replaced. 4. The City's tree contractor is completing the Eucalyptus pruning on Burlingame Avenue. 5. The January tree planting has been completed by the City's tree crew with the planting of approximately 60 trees. 6. Soil injection for aphid control on approximately 110 trees will be conducted in house by a member of the tree crew in order to save money and hopefully to achieve better results and effectiveness. 7. Updates of the Bay Area Specific Plan and the North of Rollins Road Master Plan can be viewed on the City of Burlingame website at wwxy.Burlingame.org. 4 REPORTS - (Contd.) - Chairperson Hesselgren -Chairperson Hesselgren reported that the loss of trees have never been replaced at the Rector/Cadillac site(Rollins Road/Cadillac Way/CarolanAvenueBroadway),and that the site looks horrible. She stated she would like the City to followup and force the property owners to comply with the plan that required replacement trees. Arborist Porter stated he would review the original plan and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Carney - Commissioner Carney reported that a swing is still in the City tree at 458 Chatham. Superintendent Richmond responded that a letter had been sent to the property owners but that staff would check into the status and remove the swing if necessary. Commissioner Ellis - Commissioner Ellis asked when new vines would be planted on the Public Works fence on California Drive at Oak Grove? Arborist Porter responded that he and Supervisor Disco were discussing viable options for plant material in that area. Superintendent Richmond added that Public Works is also interested in replanting at that site but caring for the plants without access to irrigation became very labor intensive and very difficult to maintain with reduced staff. Commissioner Ellis asked Arborist Porter about the dead, brown leaves on the trees on the lower section of Burlingame Avenue? Arborist Porter responded that the Bay trees in that area are very old and dying of an incurable systemic disease and that at some point the trees will need to be removed and replaced. Commissioner Ellis asked what the current status was with regard to the Crossway"triangle"planting proposal? Superintendent Richmond stated that it would not be happening at this point due to the budget cuts. Commissioner Webb - Commissioner Webb reported that housing in the Bay front area was voted down but the North end of Burlingame may be rezoned for housing,and asked if a tree planting schedule would be put in place? Arborist Porter responded that tree planting for new developments have been established in existing City ordinances. Commissioner Lauder - Commissioner Lauder reported that she and former commissioner Nancy Locke conducted litter removal and ice plant propagation during their first work day at the 101/Broadway triangle adoption site. She added that they noticed that CalTrans had replaced the Willow trees across from the site. Commissioner McQuaide-Commissioner McQuaide notedthatthere are very few Citytrees on Crossway Road because concrete is in many of the planter strips. Arborist Porter responded that during sidewalk replacement, all concrete is removed from the planter strip and cannot be replaced. There being no further business, Chairperson Hesselgren adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, 4WA Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, CA February 23, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojues called the February 23, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojues, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 9, 2004 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 Pat Gorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,spoke noting that the last time she came to a Commission meeting it was because a neighbor wanted to add a 5 bedroom 5 bath house, now she is hear because she is concerned about the increase in water usage and wastewater volumes caused by these new,big houses which �-- impact the flat lands of the City and her house in particular. The very old sewer system overflows in her area whenever there is a major storm. She would like the Planning Commission to better address the over burdened, clay sewer pipes. Staff noted there are more studies of the water distribution and waste water collection systems under way now. Chair Bojues directed staff to contact the proper person in Public Works and have them call Ms. Gorni. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. REVIEW OF PROPOSED ZOMING CHANGES TO REGULATION DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT—PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report outlining the changes to development regulations for creek side lots proposed by the Subcommittee. Commissioners discussed noting: • That in the definition of creek side lot it should read"one-hundred year flood or flow depth line..." • Are swimming pools considered to be structures under the provisions of this ordinance? • The regulations for height should be reworded to make it clear that the maximum height of 30 feet still prevails even if the canopy of the trees is at 40 feet. • The six foot setback line from the one hundred year flood line should be a fixed setback,like a side setback, and to encroach into it should require a variance. Commissioners all agreed to direct that this change be made to the proposed regulations. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 There were no further comments from the Commission. Chair Boju6s set this item for public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. Staffnoted that they would bring the creek regulations forward at the next meeting with the proposed regulations for emerging legal lots which the commission discussed previously. 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. A member of the public requested that item 2B, 137 Crescent Avenue be taken off the consent calendar and a public hearing held. Commissioners did not request any other items be removed from the consent calendar. 2A. 1216 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, JERRY DEAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;JONATHAN AND JENNIFER VARNI,PROPERTY OWNERS)(64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 2C. 9 MILLS CANYON COURT, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARK STOKLOSA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND CAROLINE --� LEE PROPERTY OWNERS) (26 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C.Brownrigg noted that he would abstain from voting on the consent calendar because he was not present at the last meeting. C. Keighran moved approval of items 2A and 2C on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,commissioners' comments and the findings in the staffreports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the projects at 1216 Cabrillo Avenue and 9 Mills Court. The motion passed 6-0-1(C. Brownrigg abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2B. 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 SP Brooks presented the staff report,noting the corrections including the addition of fencing and plant material along the property line between the two driveways. There were no questions of staff from the -� Planning Commissioners. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue,represented the project. Neighbors Timothy O'Brien, 133 Crescent; Jim Lundi, 128 Costa Rica; Sandy Ladd, 141 Crescent spoke. The applicant noted talked to neighbor O'Brien and submitted a letter to address the concerns expressed; he noted that willing to install the fence and greenery between the driveways, given the orientation of the house did not think that it was possible to block the sunlight to O'Brien's house so changing the roof line not necessary, do not feel that it is reasonable to ask for story poles, did not include a cut to the gable roof feel that clipping it would not support the design of the house. Neighbor noted he has a 10,150 SF lot, it is worth $1.7 million but not matter bought the house 19 years ago for the quality of life in Burlingame,that will be taken away by the construction of this house next door; project does not comply with the design guidelines, it does not interface well with the adjacent property, it does not respect its neighbors, spoke about the driveway at last meeting,but what about the 30 foot tall roofline, want story poles with netting put up so he can see impact and Commission can as well,want the roof lowered and pulled back; not opposed to the project,just want the roof redesigned. Want story poles, this house will look into three back yards, house next door to his hurt worst because will lose morning sun;was shocked by new house on my block recently built, too big. Would like story poles to show where gable will be located, need to respect existing neighborhood conditions,part of the design review charge. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: Neighbor eloquent about his concern about compatibility with the neighborhood character, did not support the application with the previous action,reasons are in the record; nice design,would ask for story poles to support that design, help neighbors understand; feel story poles are not out of line, would support, should note that lots are small in Burlingame and houses frequently look into one another's yards, feel meets design guidelines; neighbor is not opposed just wants story poles, should install; like design, feel follows guidelines, respect concerns of neighbor, support story poles so everyone is aware of impact, we all live close to one another there will be over views. People in audience should listen to concerns expressed by public tonight, issues such as the impact on water supply of so many new bathrooms, concern about the size of houses, and make wishes known about the direction which community should take for future development. Chair Bojues moved to continue this item until the story poles could be installed and looked at by the neighbors and commissioners. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the story poles have been installed and looked at. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 3. 318 CHANNING ROAD,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(BARRY RAFTER,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;GEORGE RYAN, PROPERTY OWNER)47 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Danielle Ryan,318 Channing,represented the project. Want to remodel so that the bedrooms can be on the same floor. Commissioners noted: • The front elevation is very vertical,especially at entry,needs to blend more into the existing house; 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 • West and rear elevations need articulation,too much stucco; • No overhang at the entry, lacks human scale; -1 • Taking the wood siding off the master bedroom negatively affected the scale of the house; • Should look at window trim treatment, should use a more traditional stucco mold detail; • Left wall on the side and the rear need more windows; • Good example of entries that work are on Concord Way, should take a look; • Should include a landscape plan, large trees should be included to soften the addition and make an attractive setting for the house,landscape plan should be submitted with the revisions,landscaping can be done after construction. • The interior space between the kitchen and the dining room should be evaluated to see if a change could result in an increase in the rear yard. • House should have true divided lights throughout. C. Keighran moved to put this item on the action calendar since the mass and bulk of the project was all right, the issue is with the finer details, the front entry design,breaking up the stucco on the east and west walls, changing the trim. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: feel that the project needs to go to the design reviewer,changes affect the front back and sides; lot of comments, design reviewer could polish this project. C. Keighran made a motion to amend her motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the recommendations made by the commission. C. Auran the second of the original motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Boju6s called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer. It should be placed on the action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion to refer to a design reviewer passed on a voice vote 7-0.The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4. 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)(63 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if staff could provide the data table from the original application.Staff noted that it would be included in the action packet. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Bret Bottarini, 1225 Cabrillo Avenue,represented the project. Neighbors John Varney, 1216 Cabrillo,Angela Johnston, 1528 Ralston spoke. Applicant noted that bought house with approved plans for an addition,the FAR of those plans was bigger than this project,they reduced the garage to one car, narrowed the addition and increased the second floor setback to the rear; placed windows high on the side wall to protect the neighbor, did not want them to look into dining room and kitchen, wanted to retain the simple style of the original bungalow, had a problem with interior finish on windows matching, drove ceiling height, not add windows in kitchen because of sun. -� 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 Commissioners discussed with applicant: unusual to go through mud room from kitchen to dining room; there are no windows on the west elevation,where are the egress windows for the bedrooms on the second floor;house is 2000 SF the mass and bulk are handled well,low height,26 feet,but structure lacks detail,its �— all stucco,could the second floor be enhances by adding another material;eave detail needs study along with fascia,small windows could be added,fewer than with previous design;need to break mass and bulk on the east elevation;window trim should match existing,nice to have more relief;some of the problem is the way the elevations are drawn,not descriptive enough, add window in kitchen;windows should be true divided lights. Applicant is asking Commission to sacrifice their desires in order to accommodate the neighbors, think that is fine, add windows on that side or not, up to applicant. Neighbors noted: design review is important intended to add value to projects,to make the design fit in the neighborhood, there are a group of neighbors here to support this project because it fits, the applicant is investing in Burlingame. This is a family home, approve plans as they stand. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C.Keighran noted that over all the designer did a nice job,like the simplicity,the project works well,all the elevations are good except for the west one which needs the addition of one or two small windows to break up the space and make this wall fit with the rest of the house, move to direct the applicant to make the changes and bring this item back to the consent calendar with relief as noted. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Bc jues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 5. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED - PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR AN APPLICATION TO REPLACE MILLS- PENINSULA HOSPITAL WITH A NEW SIX TO SEVEN-STORY HOSPITAL BUILDING,A 146,323 SF FOUR TO FIVE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING FOR HOSPITAL SUPPORT SPACE AND MEDICAL OFFICES, A PARKING GARAGE AND A HELIPAD (258 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MAUREEN BROOKS/KAREN KRISTIANSSON CP Monroe introduced the environmental consultants for the project,Rod Jeung and Trixie Martelino from EIP Associates and Jane Bierstedt and Jaime Hicks from Fehr&Peers. The consultants made a presentation on the Draft EIR,starting with a description of the hospital project,the environmental methodology used in the analysis and a overview of the environmental review process. The consultants then outlined the significant effects identified in the Draft EIR,highlighting those which were determined to be significant and unavoidable,including the loss of open space along El Camino Real,conflict with the desired development character at the El Camino Real gateway area,parking deficit during construction and construction noise. The consultants then reviewed the alternatives presented in the Draft EIR, explaining that the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that meet most of the project's objectives and that are capable of eliminating significant adverse impacts of the project. The document looked at the "no project alternative" (keeping the existing hospital and doing a seismic retrofit of the building), and two alternative site plans. The objectives in creating the two site alternatives were to reduce the loss of open space along El Camino Real, achieve the City's design goals along El Camino Real, use the hospital proposed interior space planning of the project, and maintain delivery of health care services on the site while the replacement hospital is under construction. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 Alternative A would involve relocating the San Francisco Water District line which runs through the site to the El Camino Real frontage,retains the existing driveway on El Camino Real,creates a ring road with two main access points and retains the building footprint but reorients it so the main entrance is off El Camino Real. Alternative B puts the main access on Trousdale,moves the garage closer to Trousdale,changes the shape of the hospital building to provide more open space on El Camino, and retains the shape of the medical office building but separates it from the hospital building. In comparing the two alternatives to the proposed project,both the alternatives eliminate three of the significant unavoidable impacts,but still have significant impacts during construction in both parking and noise impacts. The Draft EIR identifies Alternative A as the environmentally superior alternative because it avoids the loss of open space, is consistent with the City's goals for the gateway area,better segregates the vehicle trips to the hospital at three driveways and has a better helipad locations. As noted,the construction parking and noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The consultants then highlighted the next steps in the process,noting that comments on the Draft EIR would be received through the closing date of March 501,the consultant will prepare responses to the comments and identify a mitigation monitoring program. This information would be incorporated into the Final EIR and would be presented to the Planning Commission and Council for consideration before action is taken on the proj ect. Commissioners complimented the consultant on the comprehensive analysis,asked the following questions of the consultant and made comments: Question: Why were the potential traffic impacts further up Trousdale not analyzed, Trousdale is becoming more impacted with BART and the school traffic? Response: Looked at trip generation and distribution and how many trips from the hospital would be going towards Trousdale,it was a small amount,about one new trip every 2 %i minutes,not considered to be significant. Looking at Trousdale, took into account the school traffic, determined that there are three peak periods,7:00—9:00 a.m.,4:00—6:00 p.m.,and because of the school and the hospital, also looked at 2:00—4:00 p.m., and this was the worst. Question: Where in the report is the analysis of the vehicle noise,odor,light and glare from the parking garage to residents on Davis Drive. Response: In Chapter 3.3, Visual, looked at lighting and the potential for spillover of the vehicle headlights, fumes were addressed in the Air Quality Chapter on Page 3.6-16, Noise was addressed in Chapter 3.5 on Page 3.5-14. Question: The parking deficit during construction is as much as 500 cars,when evaluated the amount of parking required for the project, is it based on the needs of the existing facility, was it compared other facilities, or is there an industry standard that is used? Response: Looked at existing parking demand and factored up for the increase in beds and office floor area, also compared to industry standard and looked at worst case, this analysis showed a higher parking demand than the industry standard, so the more conservative estimate was used. Question: Is this the right-sized hospital (bed count)based on the regional supply? Response: One thing that isn't done in an environmental analysis is to question the justification for the project,the project sponsor comes up with the proposal, and the EIR's role is to look at the impacts of the project as proposed. Question: There is a potential of residual land from this plan, and was the use of this land addressed' that also needs to be looked at when considering alternatives at the scoping session; had asked that the amount of residual land available be looked at. 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 Response: Refer to Table 5-1 in the Alternatives Chapter for comparison, but only looked at maintaining the size of the parking structure, didn't look at in that level of detail,but there could be a larger garage and less surface parking to maintain or enlarge residual land,at this �- level of alternative analysis,just need to see if all the pieces fit on the site. Question: The zoning of the site is proposed to be C-1,why was that chosen,it is a commercial/retail zoning,if this project is not built it would open the site to commercial retail uses,could it be zoned C-3 like the properties along Trousdale and Marco Polo,why is it being changed from Unclassified? Response: CP Monroe noted that the property cannot stay Unclassified because that designation only applies to a public use,some of the property is privately owned and the hospital is privately operated. C-1 was chosen over C-3 because of the interface with other C-1 zoned properties along El Camino Real, and C-3 is particular to offices and financial uses. Question: Saw a comparison of the open space in the document,some of what is shown as"open space" on the plans may not stay open space,has the impact of changing that area to other uses been looked at,what would the impact be if the open space area at the rear of the parcel were fully developed,would it come back to the Commission. Response: CP Monroe noted that any future changes on the site would need to be reviewed for environmental impacts and a conditional use permit would be required. Question: The existing office building at 1515 Trousdale which will be demolished has a lot of dentists, with many patient visits. With the new office building,was the potential for frequent patient visits to physicians taken into consideration in the parking and traffic analysis? Response: Applicant didn't provide specifics on how the office space would be used the detail of type of doctor's office but an assumption was made that it would be similar to 1515 Trousdale with patients visiting physicians. There are two ways to handle the variability in use,either with a very specific program and a facility that can be measured,or when you can't compare with a like facility, you can use the industry standard that provides for a range. In this case we looked at the average conditions and added a 10%increase to resolve the fact that there is no specific program. Question: There are 1931 employees now and there will be an additional 281 employees,but overall only 341 parking spaces are added, seems like there should be more. Response: Will respond in writing and explain the parking analysis methodology in Response to Comments Document. Question: Regarding truck deliveries, a decrease in the number of truck deliveries was mentioned, based on a warehouse that will be leased in the Rollins Road area,if this doesn't happen,how would that change the analysis? Response: There are 27 truck deliveries per day today, would go down to 23 with the warehouse, because of the loading docks location and the width of El Camino Real and the ability for on- site turnaround,the impact was not considered significant. If there were no warehouse,the number of trips would go up,but the difference would not be considered significant. Question: To get to the shopping center, cars traveling west on Trousdale will no longer be able to make a left turn into the parking lot but will have to make a left at Magnolia and enter the site at the narrow lane in the middle of the shopping center off Magnolia, what are the impacts of the increase in traffic that will result on that lane, is there room for two-way traffic, when there is a truck in the yellow zone on Magnolia, cars entering can't see oncoming traffic. Response: Will look into further and provide response in final document. Question: There is a lot of surface parking in this proposal, did the EIR address potential for underground parking,would improve the project visually. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 Response: When look at costs of underground,it is expensive but it can be done,without the cost,that would be the first option, the parking garage already cuts into the grade so it is partially underground. Question: On Page 3.3-37,there is an analysis of the potential glare from headlights in the garage,there will be concrete planters to relieve the glare from sedans,but what about SUVs? Response: Without the planter box,there is screening for sedans but not SUVs,with the planter boxes, the SUV's headlights would also be screened. Question: What will be done with the current vehicle entrance from Davis Drive? Response: It would be closed to vehicles and would be part of the public pedestrian access and fire access. Question: Was the number of accidents at Ray Drive/Trousdale and Trousdale/El Camino Real looked at and impacts studied? Response: Did not collect data on existing accidents,but in looking at how the vehicles stack,would tend to see more accidents if left-turn traffic extends into the through lane, other improvements would help prevent stopped vehicles,which would reduce rear end collisions, whether or not there is an existing problem. Question: Concerned with the 60-inch water pipeline in the easement, propose to make the hospital safe,but with the pipeline over the emergency entrance,how will vehicles get to the hospital if the line breaks during a seismic event, why is this not listed as significant? Relying on information from the SF Water Department,need third party to evaluate the condition of the line. Response: Refer to Page 3.10-4, spent time talking with the San Francisco Water Department,looking at the schedule for maintenance,the older line is in the El Camino Real right-of-way,the line in this easement is a more recent pipeline and is in good condition. It is evaluated on a regular basis,if the line were to rupture,because of the changes in grade on the site,the water would drain to the south towards Davis Drive,or to the north towards Trousdale,there would be no significant ponding,there are no fault lines that run through this area,so no rupture is expected, looked at the geotechnical report and the potential for liquefaction,the soil types on the site are not likely to liquefy. Will provide more information on the structural integrity of the water line in the final document. Comment: In the traffic analysis,there is a lot of information about the queue lengths,but would like to see the interaction of the different turn movements,could a diagram be provided that lays out all the lane changes on one sheet. Question: Alternative A shows new traffic circulation that breaks up the traffic flow, will a traffic analysis be done of this circulation pattern? Response: A traffic analysis of the alternatives has been done,the impacts and mitigation measures are similar for the proposed project and the two alternatives, the biggest difference was with Alternative A, the significant impact at the intersection of Trousdale and El Camino Real would go away; there is an error on the graphic, the intersection at Magnolia and the emergency exit would be signalized,not a stop sign. Question: Was the same rigorous analysis done on the alternatives as on the project? Response: Typically alternatives are analyzed with less detail,but did look at the intersections,if the site plan changes significantly,the EIR would be amended to look at how the changing impacts would be balanced, the EIR is a disclosure document that looks at adverse impacts, don't look at beneficial effects. Question: In looking at the project and alternatives,assumed that the old building would be kept intact because of the need for emergency,could build the office building first to handle emergency only and shuttle other patients to Mills Health Center in San Mateo,then the building could 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 be planned to fit the site, is there a way to find out the size of building necessary for those uses that would have to be provided to use as a transition,then do the site planning on a clean slate? Response: It is the project sponsor's objective to be able to provide continuous health servies from this site. When talk about splitting off services, it gets difficult because of the relationships of services and transport. Comment: Concur that it would be easier for site planning,understand the need to provide services to the community. Question: Alternatives A and B are shown to reduce the significant impacts,why weren't they studied more thoroughly? Response: Can request to have further study done for final document. Question: In traffic analysis on page 3.4-23, don't understand the difference between trip distribution and trip assignment and what is the difference in trip distribution given the entrance is off Trousdale? Response: The distribution refers to the regional percentage of trips and their direction;the assignment is specific to each intersection,all the existing trips from the El Camino Real Driveway have been shifted to Trousdale, distribution assumes entrance/exit off Trousdale. Comment: Challenge the conclusion that added trips on Trousdale,one trip every 2%minutes,would be an unnoticeable impact on Trousdale and 280,provide more basis for that conclusion. Question: On Page 3.4-15, it is noted that with build out of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan,it is assumed that there won't be additional traffic generated from developing that plan, is that a safe assumption, given assumption that development would be more dense? Response: The land use data base used looked at the square footage and type of development both being added and buildings which would be demolished. Overall, there would be a decrease in traffic,even assuming up to 50 residential units per acre. Trips from residential development are of a different timing, and the distribution would be different. Question: The visual impact from Davis Drive is determined to be significant,but would be reduced to less than significant by stepping back the upper stories,how is that conclusion reached? Response: The receded office building would be masked by a double row of new landscaping in front of the building, which is expected to grow to 40 feet tall in ten years, that would reduce the visual impact to less than significant. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. Sigrun Franco, 1700 Davis Drive; Evelyn Clayton, 2950 Trousdale Drive;Dan Anderson,728 Vernon Way;Terry Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive;Rich McGough, 1712 Davis Drive; Simone Almasi, 1604 Davis Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Vince Muzzi, 1818 Gilbreth Road; Leonie Wohl, 1608 Davis Drive; and Mike Shea, 1812 Davis Drive spoke regarding the Environmental Impact Report for the project. Had a question about the parking structure, says in the EIR that it is 5 stories,thought it was three and one underground,why is the garage being put next to the Davis Drive houses when there is 26 acres to work with,could be put on Trousdale or underground,stated that if all land could be used,could build first phase of the garage next to Davis and the second phase on Trousdale, this is now not included in the proposal;plans show all four sides of the garage are open,were promised it would be closed at the back facing Davis Drive,the 100 foot green space stops at my property line and there is parking behind my back yard,thought the green belt would extend to Marco Polo;was the air pollution analysis done assuming cars would be parked all day,or cars coming in and out all day long,which would be the case for doctor's offices; we were told that the access alley from Davis Drive would be closed before construction began; Alternative A looks nice,but the main entrance on El Camino Real would funnel the traffic behind our houses, should be moved over 100 feet and have a 100-foot tree buffer zone. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 Appreciate the opportunity to speak against the entrance being changed from El Camino Real where it has -� served the community for 40 years, if entrance is there it is a State highway and the State has the responsibility to maintain the roadway;in 2003,several local residents signed petitions against the relocation of the entrance,200 signatures delivered,concerned citizens are depending on us to look after their interests; the existing hospital grounds and configuration provide open space and ambience,opposed to building office building on public land,diminishes the appearance of the property and detracts from the quality of life,there is a lot of office space in the private sector,the addition of the office building on public land reduces the tax base to fund community services and the site is overdeveloped,haven't heard anyone mention that as BART ridership develops, there will be increased traffic on Trousdale, it is already impacted, don't make a bad situation worse. Concerned with the visual character of the project at the entrance to Burlingame on El Camino Real,propose wall, palm trees and loading dock, should be a greater setback; the number of employees exceeds the available parking,need to add in the requirements for patients,doctors,visitors,will be 100 spaces short just with staff, in looking at the identification of hazardous materials, need to look at "hot spots" created in loading dock, with 27 trucks a day, with hospital change in operation trucks will be more frequent, small trucks instead of larger diesel trucks,there is no mention of the truck traffic to serve the office building;the increase in traffic on Trousdale is not adequately addressed; the zoning on the property should stay Unclassified, not changed to C-1 zoning, if hospital ever goes away, could be commercial uses with buildings built to property line; what happens if the 230 kV Jefferson Martin transmission line is put in Trousdale, testified that this will disrupt imaging equipment; hospital with entrance on Trousdale is inappropriate. Original concerns not covered,should look at parking garage and consider moving it closer to Trousdale,not shown in alternatives,why not;there is very little open spaces,plans show 5 acres in the back,the Hospital Board is looking into building in that location,there will be no open space,need to have an alternative using properties on Trousdale for the offices; there is a problem with the Alternatives,parking garage would go where the existing hospital is,won't be able to build it until after existing hospital is demolished,understand they have to have %z of the garage built to meet the hospital parking needs during construction; don't think there is enough parking proposed for added medical office building; shouldn't have the truck access and loading docks on El Camino Real,this is the gateway to Burlingame,don't want to be looking at trucks and dumpsters; states that there would be 23 delivery trucks,but none are shown for the office building,would there be more,where would the trucks park if can't get in to loading dock because it is occupied,will traffic on El Camino Real be stopped with trucks maneuvering on to site;where will the trucks go when they leave, through the neighborhoods,how will they cross El Camino Real to get back on the freeway;need to make sure the hospital keeps the warehouse for storage of supplies for at least 50 years. Discussed the visual impacts of the office building on Davis Drive,but not the hospital building,concerned that the table shows a parking deficit during construction,will take 7 years to build,will be short 170 to 580 parking spaces for construction workers and hospital personnel,that was not addressed,am concerned that parking for construction will spill over onto Davis Drive if overloaded,haven't looked at the ramifications; regarding the C-1 zoning, does action on the EIR automatically change the zoning, open space is shown, what protection do we have when zoned C-1,what could be built on the area shown as open space. Strongly object to El Camino Real being used as rear delivery entrance for the hospital, the design being used as a template for the alternatives is a concern, there may be programmatic issues but if the 60 foot easement goes away,it changes everything,how the facility could be sited,there are lots of possibilities for 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 doing a project that is acceptable to the community and applicant. My bedroom is located 100 feet from construction area,it will be going on for seven years,could tall evergreen trees be planted now to prevent the concerns with construction dust and allergies. Applicant has stated that project could not be flipped so that the building faces El Camino Real because it would affect the proposed medical office building,would that option work if the medical office building were left out of the proposal; seems to be an assumption that all doctors now across the street would move to the new building, but most doctors with a practice on El Camino Real are only courtesy doctors to the hospital,if the office building is built,would there really be an exodus of doctors from across the street, don't know if that will happen. Alternative A provides an opportunity,once the pipeline can be moved we have a big piece of land to decide where to put the hospital, much more viable than the applicant's proposal. Have concerns with the garage,applicant originally stated that the rear wall would be solid,now it is shown open, foresee increased traffic for the medical office building visits, are the parking figures accurate,could the garage be used for longer term parking,roof and interior light and noise impacts would be minimized,; concerned about the C-1 zoning,would it allow retail,would be better if it were C-3 for medical use and have an override for the height,would be happy to see the medical office building with staggered height to reduce the visual impact. Could the cooling towers along El Camino Real be moved near the helipad to add more open space along El Camino Real, and could the helipad be moved to the roof, concerned with the pedestrian access and fire access road along the south property line,could it be moved closer to the garage building;need to keep the garbage and coolers away from the Davis Drive residences. Told that there would be a 3-story garage before,it's getting bigger,now a medical office building,when talking about the EIR it is hard to separate out the political issues and look at larger picture with Sutter Health as an organization; concerned with traffic,right now the traffic on Davis Drive is unbearable,this will become a construction zone concerned that construction traffic will park on Davis Drive and use public access way during construction. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: There were a lot of points made and questions asked,will they be addressed as part of the EIR? Planning staff noted that they will be addressed as a part of the Final EIR specifically in the Response to Comments document;comments also can be submitted in writing to the Planning Department through March 5th. Regarding parking and site use, we haven't seen where the construction lay down and materials handling will occur during construction,could that information be provided. Also in analysis,if we don't look at future uses on the open land,will it be considered piecemeal analysis;we have to assume build out of the site, look at the zoning and make conclusions as to future use based on that. The discussion and comment on the Draft EIR for the Peninsula Hospital project concluded at 10:55 p.m. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 6. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN — STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW CHAPTER 3, ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS AND CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE DRAFT NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN (265 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report and the chapters of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to be reviewed tonight: Chapter 3 and 6. Tom Ford,DCE,was available to respond to questions. �.. Commission Discussion: 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 • The Adrian Road Subarea,not clear how the design concept works,signage should be incorporated; concerned about the use of specific types of sign such as neon or bill boards. Staff noted that the .� design guidelines should incorporate more detail on signage to establish a sense of the over all scale of signage and how it fits. • Concerned about the use of the frontage roads on El Camino and how that will work. Consultant noted that the frontage roads would be incorporated into the development and could parcels be developed individually, although ideally the parcels would be aggregated—would be phased and a slip road would provide access to remaining parcels. • On Rollins Road the "green ways"proposed should be designed for pedestrian and bicycles; why was the drainage area not included. Staff noted that the drain was not connected to the creek areas and it was hard to establish a network which included land already developed and the drain;also the drain includes protected habitat. • Concerned with process, looking at these chapters in segmented fashion and at the end of Commission meetings, two weeks ago made some radical changes not in keeping with the public workshops and subcommittee in put,would like to see the plan as a whole,would also have better opportunity for public participation. Chair Bojues opened the public comment. John Ward, representing CES development, Bruce Balshone, representing a property owner on Ogden spoke. Feel that there is a need to look more closely at the gateway concept at Broadway and Rollins Road,the FAR and land use and development incentives being proposed do not seem sufficient to achieve desired end. Concerned that Commission might revisit and change decisions made at last meeting,people are making plans to develop based on direction at that meeting. CA Anderson noted that any comments made by the Commission at study are points in discussion. The decisions are not final until after a public hearing;given input at the hearing,the whole could change. There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioner discussion continued: • Need to correct page 14,simulation of gateway does not include bicycle path,guidelines include it. • Page 15 talks about building heights how will that be incorporated into zoning? • Would like to revisit commercial uses on El Camino Real; need more design detail for residential uses on California Drive. • Consultant should comment on the traffic impact from all the changes in zoning proposed. Consultant noted that with changes from commercial to residential,the types of trips would change, so the trips occur at different times and the overall impact is decreased. • Should add an illustration of the Trousdale/El Camino Real intersection now that we know what the access needs of the hospital project will mean for lane configuration. • Feel am not seeing the whole, but pieces; conclusions reached so far have been out of context of whole. • Think design element is nice,the visual descriptions are clear. • Confused about what came out about the use of the west frontage of El Camino Real,would like the document to be open to changes and let the property owner be able to come up with a plan. This is an important element of the plan,needs to address the feed back we've received from the hospital. Following some discussion the Commissioners decided to continue the discussion of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to their regular meeting on March 22,2004;and set aside the entire --� regular meeting to a study session of the entire proposed plan. They directed staff to make a presentation 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 23, 2004 which would tie the threads of the plan together so that it could be evaluated as a whole,and suggestions for further consideration could be based on the whole. This item concluded at 11:55 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of February 17, 2004 CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 17, 2004. Council set the Second Unit Amnesty ordinance revisions and the Broadway Commercial Area revisions for public hearing at their March 1,2004,meeting. CA noted that there is a study meeting of the City Council on Saturday, February 28, 2004 at the Recreation Center to discuss the budget. The meeting is at 9:00 a.m. Next Steps in Review of Mills-Peninsula Hospital Project The applicant is reviewing the Draft EIR and discussing changes to the project to address the significant and unavoidable impacts identified so far. This"project"response will be included in the Final EIR analysis. They are developing a collection of"studies" and asked if three Planning Commissioners would like to volunteer to review them with staff. Cers. Osterling,Brownrigg and Vistica volunteered. Staff noted that they would follow up. Scheduling a Special Meeting for March 29, 2004 Commission directed staff to set a special meeting of the Planning Commission for Monday,March 29,2004, at 7:00 p.m. Since the regular meeting of March 22, 2004,is being used for study of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the agenda items which would have been on the regular meeting of March 22,2004,should be put over to the March 29,2004 meeting. In addition any backlog of design review or other planning projects also could be placed on that agenda. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojues adjourned the meeting at 12:04 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary unapprovedminutes.02.23.04.doc 13 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes January 20, 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 (Herman/ Carr) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the December 16, 2003 meeting. M / S/ C (Rossi/ Coar) V. Correspondence and Attachments A. News From The Capital - As of January 9th, Governor Schwarzenegger has preserved CLA's Public Library Foundation and Transaction Based Reimbursement programs in his 2004 - 2005 budget. B. Workshops - The Trustees requested that the CALTAC workshop to be held March 13, 2004 at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library in San Jose and the Workshop for Library Supporters to be held on February 21 , 2004 at the San Francisco Public Main Library be placed on the agenda for the February 17, 2004 Trustee meeting. The City Librarian felt that, of the two, the CALTAC workshop would be more beneficial to the Trustees. VI. From The Floor - None 48o Primrose Road . Burlingame • CA 940ro-4o83 Phone (650) 558-7474 - Fax (650) 342-6295 VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report 1 . Circulation - Children's Circulation increased 30% in December. The temporary location of San Mateo Public Library is a contributing factor to the increase. 2. Building Leaks - Severe storms in the latter part of December resulted in window leaks in the west wing of the Children's room and the expansion joint on the outside of the building. Facility Maintenance will make arrangements for repairs as soon as weather permits. 3. Easton Renovation - Asbestos removal has been completed at a cost of $25,000. The contingency fee will cover this cost. B. Foundation Report - Trustee Rossi advised that her term as a member of the Foundation Board has expired; the City Librarian will give future reports. 1 . Membership - Carol Mink, Deborah Griffith and Carol Rossi have completed their terms on the Foundation Board. Stephen Hamilton and Linda Grier are the new members and will each be serving two year terms. 2. Committee Chairpersons - Committee Chairpersons are as follows: Mary Blythe - Finance, Lauren Rosen - Development and Don Roberts - Nominations. C. Budget Review - The City Librarian noted that it will take $3 to $3.5M to balance the budget. This figure could increase depending on the monies the State diverts from the City. 1 . Library Staff- An all staff meeting was held January 14th to update the staff on the budget situation. Loss of service hours to the public, reduction in the book, periodicals and media budgets and loss of hours for non- benefited employees will be affected in accordance with the percentage of cuts the Library is required to make. 2. Sunday Closure - In order to remain open on Sundays, the Library would have to close 6 hours another day or a combination of days. Trustee Herman stated that she would prefer to retain Sunday hours and close more hours during the week. Trustee Rossi inquired as to how other libraries were dealing with reduction of hours. San Mateo is planning to open its branches in August and will close its libraries Sunday preceding holidays. San Bruno will close Sundays beginning February 1 , 2004. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 January 20, 2004 3. Funding Services-The City Librarian gave the Trustees a question and answer handout which he felt would be helpful in understanding how Library services are funded. The Trustees felt the content would be a valuable source of information for the public. Trustee Rossi suggested that usage statistics be included. VIII. Unfinished Business IX. New Business A. Library Donation to BCE Auction-Children's Librarian, Sue Reiterman,has volunteered to donate a story hour for a birthday party. The Trustees unanimously supported a motion to support the BCE Auction by donating a story hour with the stipulation that the Library Foundation be asked to fund the cost of Library staff time. M/S/C(Rossi/McCormack) B. Library Board of Trustees Liaison and Council Counterpart-The Trustees individual Council contacts are as follows: David Carr Mike Coffey Cecile Coar Joe Galligan Mary Herman Terry Nagel Catherine McCormack Cathy Baylock Carol Rossi Rosalie M. O'Mahony X. Announcements XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:45pm. The next meeting of the Library Trustees will be held February 17,2004 at 4:30pm in the Library Conference Room. M/S/C Herman/Coar Respectfully Sub'�miit/tJted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 January 20,2004 MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, February 19, 2004 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Larios at 7: 10p.m. at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Dittman, Erickson, Heathcote, Larios, Youth Commissioner Webb Commissioners Absent: Kahn, Lawson, Muller Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz Others Present: None MINUTES Minutes of the Commission's January 22, 2004 regular meeting were approved as submitted. OLD BUSINESS Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) Report — Youth Commissioner Webb reported that 17 YAC members attended a ropes course in Fremont a couple of weeks ago, paid for with funds from YAC events, such as all-City dances. PUBLIC COMMENTS None NEW BUSINESS None REPORTS A. Parks & Recreation Department Report - Director Schwartz reported the following: 1 . Recreation Supervisor has started his new position as Director of Recreation for the City of San Anselmo. 2. The Washington Park playground construction is progressing smoothly and is still on schedule to be completed by the end of March. 3 . March 20, 2004 is the tentative date for the dedication of Murray Field. 4. A committee, established by the Mayor, is investigating the possibility of adding an extra soccer field to Bayside Park if private donations become available. Chairman Larios suggested combining funds for field improvements with the proposed future bond measure for the Community Center. Parks& Recreation Commission Minutes February 19—page 2 B. Commissioners 1. Commissioner Erickson asked about the Eucalyptus tree removals on El Camino Real. Director Schwartz that Caltrans is removing and replacing 11 trees. Each of the trees has been inspected by two arborists and were resistograph tested. Each of the trees is being removed for safety reasons. Caltrans has acknowledged that the trees are an historic grove and will be maintained on a permanent basis. A committee, comprised of City staff, Caltrans staff and Burlingame Historical Society members, is meeting to determine the variety for replacement. Caltrans representatives have been invited to the next City Council meeting to discuss the trees in detail. 2. Chairman Larios reported that SMUHSD Superintendent Sam Johnson was on- site at Burlingame High School today investigating the problems with the field. 3. Erickson and Larios noted that there are still dogs off leash in Washington Park during the early morning and evening hours. 4. Youth Commissioner Webb asked when the City athletic fields would reopen. Schwartz stated that the fields, closed for winter maintenance, would reopen in March. 5. Commissioner Heathcote noted that the Sycamore trees on Hillside do not look as healthy as in past years and asked if the tree in front of the Easton Branch Library would be removed soon as it is pushing up the roadway. C. Hand-outs None NEXT MEETING The annual Commissioner's Dinner will be held on Friday, March 12''. The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be held on Thursday, March 18, 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 8:06pm. Respectfully submitted, Randy Schwartz Director of Parks & Recreation The City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 ( www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, February 12, 2004 Commissioners Present: Stephen Warden, Vice Chair Eugene Condon Lisa De Angelis Jim McIver Commissioners Absent: Russ Cohen, Chair Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Officer Chuck Witt,Police Department Doris Mortensen,Administrative Secretary, Public Works Staff Absent: Sgt. Dawn Cutler,Police Department Visitors: Dominic Nolan, 12 Dwight Road, Burlingame Frank Vasquez, 25 Dwight Road, Burlingame Teresa Colone, 30 Dwight Road, Burlingame Steven Wierenga, 827 California Drive, Burlingame Tom Giannini, 857 California Drive,Burlingame Mel Lipscomb, 1227 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Corinne Pitre, 1240 Cortez Avenue,Burlingame Marx Pitre, 1240 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Lloyd Mahaffy, 4 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame Marilyn Mahaffy,4 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame Robert Lingaas, 530 N. Humboldt Street, San Mateo TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, February 12, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME OF NEW COMMISSIONER Vice Chair Warden introduced the newly appointed Traffic Commissioner,Eugene Condon. 5. CURRENT BUSINESS. 5.1 ACTION ITEMS. 5.1.1 Approval of Minutes for January 8, 2004 It was moved and seconded (Comms. De Angelis/McIver) to approve the minutes. Approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Chair Cohen absent). 5.1.2 Request for 1-hour parking limit at 827 California Drive It was moved and seconded (Comms. McIver/De Angelis) to deny this request. From the floor, the petitioner stated that he supports the subcommittee's recommendation which will be stated under Item 5.2.1. 5.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS. 5.2.1 On-street parking study for 800 block of California Drive Vice Chair Warden and Comm. De Angelis submitted their written proposal for action on the March Agenda as a result of their meetings with the owners and merchants of this area. Comm. De Angelis stated that the proposal addressing the east side of California Drive conforms to the existing overnight parking program. Vice Chair Warden also suggested possibly eliminating the green zone in front of the cleaners on the 700 block for consistency. It was moved and seconded (Comms. De Angelis/Condon) to make this an Action item at the March meeting. Approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Chair Cohen absent). Mr. Chou stated that the notice for this meeting had been sent to occupants of the 700 through 1000 blocks of California Drive,and that he will send out the notice to them for the March meeting as well. Mr. Chou stated that the red zone at the bus stop may be relocated after discussions with SamTrans. From the floor, Mr. Wieranga suggested moving the bus stop to the other side of the Morrell crosswalk. 5.2.2 Request removal of 2-hour parking limit on Occidental Avenue Vice Chair Warden stated that this item is continued to the March meeting when Chair Cohen will return with a completed survey. The City of Burlingame Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, February 12, 2004 5.2.3 Requests to review Dwight Road for speeding problems Mr. Chou stated that as mentioned last month, staff is recommending the installation of a paint centerline since the Bots Dots buttons that had been originally installed have been knocked off by traffic. He added that no painting, however, would be done for another two months due to the weather. Comm. Condon stated that he visited the site between 4:30 and 5:30 one afternoon, and the stop sign at Bayswater appeared not to be observed by drivers - as no one was making any stops there. Officer Witt stated that the Police Department had already done a lot of enforcement at this site. From the floor, Mr.Nolan stated that the speeders on this street affect everyone, especially the 28 children who live on this block. He suggested that in addition to a new centerline, the City consider the installation of bulbouts at 38 Dwight Road, as well as at the center of the block to slow traffic. This will be a Discussion item next month. 5.2.4 Request for height limit signs for Rollins Road at Marsten Road It was moved and seconded (Comms. De Angelis/McIver) to make this an Action item immediately. Approved by voice vote,4-1 (Chair Cohen absent). It was then moved and seconded (Comms. De Angelis/McIver) to approve installation of height limit signs on Rollins Road at Marsten Road up to 60 feet along the intersection as recommended by staff. Approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Chair Cohen absent). Mr. Chou stated that staff would like to consider evaluating this matter to provide a more global solution regarding clearer sight-visibility at the intersections to the entire area along Rollins Road. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. 6.1 Request for 4-way Stop sign at the intersection of Sherman Avenue and Cortez Avenue From the floor,Mr.Lipscomb stated that there are a lot of speeders through this area.He stated that there are two blocks between the stop signs;and since Cortez is a connector to Hillside Drive,speeding occurs most in the mornings and afternoons.Mr.Lipscomb said that there are 16 children on his block. He also said that the radar trailer was set up during the summer,but that it was not as effective now. Vice Chair Warden stated that staff will look at the warrants for this intersection. Officer Witt will provide limited enforcement at school times. This will be a Discussion item next month. 6.2 Request for two white zones at 261 California Drive Officer Witt stated that there are plans submitted for this site to be a large nightclub. He stated that the two white zones would remove paid parking for the two spaces during the day from Mondays through Saturdays. Comm. Warden requested staff to present the plans to the Commission at the next meeting. This will be a Discussion item at the next meeting. 6.3 Request for speed bumps on Oxford and Cambridge Roads Vice Chair Warden read the petitioner's letter aloud. This will be a Discussion item next month. The City of Burlingame Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, February 12, 2004 7. FROM THE FLOOR. 7.1 Mr. Lingaas provided a copy of a notice he received from the City of San Mateo regarding a public meeting on January 29, 2003, to discuss recommendations to modify the Poplar/Amphlett/US 101 southbound ramps intersection. He included a copy of the Transportation Study of 101/Poplar Interchange by San Mateo's consultant, which addressed installing a raised median on Poplar Avenue and on Amphlett Drive in San Mateo. Mr. Lingaas stated that this median would cause re-routing of traffic onto Humboldt Road in Burlingame. He also provided a copy of his letters to City of San Mateo in response to their meeting. Mr. Mahaffy stated that should San Mateo proceed with this plan, it will create a detriment to the quality of life in the affected area. He stated that the City of San Mateo will be holding the next meeting on April 14, 2004, at San Mateo's City Hall. Mr. Chou stated that there had been some brief and preliminary comments from Caltrans and San Mateo about future work on the Peninsula Avenue overpass,but that the City had not received anything on the Poplar interchange plans. Mr. Chou said that he will be contacting San Mateo to get more information on this project since it can significantly affect Burlingame. This will be a Discussion item next month. 8. INFORMATION ITEMS. 8.1 From Staff to Commission 8.1.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1.1 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame. Vice Chair Warden stated that Chair Cohen had volunteered for this subcommittee,and Mr. Chou stated that Comm. Condon's appointment included his being appointed to this subcommittee. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/McIver) to appoint Chair Cohen and Comm. Condon to the Bicycle Safety Issues Subcommittee. Approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Chair Cohen absent). 8.1.1.2 Parking District Meter Rate Increases and Brochures Mr. Chou advised that the City recently implemented its parking rate increase for the Burlingame and Broadway business districts. He distributed to the Commissioners the new parking brochures which have already been distributed to the Chamber of Commerce, all the store owners, and parking public within the two business districts. 8.2 From Commission to Staff 8.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Comm. McIver stated that the owner of the Trapeze Restaurant on Lorton Avenue requested information about parking. He said the owner wants to provide valet parking for his customers. He added that the owner was also interested in requesting from the Post Office the use of their The City of Burlingame Page 4 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, February 12, 2004 employee lot on Lorton Avenue. Mr. Chou explained that the use of valet parking would be a matter that could be reviewed in the business's conditions of use permit. Vice Chair Warden stated that in the commercial zones, there are a lot of non-running vehicles in driveways and would like to prohibit cars from being visible from the street if they are not running. If the driveways were clear of these cars, it would free up some of the on-street parking. Mr. Chou suggested working with the Code Enforcement Officer. 8.2.2 Comments and Communication Comm. McIver talked about the process of"curbing" cars, where a broker represents a car owner who wants to sell his car. He spoke with Sgt. Cutler about her contact with the DMV regarding the legality of this process occurring in Burlingame. 8.2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday, March 11, 2004 meeting None. 9. INACTIVE ITEMS. 9.1 1700 block of Chula Vista Avenue - Traffic Calming Program It was moved and seconded (Comms. McIver/De Angelis) to remove this item from the Agenda until a new budget is in place for the Residential Traffic Calming Program. Approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Chair Cohen absent). 9.2 Howard Avenue - Traffic Calming Program It was moved and seconded (Comms. McIver/De Angelis) to remove this item from the Agenda until a new budget is in place for the Residential Traffic Calming Program. Approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Chair Cohen absent). 9.3 1300 block of Vancouver Avenue - Traffic Calming Program It was moved and seconded (Comms. McIver/De Angelis) to remove this item from the Agenda until a new budget is in place for the Residential Traffic Calming Program. Approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Chair Cohen absent). 9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. Mr. Chou will prepare the next Agenda. 10. ADJOURNMENT. 8:20 p.m. The City of Burlingame Page 5 02-21-04 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: JANUARY, 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 2 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 2 0 2 0 2 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 3 0 3 0 3 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 3 1 3 -2 -66.67 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 2 1 2 1 1 100.00 Assault - Other (Simple) 20 18 20 18 2 11.11 Burglary - Forcible Entry 5 10 5 10 -5 -50.00 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 11 4 11 4 7 175.00 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 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 36 17 36 17 19 111.76 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 5 12 5 12 -7 -58.33 Larceny Bicycles 0 5 0 5 -5 -100.00 Larceny From Building 4 0 4 0 4 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 2 3 2 3 -1 -33.33 Larceny All Other 29 19 29 19 10 52.63 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 19 8 19 8 11 137.50 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 141 105 141 105 141 105 141 105 02-21-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change 8 Change All Other Offenses 42 51 42 51 -9 -17.65 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 1 3 1 3 -2 -66.67 Child Neglect/prot custody 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 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 2 2 2 0 0.00 Disorderly Conduct 2 3 2 3 -1 -33.33 Drivers License Violations 1 0 1 0 1 Driving Under the Influence 8 8 8 8 0 0.00 Drug Abuse Violations 8 4 8 4 4 100.00 Drug/Sex Registrants 1 0 1 0 1 Drunkeness 8 5 8 5 3 60.00 Embezzlement 1 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 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 4 4 4 4 0 0.00 Found Property 13 8 13 8 5 62.50 Fraud 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Hit and Run Accidents 6 2 6 2 4 200.00 Impersonation 0 0 0 0 ( 0 1 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 0 0 0 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 Liquor Laws 0 3 0 3 -3 -100.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Mental Health Cases 12 12 12 12 0 0.00 Missing Person 6 1 6 1 5 500.00 Missing Property 8 13 8 13 -5 -38.46 Municipal Code Violations 4 1 4 1 3 300.00 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 1 0 1 0 1 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 02-21-04 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Offenses Against Children 1 0 1 0 1 Other Assaults 20 18 20 18 2 11.11 Other Juvenile Offenses 2 1 2 1 1 100.00 Other Police Service 6 7 6 7 -1 -14.29 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Parole Violations 1 p Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools p p 0 0 0 0 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 p 0 Possession of obscene literature picture 0 p 0 0 p Probation Violations 1 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 0 0 Prowling 0 0 0 0 0 Resisting Arrest 0 0 0 0 0 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 1 0 1 0 1 p 0 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 p Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 p Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 p p 0 0 Suspended License 6 5 6 5 1 20.00 0 0 p p 0 Tax Evasion Temp Restraining Orders 3 4 3 4 -1 -25.00 Terrorist Threats 2 p 2 0 2 Towed Vehicle 29 66 29 66 -37 -56.06 Trespassing 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00 p 1 Truants/Incorrigible Juva 1 0 1 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p p 0 Vagrancy vandalism 22 25 22 25 -3 -12.00 Vehicle Code Violations 2 8 2 8 -6 -75.00 0 3 0 3 -3 -100.00 Violation of Court Order 3 2 3 2 1 50.00 Warrants - Felony Warrants - Misd 4 6 4 6 -2 -33.33 p 1 p 1 -1 -100.00 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 244 285 244 285 244 285 244 285 02-21-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . ....... . . ......... Current Year. . YTD.. YTD. . Parking Citations 3990 3,747 3,990 3,747 Moving Citations 319 231 319 231 ------- ------ ------- ------- 4309 3,978 4,309 3,978 - ------ ------- ------- 4309 3,978 4,309 3,978 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity . . . . generated on 02/21 /2004 at 12 : 02 : 44 PM Reported On : All Officers Report Range : 01 / 01/2004 to 01 / 31/2004 Data Type Reported on : PARKING Valid 8 All Voids 8 All $ Officer: ID: cnt Valid cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVIS 190 1122 28. 75 13 18. 06 98 . 85 DAZA-QUIROZ 634 405 10. 38 8 11 . 11 98 . 06 GARRETT 501 1228 31. 47 33 45. 83 97 . 38 HARRISON 506 1141 29. 24 18 25. 00 98 . 45 MORAN 201 6 0. 15 0 0. 00 100. 00 Total 3902 72 Page 1 of. 02 -21-04 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE : 1 FOR: JANUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Change W Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 2 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 2 0 2 0 2 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 3 0 3 0 3 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 3 1 3 -2 -66 . 67 Assault - Hands, Fists, Feet 2 1 2 1 1 100 . 00 Assault - Other (Simple) 20 18 20 18 2 11 . 11 Burglary - Forcible Entry 5 10 5 10 -5 -50 . 00 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 11 4 11 4 7 175 . 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 0 4 0 4 -4 -100 . 00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 36 17 36 17 19 111 . 76 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 5 12 5 12 -7 -58 . 33 Larceny Bicycles 0 5 0 5 -5 - 100 . 00 Larceny From Building 4 0 4 0 4 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 2 3 2 3 - 1 -33 . 33 Larceny All Other 29 19 29 19 10 52 . 63 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 19 8 19 8 11 137 . 50 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 1 0 1 - 1 -100 . 00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 141 105 141 105 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 141 105 141 105 02-21-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change % Change All Other Offenses 42 51 42 51 -9 -17.65 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 1 3 1 3 -2 -66.67 Child Neglect/prot custody 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 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 2 2 2 0 0.00 Disorderly Conduct 2 3 2 3 -1 -33.33 Driver's License Violations 1 0 1 0 1 Driving Under the Influence 8 8 8 8 0 0.00 Drug Abuse Violations 8 4 8 4 4 100.00 Drug/Sex Registrants 1 0 1 0 1 Drunkeness 8 5 8 5 3 60.00 Embezzlement 1 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 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 4 4 4 4 0 0.00 Found Property 13 8 13 8 5 62.50 Fraud 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Hit and Run Accidents 6 2 6 2 4 200.00 Impersonation 0 0 0 0 0 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 0 0 0 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 Liquor Laws 0 3 0 3 -3 -100.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Mental Health Cases 12 12 12 12 0 0.00 Missing Person 6 1 6 1 5 500.00 Missing Property 8 13 8 13 -5 -38.46 Municipal Code Violations 4 1 4 1 3 300.00 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 1 0 1 0 1 02-21-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change % Change Offenses Against Children 1 0 1 0 1 Other Assaults 20 18 20 18 2 11.11 Other Juvenile Offenses 2 1 2 1 1 100.00 Other Police Service 6 7 6 7 -1 -14.29 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 1 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 1 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 0 0 Prowling 0 0 0 0 0 Resisting Arrest 0 0 0 0 0 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 1 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 6 5 6 5 1 20.00 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Temp Restraining Orders 3 4 3 4 -1 -25.00 Terrorist Threats 2 0 2 0 2 Towed Vehicle 29 66 29 66 -37 -56.06 Trespassing 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 1 0 1 0 1 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 22 25 22 25 -3 -12.00 Vehicle Code Violations 2 8 2 8 -6 -75.00 Violation of Court Order 0 3 0 3 -3 -100.00 Warrants - Felony 3 2 3 2 1 50.00 Warrants - Misd 4 6 4 6 -2 -33.33 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 244 285 244 285 244 285 244 285 02-21-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE:•1 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . ..... . . . ...... . . . . Current Year. . YTD.. YTD.. Parking Citations 3990 3,747 3,990 3,747 Moving Citations 319 231 319 231 ------- ------ ------- ------- 4309 3,978 4,309 3,978 4309 3,978 4,309 3,978 w BURLINGAME Officer Productivity . . . . generated on 02 /21 /2004 at 12 : 02 : 44 PM Reported On : All Officers Report Range : 01 / 01 / 2004 to 01 / 31 / 2004 " Data Type Reported on : PARKING Valid $ All Voids % All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVIS 190 1122 28 . 75 13 18. 06 98. 85 DAZA-QUIROZ 634 405 10. 38 8 11 .11 98 . 06 GARRETT 501 1228 31.47 33 45. 83 97 .38 HARRISON 506 1141 29. 24 18 25. 00 98 . 45 MORAN 201 6 0. 15 0 0. 00 100. 00 Total 3902 72 Page 1 of 1