HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2007.01.16 CITY C
BURIJNGAME
a
'fie go
q$ggTEp JUNE*'
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 16,2007
1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of January 2, 2007
5. PRESENTATION
a. Best of Burlingame Proclamation
b. Summary of the Planning Department's accomplishments in 2006 including key indicators, stated
objectives and program status
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton Drive
et
b. Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval
a newt twsign o-story story smgle, front and family dwell ng and attached and special permit for attached garage for
garage at 1557 Drake Avenue
7, PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter
within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from
acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the
door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Consideration of a ballot measure for June, 2007 and adoption of a Resolution determining the
public interest and necessity of construction and completion of municipal improvements for flood
control and for safety improvements to existing Recreation Center; and Introduction of an
Ordinance calling a Special Municipal Bond Election for approval of bonds to finance
construction and completion of municipal improvements for flood control and safety
improvements to existing Recreation Center
I
s by
b. Introduce Ordinance amending
1CammolReal to E1the
Camino5Rea1 Norththe
(ECN) lots
blocks on the East Side at the North End of E
fronting on Dufferin Avenue to remain R-1 —Introduce
c. Review of proposed Scope of Work for the preparation of the Downtown Specific Plan—
Review/discuss
d. Introduce Ordinance for on-street parking limit, stop sign and parking lot changes—Introduce
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Resolution establishing conditions for the approval of a transfer of a Cable TV franchise from
RCN Telecom Services, Inc. to Astound Broadband L.L.C.
b. Approve reduction in assessment basis for Best Western El Rancho Inn and Suites for non-use
of meeting space under the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District
c. Resolution awarding contract to Redflex Traffic Systems for Red Light Photo Enforcement
Traffic System at El Camino Real and Broadway
d. Resolution authorizing the reimbursement of capital projects expenses from the proceeds of the
2007 Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds
e. Investment policy for 2007
f. Approve revised Joint Powers Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with California
State Association of Counties Excess Insurance Authority
g. Warrants &Payroll
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within
the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any
matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request`to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to
staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
12. OLD BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Library, October 17, 2006; Planning, January 8, 2007
b. Department Reports: Building, December, 2006; Finance, December, 2006
c. Letter from Comcast with current price list
2
15. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the
meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to
5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlineame.orQ. Agendas and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT MEETING—SATURDAY,JANUARY 27, 2007
3
CITY G
BURL INGAME
m
$Fwrm uure 6
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of January 2, 2007
STUDY SESSION
a. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATION AND DIRECTION
ON PREPARATION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
CA Anderson reviewed potential regulations on contribution limits, loans, slate mailers and additional
campaign finance disclosure requirements.
At Council concurrence, Study Session Item b. was continued after adjournment of the Regular Council
Meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Mayor Terry Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by John Root.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Cohen, Keighran,Nagel, O'Mahony
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Baylock
4. MINUTES
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2006 regular Council
meeting and the December 13, 2006 special Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion
was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
5. PRESENTATION
a. PRESENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR)
FinDir Nava presented the FY 2005-06 CAFR. He stated that as a result of the audit, there were no issues to
be delineated to the City and there had been successful progress by the City of the prior year's
recommendations. Vice Mayor O'Mahony congratulated Mr. Nava and the Finance staff for the good job.
1
Burlingame City Council January 2, 2007
Unapproved Minutes
Mayor Nagel commended Mr. Nava again for recently receiving a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence
in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to accept the CAFR; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion
was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE EL CAMINO REAL
NORTH ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS
ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 2004
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and introduce the
ordinance.
Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: George Chavez, 1860 El Camino
Real; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Vince Muzzi, 1818 Gilbreth Road; and Jim Rowe, 1125 Killarney
Lane. There were no further comments, and the hearing was closed.
Councilwoman Keighran requested more information on the bed count per acre. CP Monroe would provide
more information at a later date on what the average bed count is for Burlingame.
Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Title 25 to adopt an
El Camino North (ECN) District. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the
proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1
(Baylock absent).
Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor
O'Mahony. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
CA Anderson advised that staff would return in February with the request for adoption of the ordinance.
Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Leslie McQuaide, 1439 Montero, spoke about using rubber sidewalks around mature trees. Pat Giorni, 1445
Balboa Avenue, spoke on bike projects that need citizen letters of support. John Root, 728 Crossway Road,
spoke on the Citizens Academy. There were no further comments from the floor.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NBS
CONSULTANTS TO PERFORM AN INITIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ON THE USE OF
SPECIAL FINANCING DISTRICTS TO FUND CITY OF BURLINGAME
IMPROVEMENTS
2
Burlingame City Council January 2, 2007
Unapproved Minutes
FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council approve a professional services agreement with
NBS, Local Government Solutions, to perform an initial feasibility analysis on the use of special financing
districts to fund city improvements.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony asked that the consultant provide details of what purposes other cities are using
Mello-Roos funding and the mechanism being used to collect the funds and requested more information on
the five agencies whose attempts had failed and for what purposes the funding had been intended.
Councilman Cohen made a motion to approve the professional services agreement with NBS, Local
Government Solutions; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1
(Baylock absent).
b. CREATION OF THE BURLINGAME CITIZENS ACADEMY
COP Van Etten reviewed the staff report and requested Council to provide direction to staff for the purpose
of creating and implementing a Burlingame Citizens Academy. P&RD Schwartz discussed the goals of the
academy.
Council comments: consider traditional academy model vs. non-traditional model, facilitate a social element
by providing food and using round tables, hold bi-weekly classes, require no fee, consider reaching out in the
future to a larger audience possibly through video.
Mayor Nagel and Councilman Cohen formed a subcommittee to seek out alternative academy models for
future consideration.
Council concurred for staff to proceed with the academy.
C. SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNCIL OF CITIES APPOINTMENTS
Mayor Nagel reviewed the candidates' names and invited Council members to make recommendations.
Mayor Nagel would be voting on the appointments at the January 26, 2007 Council of Cities meeting.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Nagel requested removal of Item b. from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. Councilman
Cohen requested removal of Items c. and d. from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
a. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT REVISED 2007 CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
CC Mortensen requested Council approve the revised 2007 City Council Calendar designating March 9,
2007, as the date for the Commissioner's Dinner.
e. WARRANTS & PAYROLL
FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #22187-23102 duly audited, in the amount of
$4,077,464.95 (excluding Library checks #22819-22854); Payroll checks #167050-167277 in the amount of
$2,229,061.67 for the month of November 2006.
3
Burlingame City Council January 2, 2007
Unapproved Minutes
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items a. and e. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by
Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
b. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT REVISED 2007 CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Mayor Nagel advised that Councilman Cohen had volunteered for the Sign Code Committee. Vice Mayor
O'Mahony volunteered for the Policy Advisory Committee for Sub-Regional Housing. Councilman Cohen
volunteered for the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities. Mayor Nagel requested the City
Clerk to post the revised assignments to the City's website.
C. REPLACEMENT OF AERIAL FIRE TRUCK FROM 2007-08 BUDGET
Councilman Cohen asked about the liquidation of the old fire truck. Fire Chief Dornell advised that the
options would be to keep the truck in reserve for Central Counties Fire Department's use, to poll neighboring
agencies regarding a shared-use contract, or to research the resale value. Councilwoman Keighran asked
about the minor modifications needed for the new fire truck. Chief Dornell advised that the modifications
would be for equipment needed specific to California.
d. SUPPORT SUBMITTAL OF STREET TREE REFORESTATION GRANT
Councilman Cohen asked about the funding for this project and the location. P&RD Schwartz stated that the
estimated grant funding to be requested would be about $10,000-$12,000 for trees to be planted on Rollins
Road south of Larkspur. For the area north of Larkspur, there are a lot of cement cuts and driveways which
would complicate the work needed.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items c. and d. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by
Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke on the Citizens Academy. There were no further comments from the
floor.
12. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
13. NEW BUSINESS
Councilman Cohen suggested a policy that Council meetings that last until 10 p.m. be continued to another
night.
In response to a letter from the Parks &Recreation Commission to expedite funding for sidewalk repair at
the Recreation Center, CM Nantell advised that the funding would be considered with the Capital
Improvements Budget for next year.
4
Burlingame City Council January 2,2007
Unapproved Minutes
Mayor Nagel stated that she is open to suggestions from the community as to those citizens who provide
extraordinary community service and who may be considered for the Best of Burlingame program.
At Mayor Nagel's request for improved signage, CP Monroe suggested that City signage be reviewed when
the Sign Code is scheduled for review later this year. CM Nantell advised that staff would be meeting soon
to identify needed signage improvements at City Hall.
Council set January 16, 2007, as the hearing date for the Planning Commission appeal of 1557 Drake
Avenue.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Parks &Recreation,November 16, 2006; Beautification, December 7, 2006;
Planning, December 11, 2006
b. Department Reports: Building, November 2006; Finance,November 2006; Police,November 2006
15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. in memory of Fred Poncia, father of Recreation Supervisor
Stacey Poncia, and George Prevot, a long-time Burlingame resident.
STUDY SESSION (CONTINUED)
b. REVIEW OPTIONS —AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE
FinDir Nava and CM Nantell reviewed five different funding options. Mike Meyer of De La Rosa
Investment Bankers presented a cost analysis of the different bond sizes.
Mayor Nagel adjourned the study session at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Doris J. Mortensen
City Clerk
5
Burlingame City Council January 2,2007
Unapproved Minutes
of Burin 4
& '7Ze
BURLINGAME
Copenhagen Bakery & Cafe
IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED ONE OF THE
�TJV 4h
FOR PROVIDING OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE
TARRY NA MAYOR
4401icSTAFF
euRUNGAME PRESENTATION
AGENDA
yx,o ...J...6,90
ITEM # 5b
MTG.
DATE 1.16.07
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED �2
BY U
DATE: JANUARY 5, 2007
APPROVED
FROM: CITY PLANNER BY /
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S ACC MPLISHMENTS IN 2006
INCLUDING KEY INDICATORS, STATED OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAM STATUS
Attached for your review are three reports which summarize the accomplishments of the Planning Department
in 2006:
➢ Planning Department Key Indicators 2006 Update
➢ Planning Department Program Status 2006 Update
➢ Accomplishment of Planning Department FY 2006-2007 Objectives as of January 2006
Highlights of these reports include:
■ Key Indicators: The department met or exceeded all but one of the key indicator measurements. In
2006 the department staff initiated a methodology for measuring `telephone answering responsiveness'
and eliminated the `ready and waiting' project backlog all together. Because of the low response to the
customer survey, the customer service measure needs to be revised. However, responses for excellent
service fell within the department standard. The indicator missed was processing all projects within
State mandated permit streamlining requirements, although the number missed was only slightly (2%)
higher than last year.
Areas to focus on for improvement next year would include: reducing the number of projects which
fall outside of the initial 30 day review period, finding a better method of measuring customer
satisfaction and reducing the number of weeks that building plan-check delay exceeds 10 calendar
days.
■ Planning Department Program Status: The high points in 2006 current planning were:
o Overall planning applications were down slightly in 2006, but there were more major projects
than in recent years, in part because of the completion of the Specific Plans for North
Burlingame and the Bayfront with the facilitating zoning.
o The number of design review projects dropped by 36%, but the number of requests for
revisions and/or amendments increased substantially;
o The number of completed code enforcement projects dropped by 24% over 2005 and the
backlog increased because of a greater number of reports from the public;
o the net number of new dwellings was positive (8) but the number of new single family
dwellings approved was a record 23 (replacements on existing lots);
SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 2006 INCLUDING KEY INDICATORS,
STATED OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAM STATUS January S,2007
o staff completed final inspections on 47 new or remodeled single family residences subject to
design review which were initially reviewed in 2004 and 2005, final design field inspections is
anew staff activity; and
o staff prepared 338 staff reports, a 5% increase over 2005. In 2006 each professional planner on
staff prepared 2.9 staff reports per agenda plus .42 FYI or Planner's Reports; a total of 3.3
reports per agenda.
On the Advanced planning side in addition to accomplishing the objectives noted in the Planning
Department Objectives below, staff also worked with the management economic development team to
inform and attract new business to the city and partnered with the Public Works Department/Building
Division to prepare ordinances to address demolition and permit extensions.
■ Planning Department Objectives: By mid-year the Planning Department has accomplished most of
the objectives stated in the FY 2006-2007 budget for which it was lead department. The completed
objectives include:
o the SoBA Charrette, initiation of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan by organizing and
working with the Council appointed Scope of Work Committee;
o adopted all but one of the four zoning districts to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins
Road Specific Plan and amended the zoning map for the planning area;
o worked with the Commission Subcommittee to finalize the draft of the new Sign Code;
o Staff has also worked with other departments to revise fees for work done without a building
permit;
o Commission appointed a member to the Bicycle Committee to implement the Bicycle Plan;
o Staff worked with the City Clerk to improve the city's web site and the planning department's
web page;
o Staff worked with the City Clerk to establish regular updates of the Municipal Code.
Projects projected for completion in the first remainder of FY 2006-2007 are: select a consultant
and commence the Burlingame Downtown Specific Panning program; complete the Charrette
report/Idea book and have an AIA presentation of the program to the City Council; complete
adoption of the El Camino North(ECN) zoning district; complete the clarification amendments to
the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan; work with the Finance Department on a city-
wide fee study; and adopt the new sign code.
Attachments:
Planning Department Key Indicators 2006 Update
Accomplishment of Planning Department FY 2006-2007 Objectives as of January 2006
Planning Department Program Status 2006 Update
Planning Department Significant Workload Statistics, 2002 through 2006 (note these figures are based on the
calendar year)
U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2007\2006 Key indicator pres to CC 1.5.07.doc
Planning Department
Key Indicators
2006 Update
1. Staff Will return all phone calls within 24 hours and allow the main line to `roll
over' to voice mail no more than 10% of the time during business hours.
In 2006 staff developed a methodology for measuring telephone responsiveness.
For the sample period measured, the main line was allowed to roll over to voice
mail only 3%of the time. Ninety-six (96)percent of the calls received on the
main line were answered in one ring. Of the total calls received on the main line
during business hours, 67%were transferred to an available planner who
responded immediately. Thirty (30)percent of the calls received needed to be re-
directed to other departments for service or were wrong numbers. The survey
identified a problem with the telephone system: that the Administrative
Secretary's phone was not set up to notify her that there were voice mails on the
mainline. The problem was corrected by adding another instrument at the
counter visible to her work station with a blinking light for the Department's main
line. It should be noted that members of the public and customers frequently
comment on how valuable it is to them to be able to speak to a "real person"
instead of leaving a voice mail when they call, and how important this staff
availability is to Burlingame's positive "customer service. "
2. Complete processing all current planning projects within the State-mandated
Permit Streamlining requirements.
There were 117 new planning applications subject to the State-mandated permit
streamlining requirements in 2006. California law requires that the Planning
staff review a project for completeness within 30 days of application submittal. In
2006, the average time to get back to applicants regarding the completeness of
their application was 17.9 days, a 2%reduction from the time taken in 2005.
The review time for 7%of these applications exceeded 30 days compared to 5%
over 30 days in 2005. The increase in the percentage exceeding the 30-day
response in 2006 can be attributed to staff turnover and training of new,
replacement staff members.
Planning Department Key Indicators 2006 Update January 4,2007
Table: Projects Processed Within Permit Streamlining Requirement
2005 and 2006 Comparison
In Process of Review at % Reviews Over
Yearl Total Projects End of Year2 30 Days 3
2004 93 0 0%
2005 130 2 5.4%
2006 117 7 7.3%
1 Staff has been keeping this data since January 2004.
2 Projects submitted at the end of the year on which initial review is not yet
complete.
3 Total projects minus projects without initial review, divided by projects which
took more than 30 days to review.
3. Maintain the"ready and waiting"project back log for the Planning Commission
below 10 projects.
In 2006 the Planning Commission reviewed 223 project-related items. There was
no "ready and waiting"project back log for the year. There were two reasons
that there was no "ready and waiting"back log in 2006: first, the Commission
was willing to take on more than four design review study projects on each
agenda; and second, in 2006 the Commission reviewed 36%fewer design review
project, e.g. 54 compared to 85 in 2005.
4. Average 10 business days for Planning to complete their required plan checks for
the Building Division.
The Planning Department received 434 sets of plans to check for the Building
Division in 2006. The average time to process plan checks for the Building
Division was 6.4 business days. There were six weeks during 2006 when the
average time to process Building Division plans exceeded the 10 business day
standard. The range of delay was 10.25 days to 18.6 days, with the average delay
for the six weeks being 13.3 days. 2006 was the first time that there were six
weeks in which the average processing time exceeded the 10 business day
standard. Previous was 2002 when the standard was exceeded once. Delays
were generally caused by the combination of being down-staffed one planner for
eight months, the lower production of substitute staff and staff members being
trained in Burlingame regulations, changes to regulations which have reduced
the number of over the counter permits (0 days to process) and an unusual
number of major projects submitted in 2006 requiring environmental review,
which reduced the availability of staff for regular building plan checks.
Planning Department Key Indicators 2006 Update January 4,2007
Table: Comparative Summary of Planning Department's Time to Complete
Plan Checks for Building Permits 2002-2006
% Over Annual Weeks
the Average Average
Year Total Plans % Re Counter Business Over 10
Checked submittals Permits Days to Business
Complete Days
2002 448 22% 5% 2.3 1
2003 575 19% 70/. 3.6 0
2004 519 26% 5% 5.0 0
2005 552 19% 5% 5.6 0
2006 432 29% -1% 6.4 6
5. Receive better than 85%rating of"excellent"on the customer quality and
timeliness of service survey.
Ratings this year were 86% excellent regarding knowledge of regulations,
knowledge of planning process, service and courtesy. Customer surveys were
mailed to all applicants and property owners following Planning Commission
action on their projects. In 2006, staff mailed 103 pre-stamped customer survey
cards. Responses were anonymous. Recipients returned seven cards or 7%. All
returned cards rated staff service as excellent, except one. Comments are
included below by open-ended question:
What did we do right:
- Everyone is very accessible and knowledgeable;
- Everything—and many thanks;
- Provide good quality-clear feedback good knowledge of Commission;
- Every part of design review process;
- You were very helpful throughout the process;
- Planning Department is the best on the Peninsula!
- Responded to commeitts in a timely manner.
What we could do better:
- Our experience was basically positive, except for some code
- Nothing-you're great!
- Planning Commission is to wishy-washy. One commissioner changes his
mind and one commissioner is too opinionated. If all criteria is made,
project should pass.
What suggestions would you give us on how to serve you better
- Try to limit scope of environmental evaluations;
Planning Department Key Indicators 2006 Update January 4,2007
The DRB is getting a bit over-bearing and too strong an opinion—it
creates bad feelings with the public.
S:\A4EG\2006 Key Indicator Rept Draft 3 01.08.07.doc
Planning Department
Program Status
2006 Update
Each year the Planning staff compiles significant work load statistics for the budget.
These numbers are based on the activities in the calendar year. The numbers provide
council and management with a snapshot over time of where the Current Planning staff
has spent its time.The data also provides insights into priorities and short comings.
The planning staff consists of 6 members: an Administrative Secretary,2 Zoning
Technicians,1 Planner,1 Senior Planner and the City Planner. The part-time City
Arborist is housed in the Planning Department but his services are shared by Planning,
Building and Parks. Currently,because staff fell behind in code enforcement there is a
part time Planner,one day a week,working to catch up on the back log and to develop a
more efficient and effective process for managing planning code enforcement. All of the
staff members are employed in current planning full time,except the Senior Planner and
City Planner who spend about half time doing advanced planning projects.
Items of note from the Program Status Data Table
➢ The number of conditional use permits,variances,special permits requested in
2006 is about the same as in the preceding 4 years.
➢ The number of administrative permits,minor modifications and hillside area
construction permits,have also remained relatively constant over the past 5 years,
however,fewer are being issued as administrative permits because they are
required as a part of larger projects,particularly single family design review
projects.
➢ Design review applications declined 36%between 2005 and 2006;but there was a
measurable increase(8 to 15)in the requests for amendments to previously
approved residential design review projects.Staff believes that this coupled with
the substantial increase in FYI's(requests for minor revisions to approved
designs)indicates that builders are increasingly less attentive to the approved
designs either because they are not designed to be efficiently built or because the
agreed-to design features are too costly.
➢ There was a 13%increase in applications reviewed by the Planning Commission
over 2005. The simultaneous decline in design review applications indicates that
there was a resurgence of other projects compared to 2005.
➢ There was a 27%drop in the number of items which Planning staff took to City
Council in 2006. Three things should be noted: (1)this decline is a continuing
trend since 2002;(2)only three decisions or 2%of the Commissions decisions
were appealed to the City Council in 2006;and(3)the bulk of items which did go
to the City Council were advanced Planning projects or regulations on which the
Planning Department Program Status 2006 Update January 5,2007
Commission can only recommend. In every case the Council upheld the
Commission's recommendation.
➢ The number of plans checked by the Planning Department for Building Division
action has steadily increased since 2002. In 2006, staff checked 560 plans for the
Building Division. It was notable that 70%of these plan checks were initial plan
checks and only 30%were resubmittals. Since initial plan checks are more time
consuming, this may have contributed to the increase in the average number of
days to review Building Division plan-checks in 2006.
➢ With increased regulation,particularly design review, over-the-counter plan
checks dropped from 29 in 2005 to 2 in 2006. Sign permits are generally the
planning permits most likely to have an over the counter review.
➢ Completed code enforcement actions dropped 58%from 53 in 2005 to 22 in 2006,
reflecting the lack of staff time. The average number of closures on planning
code enforcement cases over the past five years is 29.
➢ Planning Commission resolutions which record final actions on projects have
stayed relatively constant over the past five years.
➢ In an infill community like Burlingame, net new dwelling units is an important
number. Net new units represents the number of dwelling units added to the
housing stock over the number removed by demolition. In 2002 the City actually
lost 7 units. The high point of net gain was in 2004 when 14 units were added. In
2006 the city gained a net of 8 new dwelling units e.g. units actually built.
➢ In 2006 the Planning Commission approved 23 new single family residences
(replacements of existing) and completed 47 final inspections of new single
family residences which were initially submitted for Commission review in 2004
and 2005.
➢ The city has only required the inclusion of affordable units since 2005. In 2006
the Planning Commission approved projects which would provide 7 new
affordable dwelling units, a 23% increase over 2005. However,none of these
approved units have been built. All were approved at the moderate income level.
2006 was an extraordinary year for the number of major projects current planning
staff was asked to process. In 2006 there were 6 such projects in process; two
were acted upon and four continue to be in process. The major projects list is
attached to the staff report and is posted on the Planning Department's web page.
Notable among the major projects completed was the Garden Center project
which retained the original 1906 structure,the 72 bed Sunrise Assisted Living
Project on Trousdale, and a 45 unit residential condominium including 7
affordable dwelling units located on Ogden Drive.
2
Planning Department Program Status 2006 Update January 5,2007
➢ In 2006 staff mailed 13,873 blue public notice post cards; a 9%reduction from
2005's all time high of 15,301. Nine legal ads were placed in the newspaper.
➢ Staff prepared 338 staff reports, a 5% increase over 2005, including 39 FYI
reports on design changes and 40 planners reports responding to Commission
requests for information or subcommittee discussions. On average each staff
planner prepared 1.3 staff reports each week in 2006.
_ ➢ The total number of Xerox copies made in 2006 increased by 9%.
Commissioners note that agendas should be evaluated by weight of the packet not
the number of items.
Advanced Planning Status Report for 2006
The following advanced planning projects were completed or are underway to be
completed by the end of FY 2006-2007.
➢ Adoption and implementation of the Anza Point North zoning district,which
completed the zoning implementation of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
➢ Adoption of the amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan with amendment to the
General Plan to implement clarifications identified during the zoning
implementation.
➢ Adoption and implementation of the Rollins Road Zoning District to replace the
M-1 Light Industrial District; and adoption of the zoning district boundary map.
➢ Amended the code to allow extended hours for construction at the Peninsula
Hospital site.
➢ Facilitated a Design Charrette by the San Mateo Chapter of the American Institute
of Architects for the South of Burlingame Area, Howard Avenue, and prepared
the Charrette report.
➢ Worked with the Management Economic Development team to provide
information and assistance to businesses looking for locations in the mid-
peninsula and Burlingame area.
➢ Joint partnered with the Building Division and Public Works Department to
prepare ordinances to address demolition,penalties for work without a building
permit, and building permit extensions. All permits which relate to
implementation and extension of Planning permits. The Planning Commission
assisted this effort by forting a subcommittee to work with staff.
U:\Plan Dept Key IndicatorsTrogram Status analysis 2006 1.5.07.doc
3
Planning Department
Program Status
2006 Update
Each year the Planning staff compiles significant work load statistics for the budget.
These numbers are based on the activities in the calendar year. The numbers provide
council and management with a snapshot over time of where the Current Planning staff
has spent its time. The data also provides insights into priorities and short comings.
The planning staff consists of 6 members: an Administrative Secretary, 2 Zoning
Technicians, 1 Planner, 1 Senior Planner and the City Planner. The part-time City
Arborist is housed in the Planning Department but his services are shared by Planning,
Building and Parks. Currently,because staff fell behind in code enforcement there is a
part time Planner, one day a week, working to catch up on the back log and to develop a
more efficient and effective process for managing planning code enforcement. All of the
staff members are employed in current planning full time, except the Senior Planner and
City Planner who spend about half time doing advanced planning projects.
Items of note from the Program Status Data Table
➢ The number of conditional use permits, variances, special permits requested in
2006 is about the same as in the preceding 4 years.
➢ The number of administrative permits,minor modifications and hillside area
construction permits,have also remained relatively constant over the past 5 years,
however, fewer are being issued as administrative permits because they are
required as a part of larger projects,particularly single family design review
projects.
➢ Design review applications declined 36%between 2005 and 2006;but there was a
measurable increase( 8 to 15) in the requests for amendments to previously
approved residential design review projects. Staff would observe that this coupled
with the substantial increase in FYI's(requests for minor revisions to approved
designs) indicates that builders are increasingly less attentive to the approved
designs either because they are not designed to be efficiently built or because the
agreed to design features are too costly.
➢ There was a 13%increase in applications reviewed by the Planning Commission
over 2005,the decline in design review applications indicates that there was a
resurgence of other projects compared to 2005.
➢ There was a 27% drop in the number of items which Planning staff took to City
Council in 2006. Three things should be noted: (1) this decline is a continuing
trend since 2002; (2) only three decisions or 2%of the Commissions decisions
were appealed to the City Council in 2006; and(3)the bulk of items which did go
to the City Council were advanced Planning projects or regulations on which the
Planning Department Program Status 2006 Update January 5,2007
Commission can only recommend. In every case the Council upheld the
Commission's recommendation.
➢ The number of plans checked by the Planning Department for Building Division
action has steadily increased since 2002. In 2006, staff checked 560 plans for the
Building Division. It was notable that 70% of these plan checks were initial plan
checks and only 30%were resubmittals. Initial plan checks are more time
consuming.
➢ With increased regulation particularly design review over the counter plan checks
dropped from 29 in 2005 to 2 in 2006. sign permits are generally the planning
permits most likely to have an over the counter review.
➢ Completed code enforcement actions dropped 58% from 53 in 2005 to 22 in
2006; reflecting the lack of staff time. The average number of closures on
planning code enforcement cases over the past five years is 29.
➢ Planning Commission resolutions which record final actions on projects have
stayed relatively constant over the past five years.
➢ In an infill community like Burlingame,net new dwelling units is an important
number. Net new units represents the number of dwelling units added to the
housing stock over the number removed by demolition. In 2002 the City actually
lost 7 units,the high point of net gain was in 2004 when 14 units were added. In
2006 the city gained a net of 8 new dwelling units e.g. units actually built.
➢ In 2006 the Planning Commission approved 23 new single family residences
(replacements of existing) and completed 47 final inspections of new single
family residences which were initially submitted for Commission review in 2004
and 2005.
➢ The city has only required the inclusion of affordable units since 2005. In 2006
the Planning Commission approved projects which would provide 7 new
affordable dwelling units, a 23% increase over 2005. However,none of these
approved units have been built. All were approved at the moderate income level.
➢ 2006 was an extraordinary year for the number of major projects current planning
staff was asked to process. In 2006 there were 6 such projects in process; two
were acted upon and four continue to be in process. The major projects list is
attached to the staff report and is posted on the Planning Department's web page.
Notable among those projects which were completed was the Garden Center
project which retained the original 1906 structure, the 72 bed Sunrise Assisted
Living Project on Trousdale, and a 45 unit residential condominium located on
Ogden Drive.
2
Planning Department Program Status 2006 Update January 5,2007
➢ In 2006 staff mailed 13,873 blue public notice post cards; a 9% reduction from
2005's all time high of 15,301. Nine legal ads were placed in the newspaper.
➢ Staff prepared 338 staff reports, a 5% increase over 2005, including 39 FYI
reports on design changes and 40 planners reports responding to Commission
requests for information or subcommittee discussions.
➢ The total number of Xerox copies made in 2006 increased by 9%.
Commissioner's note that agendas should be evaluated by weight of the packet
not the number of items.
Advanced Planning Status Report for 2006
The following advanced planning projects were completed or are underway to be
completed by the end of FY 2006-2007.
➢ Adoption and implementation of the Anza Point North zoning district, which
completed the zoning implementation of the Bayfront Specific Plan.
➢ Adoption of the amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan with amendment to the
General Plan to implement clarifications identified during the zoning
implementation.
➢ Adoption and implementation of the Rollins Road Zoning District to replace the
M-1 Light Industrial District; and adoption of the zoning district boundary map.
➢ Amended the code to allow extended hours for construction at the Peninsula
Hospital site.
➢ Facilitated a Design Charrette by the San Mateo Chapter of the American Institute
of Architects for the South of Burlingame Area, Howard Avenue, and prepared
the Charrette report.
➢ Worked with the Management Economic Development team to provide
information and assistance to businesses looking for locations in the mid-
peninsula and Burlingame area.
➢ Joint partnered with the Building Division and Public Works Department to
prepare ordinances to address demolition,penalties for work without a building
permit, and building permit extensions. All permits which relate to
implementation and extension of Planning permits. The Planning Commission
assisted this effort by forming a subcommittee to work with staff.
3
Agenda
Item # 6a
rw Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: January 16, 2007
= 111
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY /
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: January 5, 2007
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council receive comments from the
public and provide direction to staff regarding the eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton
Drive.
BACKGROUND: Easton Drive is a two-lane collector street. The section of
roadway between Vancouver Avenue and EI Camino Real is lined mainly with large,
old-growth eucalyptus trees. The trunk and root system of a tree at 1800 Easton
Drive has encroached significantly into the westbound lane of the roadway.
Because of the root system intrusion into Easton Drive, a hump has formed which
effectively reduces the usable roadway to one lane and creates the potential for
head on collisions between east and west bound vehicles. The height of the hump
increases the risk of vehicle undercarriage damage as well as creates a barrier
which restricts drainage and causes storm water to pond. In addition, Public Works
Department crews have not been able to perform roadway maintenance at this
location as root grinding, asphalt patching and any roadway build up would damage
the tree according to the City Arborist.
As a result of this situation, Public Works staff asked the City Arborist in March 2004
to evaluate the condition of the eucalyptus tree. The Arborist indicated that the tree
was in general good health despite its invasive root intrusion into the roadway
infrastructure.
In early 2005, the issue was presented to the Beautification Commission for
consideration to remove the tree. While the Commission agreed that the tree should
be removed, the City received a letter from a resident appealing the decision to City
Council. On March 7, 2005, Council reviewed the matter and determined that a
workable reforestation program should be developed and traffic concerns be
reviewed. As a result, the Beautification Commission was directed to develop a
reforestation program for Easton Drive and the Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission (TSPC) was requested to examine engineering alternatives to a tree
removal.
In late 2005, the TSPC conducted two field evaluations, held several discussions
regarding options and concluded that tree removal was the most cost-efficient and
S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Easton Drive Eucalyptus Tree(2) Jan 2007.doc
logical action to address the root encroachment into the roadway infrastructure. At
the same time, the TSPC recognized that because of the sensitive nature of this
issue, no formal determination should be established until an adopted reforestation
program was in place.
Over the next several months,the Beautification Commission held three public
meetings and developed a reforestation program. At its December 4,2006 meeting,
the Council approved the reforestation program and also voted to remove the
eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive. (A detailed account of this chronology and
related documents are attached.)
DISCUSSION: Following are four options which have been considered including
their advantages and disadvantages. It should be pointed out that staff did not
consider options involving the placement of reflectors, signage, delineators and
striping as these elements do not meet roadway design standards.
OPTION 1—Preserve the tree by re-aligning the roadway.$180,000
Advantages:
• Eliminates the potential for head-on vehicle collisions and associated liability
Eliminates the potential for vehicle undercarriage damage
• Reduces the potential of a vehicle collision with the tree
• Eliminates storm water ponding
• Allows for regular roadway maintenance such as paving
• Preserves a full-growth mature tree
Disadvantages:
• Possible need to remove trees on the opposite side of the street to
accommodate roadway re-alignment
• Most expensive option and diverts CIP funding from other priority safety
related projects such as storm water improvements and sidewalk repair.
OPTION 2—Replace the tree and repair the roadway:$20,000
Advantages:
• Eliminates the potential for head-on vehicle collisions and associated liability
• Eliminates the potential for vehicle undercarriage damage
• Eliminates the potential of a vehicle collision with the tree
• Eliminates storm water ponding
• Allows for regular roadway maintenance
• Does not divert CIP funding from other safety related projects
Disadvantages:
• Loss of a full-growth mature tree
OPTION 3—Preserve the tree by making Easton Drive and surrounding streets
one-way:$60,000
Advantages:
Eliminates the potential for head-on vehicle collisions and associated liability
Eliminates the potential for vehicle undercarriage damage
• Reduces the potential of a vehicle collision with the tree
S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Easton Drive Eucalyptus Tree(2)Jan 2007.doc
• Preserves a full-growth mature tree
Disadvantages:
• Creates potentially significant traffic circulation impacts in the neighborhood
including access to the library
• Does not eliminate storm water ponding
• Is three times more costly than Option 2, diverting funding from other safety
related projects
OPTION 4— Status quo/no change
Advantages:
• Does not immediately require funding
• Preserves a full-growth mature tree
Disadvantages:
• Does not eliminate the potential for head-on vehicle collisions and associated
liability
• Does not eliminate the potential for vehicle undercarriage damage
• Does not reduce the potential of a vehicle collision with the tree
• Does not eliminate storm water ponding
• Does not allow for regular roadway maintenance such as paving
• Could result in future claims to the City for vehicular damage or injuries
EXHIBITS: Frequently Asked Questions
Easton Tree Chronological Account with references to supporting
documents
Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum Tree - Replacement Tree
c:
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Easton Drive Eucalyptus Tree(2)Jan 2007.doc
http://209.247.187.55/Index.aspx?page=826
Easton `Gree FA °s
How old is the tree and how much longer is it expected to live? Is it stable? Does the
city arborist think it should be cut down?
Why not put reflectors on the trunk and a warning sign?
Why do you say the tree is dangerous when there has only been one accident at that
intersection during the past five years? The tree acts as a natural traffic calming
device.
Taking down this tree violates the city's heritage tree policy, doesn't it?
How much will it really cost to realign the street? We don't think you'll need to realign
any PG&E poles or street lights.
Why wasn't the traffic study that the TSP Commission ordered completed?
Why not make Easton into a one-way street?
Why do you say that pools of water that form near the tree are dangerous?
The $500,000 figure for realigning infrastructure under the tree is a myth. How could it
cost so much? The city just completed sewer and flood control work at that
intersection.
What is the cost to remove the tree? $8,000 sounds too cheap.
Why don't trees along EI Camino have roots growing into the roadway? How does
Caltrans manage to avoid this problem?
Isn't the width of the flat portion of Easton still as wide as a normal street in
Burlingame?
Why the sudden decision? Why didn't the city explore all the possible alternatives
before acting?
Why didn't the city make it clear that adopting the tree list for reforestation was
directly related to the vote to remove the tree?
Q: How old is the tree and how much longer is it expected to live? Is it stable? Does the
city arborist think it should be cut down?
A:
The tree is well over 100 years old and is stable at this time. When we received the request from PW
to remove the tree, we had the tree evaluated by an independent arborist. His report said it is in no
danger of failure at present.
: Why not put reflectors on the trunk and a warning sign?
A:
Reflectors and warning signs are used to warn drivers of potential hazards in the road. However, the
type and use of these warning devices are strictly regulated by state and federal standards. There are
no guidelines or policies recommending the placing of signs or reflectors on trees that have
significantly encroached into the roadway. Although they may reduce the potential for an
accident, going outside the standards could place the City at risk if a driver relied upon these devices
and had an accident.
http://209.247.187.55/1 ndex.aspx?paqe=826
Q: Why do you say the tree is dangerous when there has only been one accident at that
intersection during the past five years? The tree acts as a natural traffic calming device.
A:
Trees growing into the street right-of-way are considered potentially hazardous because they
are normal items that an average driver would not expect within the roadway. A traffic calming device
is engineered or evaluated to improve the safety of drivers and pedestrians. It isnot designed to allow
cars to "bottom out"when driving over it, nor does it force drivers into oncoming traffic. A tree
obstruction in the roadway neither has been tested nor has a substantial body of quantitative
evidence supporting its use as a safety measure or warning device.
: Taking down this tree violates the city's heritage tree policy, doesn't it?
A:
No. Technically, the City does not have a heritage tree policy that simply protects trees because they
are old. We do have a Protected Tree Policy which protects trees from being removed without cause
and a permit. The Policy states that the property owner needs a permit to remove more than 1/3 of
the foliage, root system or height. Staff only issues these permits if the tree's health is a primary
factor. If a factor other than the tree's health is the primary cause for the application, the
Beautification Commission holds a public hearing and makes a ruling. Healthy trees are occasionally
removed for damage to housing foundations or other portions of the building. In this case, health was
not a factor so the application was forwarded directly to the Commission.
: How much will it really cost to realign the street? We don't think you'll need to
realign any PG&E poles or street lights.
A:
The estimated cost is approximately $180,000 includes $10,000 for utility pole relocation. A more
accurate cost on a construction project of this scope cannot be determined without detailed design.
The City is required to follow the current design standards when doing any new construction, or when
older facilities are modified. In order to properly realign the roadway and make sure that approach
angles are within design standards, the intersection corners and two utility poles most likely will need
to be relocated.
Q: Why wasn't the traffic study that the TSP Commission ordered completed?
A:
The Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC)was asked to look into feasibility of two
alternatives to tree removal. These were a roadway realignment and one-way streets. A
subcommittee was formed and its determination was that proper realignment would require relocation
of utility poles and the possible removal of two trees. The TSPC commission decided not to
undertake a traffic study of one-way street as there is no existing funding to perform the traffic
modeling analysis.
Q: Why not make Easton into a one-way street?
A:
A circulation study-which would include a traffic modeling analysis-would be needed to determine
the full impact to Easton Drive and surrounding streets in the neighborhood. Such an analysis would
cost from $50,000 to $65,000. Given the amount of traffic to churches and schools in the area that
would be disrupted, undertaking a study did not appear to be a prudent use of limited funds.
http:8209.247.187.55/Index.aspx?page=826
Q: Why do you say that pools of water that form near the tree are dangerous?
A:
Ponding water poses several hazards.
1. It may present slipping/tripping hazards to adjacent sidewalks.
2. Splashing water from passing cars may cause distractions to other drivers and pedestrians,
causing them to react in unexpected and potentially hazardous ways.
3. Ponding water serves as ideal mosquito breeding grounds.
4. Often results in cars swerving to avoid ponding water.
Q: The $500,000 figure for realigning infrastructure under the tree is a myth. How could
it cost so much? The city just completed sewer and flood control work at that
intersection.
A:
The$500,000 figure is no longer valid since the City recently finished improvement work on sanitary
sewer and water lines on Easton Drive.
Q: What is the cost to remove the tree? $8,000 sounds too cheap.
A:
$8 to $10,000 should cover the cost of tree & stump removal. As a comparison, the Parks
Department recently removed 3 cypress trees (similar in size to the Easton tree) on Forestview for a
total cost of$15,000.
Q: Why don't trees along EI Camino have roots growing into the roadway? How does
Caltrans manage to avoid this problem?
A:
While there are some instances of roots growing into the roadway on ECR, the question correctly
assumes, as in the case on Easton Drive, that this is not a widespread occurrence. Without
excavating the roadway it is impossible to understand the true nature of the root system and the
impacts of the surrounding hardscape.
The sidewalks, retaining walls and roadway on ECR have for many years acted as a root barrier and
the trees appear to have adapted to this. Because the tree in front of the Easton Library is a mature
tree, having a main root removed at this time will most likely cause it to lose its structural balance.
(Please note that, because of the impacts and poor historical maintenance practices by Caltrans, the
City has strongly recommended a much more aggressive maintenance policy be put into place for the
ECR trees)
Q: Isn't the width of the flat portion of Easton still as wide as a normal street in
Burlingame?
A:
The standard width for a residential street in Burlingame is between 25-feet to 40-feet. The widest
section of asphalt is 20-feet from the end of the tree root to the edge of the curb.
http://209.247.187.55/Index.aspx?page=826
Q: Why the sudden decision? Why didn't the city explore all the possible alternatives
before acting?
A:
This matter began in March 2004. The Beautification Commission, Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission, as well as the City Council, each held several public meetings over the course of 2 %2
years to discuss options and alternatives. Public notices were distributed through neighborhood
meetings and public postings regarding this matter.
Q: Why didn't the city make it clear that adopting the tree list for reforestation was
directly related to the vote to remove the tree?
A:
The Commission held a public hearing to discuss the removal of the tree in Feb 2005. The
Commission voted 5-1-1 to remove the tree after a presentation by PW and consideration of each of
the alternatives presented. The Council's instructions to the Commission in March 2005 were to
develop a reforestation program, which the Commission did in 2006. At the reforestation meetings, it
was mentioned that there are two trees currently before Council that may be affected by the
reforestation plan (the Euc at 1800 and the Cypress at 1812).
aNUNUIR 2
REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800-EASTON DRIVE
Chronological Account
March 18,2004
• Letter to Arborist Porter from Asst. PW Supt. Falzon requesting removal of the City owned
Eucalyptus tree fronting 1800 Easton Drive because the tree causes a traffic hazard, and is
causing major damage to the roadway, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and to the sanitary sewer.
(Attachment A)
October 10,2004
• Mayne Tree Arborist Report conducted by Kevin Kielty,concluding that though the roots deeper
in the root crown had not yet been inspected,the Eucalyptus tree is in generally good health,is
well maintained and proper maintenance should keep the tree healthy for many years to come.
(Attachment B)
January 3,2005
• Letter to Asst. Supt. Falzon from Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz informing him of the
findings in the October 10, 2004 Arborist Report and stating that the request for removal was
denied but that the request would be forwarded to as an appeal to the Beautification Commission
for hearing at the February 3,2005 meeting. Copies of the letter were sent to residents within a
300'radius of the Eucalyptus tree.(Attachment C)
January 13,2005—Traffic,Safety&Parking Commission Meeting
• Traffic Engineer informally notified Commission that tree issues on Easton Drive would be
discussed at future Beautification Commission meeting.(Attachment D)
February 3,2005—Beautification Commission Meeting
• PW Supt.Phil Scott and Asst.Supt.Vince Falzon made a power point presentation showing the
damage the Eucalyptus roots had caused to the street/curb; the drainage problems, sewer
damage,grade issues,and vehicular and traffic hazards and explained that many alternatives to
removal were considered but were cost prohibitive (ranging up to $100k). Following the
presentation and a lengthy discussion by the Commission, the Commission voted 5— 1 — 1
(Absent/Webb).(Attachment E)
February 7,2005
• Letter to Asst.Supt.Falzon informing him that the Beautification Commission upheld the appeal
and approved the removal of the Eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive on a 5—1- 1 (absent)
vote. Copies of the letter(decision)were sent to residents within a 300'radius of the Eucalyptus
tree.(Attachment F)
February 11th and February 14',2005
• Email and letter from Susan Lahey, 1719 Easton Drive, appealing the Commission's decision
approving the removal of the Eucalyptus tree on Easton Drive.(Attachments G1 and G2)
February 11,2005
• Letter from Director Schwartz notifying Susan Lahey, 1719 Easton Drive, that the appeal had
been received and would be heard at the March 7,2005 Council Meeting.(No attachment)
February 15,2005
• Daily Journal Article: "Trees Death Sentence Appealed."(Attachment H)
REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
Chronological Account
Page 2 of i
February 16, 2005
• Letter to Mayor Galligan from the Library Board of Trustees in support of removal of the
Eucalyptus tree on a 4-1 (absention) vote. (Attachment 1)
March 7, 2005
• Staff Report to Council from Director Schwartz: Appeal of the Beautification Commission's
Decision to Allow for a Tree Removal at 1800 Easton Drive. (Attachment J)
March 7, 2005 — Council Meeting
• Public Hearing — Appeal of the Beautification Commission's Decision to Allow for a Tree Removal
at 1800 Easton Drive
"Council requested the reforestation program be in place and traffic issues be addressed before
making a decision. Council continued action and referred this item to the Beautification
Commission and to the Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission for further study."
• Council heard from Public Works staff about tree removal. A power point presentation was
conducted for Council by PW Supt. Phil Scott. (Attachment K)
March 10, 2005 - Traffic Safety & Parking Commission Meeting
• TSPC notified via staff that Council wanted Commission to conduct technical evaluation on
roadway realignment traffic volumes. Sub-committee subsequently formed to evaluate roadway
alignment and one-way options. (Attachment L)
April, 2005
• TSPC sub-committee field meeting took place. On-site evaluation revealed that realignment
might have to include power pole relocation and removal of other trees. One-way street option
could be further evaluated based on traffic counts. No consensus reached at that time among
members regarding a preferred option of tree removal, one-way streets, or roadway realignment.
(No recorded documents)
• Engineering staff conducted in-depth field measurements and design cost estimates for roadway
realignment. An estimate of approximately $120,000 was calculated for realignment. Preliminary
one-way street analysis was also conducted. Ancillary traffic count data was used to determine
that one-way traffic would create potential traffic flow problems in the area. (No attachment)
April 15, 2005 — Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission Meeting
• Commission heard from sub-committee members regarding their field evaluation and staff's
preliminary analyses. All but one commissioner concurred with the option of tree removal as
being the most logical and cost-effective engineering solution. (Attachment M)
May 12, 2005 — Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission Meeting
• TSPC sub-committee members reported to the full commission that they and the Traffic Engineer
met with Parks & Recreation Director to discuss Beautification Commission's reforestation plan.
(Attachment N)
June — August, 2005
• Still no full commission consensus could be reached about either tree removal or roadway
realignment. Traffic counts were discussed in regards to one-way street evaluation. Commission
agreed that traffic counts should be conducted after September due to inaccurate count data
likely resulting from summer vacation. (Attachment 0)
REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
Chronological Account
Page 3 of 3
September— November, 2005
• Traffic counts could not be done due to construction projects on Easton Avenue. (No attachment)
November, 2005
• TSPC sub-committee decided not to expend anymore staff resources to conduct costly traffic
counts or additional realignment design analysis until the Beautification Commission's plan on
reforestation is either approved or rejected. (No recorded documents)
April 6, 2006 - Beautification Commission Meeting
• Commission held a special community meeting regarding long-range reforestation program and
answered public questions and concerns about program. TSPC sub-committee members and
Traffic Engineer were in attendance by invitation. (Attachment P)
October 5, 2006 - Beautification Commission Meeting
• Commission met with residents a second time to establish tree types for replacement. Four tree
species agreed upon. (Attachment Q)
October 23, 2006
• Notification to Easton Drive residents about reforestation plan discussion at November 2, 2006
meeting. (Attachment R)
November 2, 2006— Beautification Commission Meeting
• Commission voted to recommend to Council at the next Council meeting adoption of the list of
replacement trees for Easton reforestation program. (Attachment S)
December 4, 2006—Council Meeting
• Council adopted Easton reforestation replacement tree list.
• Council approved the removal of the tree at 1800 Easton by a 3-2 vote.
(Attachment T)
December 12, 2006
• PW-Engineering staff completed an updated cost estimate for roadway realignment using current
dollar values. The estimated was $182,340. This estimate includes site demolition work, asphalt
& aggregate base work, concrete curb & gutter work, sidewalk realignment, sign/striping & paint
work, utility manhole adjustments, sewer cleanout relocation, other tree removal, and utility pole
relocations. (Attachments U1 and U2)
FICIFOLIA RED FLOWERING GUM
The Ficifolia red flowering gum is native to Western
Australia. The Red-Flowering Gum is a tidy, round headed -n
tree and has a striking appearance with its bright red flowers,
in the spring and the fall, cast against the dark brown-green 0_
leaves and the rough gray bark. The Red-Flowering Gum is
not detrimental to gardens, as it has a very deep root system
allowing plants and lawn to be grown right up to it. It is a Q
drought-tolerant species and will grow up to 40 feet. T
—
` O
4j
m
,
G1
r ;
•�
I ,II
• • n
�Ij C
a.
a
�m .w
i
• .6:.. w.... "�... w"... .aa_ 'F1.'.:
00
00
�URLINGAME
CHH U "P Iaingar
HALL—650)558-7230
?'I
1C CORFORATICN YARD—(650)538_;670
'�VCRKS—5011P4IMRCSE RCAD 1361 NORTH C,ARCLAN!;VENUE
lNGAME.CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 EURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-22401
March 1&2004
Parks & Recreation
Attn: Steve Porter-City Arborist
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA.94010 RE: Eucalyptus Tree Hazard
Dear Stege.
The purpose of-.his letter is to request the removal of the large eucalyptus tree at '_800 Easton Drive. "he
tree is a grand spectacle to behold however; it is protruding several feet into the street and poses a severe
traffic hazard. it is not only a traffic hazard but is causing major damage to the roadway, curb and gutter.
sidewalk, and to the sanitary sewer.
The Street Division has been trying to keep up with the repairs to the street pavement, sidewalk and curb
and gutter. it has reached a point that we cannot make anymore repairs to the street pavement and curb
and gurter without cutting some of the very large roots. Cutting the huge amount of roots necessary,in
this case. would no doubt compromise the integrity of the tree and affect its ability to stand or survive the
cutting. Nor only could cars hit the tree but cars that swerve to avoid hitting-the tree put themselves into
the path of oncoming traffic and increase the potential for a head-on collision. A portion of the curb and
gutter is missing and near the trunk of the tree the gutter is raised. During rain storms the tree blocks the
normal path of surface drainage and causes a river of water cascading across the street creating another
hazardous driving condition.
We have replaced some of the damaged sidewalks two years ago and installed a handicap ramp. We have
alreadv noticed some minor offsets in the sidewalk and it will not be long before the sidewalk is damaged
enough to require further repairs because of these roots. The sanitary sewer is a constant nightmare to-
maintain due to the root growth in the lines. The root growth inside the sewers creates blocka>?es and
sewer backups. The City has incurred significant costs to clean homes and repair property damage from
these backaos.
Attached are some photos showing the present condition of the tree and the hazards that it has created.
Please consider the above comments in your decision to remove the see. We will anxiously await your
recommendation. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at: (6=0) 55-58-'7679.
Cordially,
Vincent Falzon
Assistant Superintendent Street& Sewer
c: Public Works Superintendent, City Engineer, Street and Sewer Supervisors, Parks Superintendent.
13'n y E l.n It T -7
p n i ¢ u ,i- °•r YN iql 7 I klu�i� .. Iri"t rl
I4
' P, s
I 1
a,
to
��—
d
I
41
� ° � l a�d� Fl�hl Ial�'s���'i fi li �� '? P �{ ,yyd���� rF �Y r2.'_�,$�jf��• " YI r P V
.N1�..-
vl�
A-
r
i"""! IlI �{rtly rlf; l�Y if� 1 S-.Is ' P' I I i"ISR "k5 4J
I ql j �IItlIIf} ,t}pOmani
—1_� I I r4�1 lc f II if�l Z a� 9irz�a i 1 a,'r rM
I .
�I 4
{
ppfj\ F. bD
CUA
VANV]
4-
MM".
-
MM" V 41
I t, t.., 4J �'ibt gI Iwr 't.I. I, I•_- Q1
V.1
1r A a
� M9
ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO.276793
CRADUATE FORESTER CERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS
:z-LkP.D L.'H=INGTON 535 HRAGATO ROAD.S 1E.A
:---LID EN7 December 10, 2004. SANCARLOS,C.A. 94070-5228
`,IN R KIELTY TELEPHONE: (650)593--?400
u4TI09S MANAGED. FACSIMILE: (650)593--L143
Mr.Sieve Porter
EMAIL: idw—maynetree.com
-
Parks and Re=eation Deet.
1
Cate of burlineame
850 Burlingame Avenue
burlinQr=, e, CA 94010
is G' (`S I1741'PiY G'-YCaa ti'i-1 n�q^ v7-7—
Dear iv1r.Porter:
Cn Wednesday, December 7,2004, and again.on Friday,December 9,I visited the above
site. The purpose of m-�T visit was to inspect and comment on the root crown of the veru
large e.ucaiyptus tree, �i o. 07. iasis tree protrudes into the street and its stability is of
great concern.
Method:
Tl�e root crown was excavated by a dept�I of 4—6 Laches to expose the root flares to below
original grade. A mallet was used to tap the musk and root crown as an audio test to
detect cavities. A half-round d- sel and a scraper were used to inspect the root crown.A
cordless drill and a 1/8 incill by 11 inch drillbit were employed to drill into the root crown
to helm detect rot in the lower trunk and root crown.
Observain'ons:
T1-ds large eucalyptus has a well defined root flare. Some surface fungus was detected in a
location within the root flare. The fungus was only in the outer bark and is considered
super c'al. Smaller roots in one location were decayed. This decay is possibly from past
mechanical damage as no crown rot was observed on these roots. A mallet test to detect
hollows (cavities)in the tree resulted in no findings. ine drill test revealed very sound
and hard wood through.out most of the root crown and trunk. Some decay was possibly
detected in locations on the lower trunk.
an :arios�T-orter/Easton=_ve. 12-10-05
it s large eucalyptus has a well defined and exposed-oot crown. Small amounts of
decay have been noticed in the lower trunk and root care of this tree. The tree is in
genera y good health and has been wee?maintained.
Constant groper aintenance should keep -fis tree healthy for years to come. However,
rocTs deeper in the root mown have not been inspected and their depth makes-"this
inspec+don improbable. Lr7l1s and resistographs only measure for decav where the tree
Has been L-illed.T ds means other areas in the root gone can be infected.
11ecommend.at3 ons
Continue to diligently malintain the bees on this street. Inspect the root crowns of anv
�Itl1 '.--
Priority for root crown inspection:
® Where fruiting bodies of fungus are visible.
Where there are open scars and wounding on root zones.
Is As-Zy tree whic=h is leaning or out of balance.
It poor foliar growth is present (possibly-7esuit3ng Erom root issues).
A resistograph type measurement on root crowns may be advised due to the superior
documentation associated with this tool.
i believe tris report is accurate and based on sound arboricult-ral principles and
practices.
Sincerely,
ETY
t4lsi3c T'
Y i
KeTrin R. Kielty E
Certined rWE "0 76
borist u 4 z '
ANo.. .76 i
2 , e
KP—'<:dcr f
Encl.
F�En j
Zir �a , M! Sa dsr a s r I.At °y %e, ?l,
V+In
t + r !� +x r{d
r�Sd lrr� t ,�. "I r11k4
i ,
.f J 1'•1 .y I1 Yr.. y , 14Av l 'l
1
��a p,• w mM X yV a' `f { r» a' '�IJ »(v.t I _'.I { l
'I1' je.Ja I,S.r ,� "1
� Y 1 11 r4 J7 ISJt t I ,Jlta IY" .. �Ir�.Y� ,.
i Si,V8 f i K flub, ht 1 t J y �1d t 19� q
IG
iR
r I t, h IY 4 r
1
71. , .
f
of,
{ �"d�'. •�y5. � i� -.. k� ,qyxf'p"I 4 4 r�,rtttt"1111f,�&,y EM 83 f1 ' �q
If i sn �J �6, �+. Iy I°1 -.g11�"� ]i�ak�'l�I�.��'S Y hY� 1�,*i I,G�s��j �p+�].�Y f, • °
5. b :�MhdlF P IJtw€���', r 1M'1'I. 't �^^9 r. i �•f°1��C I ft y`b17Y7y,jp 'fikj rr
4p0I, �Rr
,
I `I, ��� ,.1lY"� �F t_-.�j14 } liia,7l�'l�'It£ ky Fpr�h �t � n� --+r` " •
qd 8 t
i l�,t)f dVlll
flf' '
r d� R�IW f �w.dl x7 Ya y$',r
r 1'1Y 11r II Fu jn e,
1] ti�'S�h�l�ty�� ,S.�¢yy ��k �l s� r7�ty+�'rlr��I • °
w� r, h ,64 7 wS 4,+an 111 K w�yf
IM4
Itat1Y
eta !+ dt�d� �t � r ��, ��► a A „� b �''"",
t7k'lr� LR.
r r itf f,F i+ Y r{'ltSu
C � tVfp , "" Y4yb {��dlr4r �:16j.'It.+pr a'A,t f �, c
W r
x' r . v s r.} + 1 s^r,aW r• ! '9 �^rrro a r � f1��m.
. N''+@�gf`+
>�qY �7 f* n.rhk t 11 r'rkt a+r'j,,2�1Jt `W� ��irASlc y,Y i OFrq`t
''
y f7Zy� F j� tk Yr `s e kt"lr„ryya.nje
4 r t 13r Y t llli4 gp f.y�,1�.7 y }t
tr Hr„'Ii .�„°p.+l✓• 1.� 3 E! F' C+t rt.4 4aL rtE 7 f 1'i1.ju r4 r?rtr &d
7 n h f..fM1 ! Y I^ 7 , r v ' J'r'"d�" J a4 t 'V t7'a, �*f^t��E'�`.i •i
7• 6 rrr.sf � vA rw*,r a�` y z a t"''
ait�alp 7
r v 7 i ityi
a,,�r
t
ru r �� i + vl ��fti tlt 1 fi ptt rytld�k y ar t1 �� tat �i`�r x,
Jt tii�,7,
a a9 �� ( y p f. o"►t�t+NY'f G t i { y iri ks ' �!}Yr,
.-.a��rl +t +n, 1.�+�4!��.ti".t^t�kv!• u��+,T,a S�"�4
ty}�S �'��flt;!J �x � yq�,�,.a
rJJ �qr� 9r a try i, ! @� �� Ft� 4y apy°rRyr.7sv jn�}
MmGr{lac �a' �; t'i,{�?'al'6'r"sSFi
II lirxytr J'&.'Y'4... 7 + S vallra t ','N "�t" r'f 3'pr , !f 9 y, t: Thr a A:fiT� •
n r � 7 n TI! c +�, .��a rl r)7. W a a,+ r n •
�t y7 M1rf 7.1 ' r
1•"} �NI'°� x��ldi' s
t3 ,t ��`- �"�_'''�i+y�t7,�_^"`c'{'��'lµt Jy" �73'ft�ra tri t_ �tt�� Y`d4"�-�d� 7' �`7•e�v�rYv�! vy. �}":": f •
I,
1I t ?
R r�+i'a��l �'�,t�,'tk a$ia,u J;y a r ^tiw LS Y" t �I ! "!{i,f Ini �' v� t� � n fab"�a t�. a •
yar
'Illi {���•.�.� + q Af ,1 a I Rez
ti�'7 # iv}. .e �t r
i-f .&�
W. ra 4(M' r e�f'Ih
7 t �,7 F-�kk r Y, 11 t
a1 61 r y+i7 ra t�i'^JI+A I ' y'tIkIE4gT,. y r Y.1Yr�''� tti E r're Jr� J .
1 r S s rl a i }�ul
+FI rw'ha''tta'k 1'iti 14u {!' ty '1ftq 4c. r}�1 } yt+.,�;�f
v h k I 4 'r i i
MAN
I n try^"�i0 + �';rt'', 5y'r R�� t T +^r a'�i�,i E4 '�it<�",�1}�y+ k �`� yFad q'{t h u;;I +''ti 5 ,w. • r
"����."I
"''J y��7
J �Fh (I
A� fit 7}5il h�yyla r ,� n�1s� �'' �'9� i �jtiy '4�Ci�t'+���° r � L• 'H�x���.,�e{' I'� #�:
yrlMW i'k`�"4�rg 1R
t�ya�
> ? a4 r i}hxk x Edi .F >iitla "'° ias s
tae �P1 4f 7 i74r1".F'r �
i ! '�` �+,.{ rYpK. t a /
IV's
`^ r
tip•�rF+ + I t'r �`I x rsf '1's'
i�y"a '� '� � e. a"✓L �) I+ ! 'o 4S tis'f i!d} ti tw F� a r �'
,tlf�t,,na'as>�'�
a,a�y r ,tvY ,fat;.. rmrt;O hNat w+ a S M1r r{ i�lt'� `1 ;v,ea'I� r !4 J' I+fPt'4fi a (� ,
t
i
n ( p r +
JA
It
} t ea�y"dquai y� n ?@fit( tY K e LAS ti 1f JJr �'�4k
,r � S k'1 o�I a4r" ♦ s74F�.�t.f r �� -+ R '��,! �4ry} }�pol yta �5,v
xS'Jr i. J `d +_-It Y
ae�„y
t v,L,'"'>r('
r M r 6 S:0. 1 p,�! �'Ml'f$�r1 ar '2} It y I� u 7n75 W Ir�S Ira'1F fy)11I T y x(
l',
1.4
P .S
', N S in }4 } y i,y�W°'rP' •l41 tl 1. 1 � ��fs.•ri'J Y rr4 1'
tw Wk rl�i " }x �nruu,° 44 (Ir T5 y s ,rtr u� p w 6rct, i M1g% I�iyrbLv
; ,�aM e
t ki,yrr'�xl ,�`d,`PL
����^^��..�{�i��' yrs it s -,{t�'' �"�,y 1 `+`.• 1 7 y' k 1*.: eirf'f.��p "•�q"�'r�
urtao'14 w1' rr+-1>r ry- 1 r. �}ayt1� 1_Czly .{y'� 7.°*,v v � �-•Gt'N'�' k(�'v l:' �Kt=�'yi
,Hf�`'l, '- I r7 a f. t ! 'sl i �i rl 'LAl I x 7 C p 31 a y'✓""IF9 t"T (l t
.I
,kis trff 1 x7. N 7 1 k 4 i t 3+[d I t .t,'� y7'ir
t yx9 `a�"twh'1
7 '�-r' S } iu( "r....1 .&
,'>;- 'f ,y1.�f- r-e " , *" t t•1 7 i t r # >a lr. y yx r q d qe r�tfj.''tst�:
r �'�^ �L f r"f ,;i 4 ,,, di Yr w•� e� ,°f�L a,.*"'c b7 tAi yu,r��"'r iE �tf�0 }>ak pd +,
om
4rA"11'{"R.�Ibr
� 'y.'.
•
f,«`ik r~y 7Y>;� t r 3 q3� `<�+i(r x� ' L'��r `U i�!'iw�,t'„,{�� X45 F •�r;,�rT �r l S>7 r�P`�,7a •
RF ✓ '� t , 7 Y�, I � '�'f;L!.. p3 t ,�r!r ! v tIJ R.. �s�+ n ,};,F
M Af C ro
','.y l r rgrrl r
s." ..�
�'�x�^l�a'i�ts
rt6 ayV7F , � «5'n,} 4 �p is 1 1 1♦cly; a rE f f,o'yy.?. !rW a 'izf a5
p a
pd7 •�. � ,� •
OFT
r�m �I pytltU '
pp
K'
u�+yp•2txJ„w "! br it r. .>) r r!A(+Y N z. •
r
n .
rr ?r
��m r•"�1,'�`r'! i;7�4'y"'+ a>:r a+\ �k 9 �uW � ilfa 6 � ��' e l,°S.tr"Its
�I ii�L'Y``99`�` r° �,,$� t'i ;t,t ,� �j I 1 ��" ���IE y t, 1+ l6k'�yr� �,'�3All�''1 �l ^1'�Ir�1,}f 1 • �
�� A� 17 !'i','a � icy ��':" " " I µ.% lt�.. � ,�I�1 r4r Itl• ,� �I�"t'{i., �rl?�� �3 uy'��
;Td2�+�sp*,1'U nk� aT t �Y � p�. k �rk 1. ^d•I s l M1 t y
tl x c, y qL4�� .rr1 I r+,4 d Y a c pccr
if
r m 9r1 Irli d 1y rt
1,�1�'r 4 .ti W� gltd x��- Ti � A •'k P .I-� 1
� .,0.�17,�n,y!'u +�`'�;♦.u�"1� 7 7��' ; �@{,r rll��I i ,� r�lq r' P}f dt {141 §�"�I y ro 1
+�
n, ,r4,.!'7^r
�r �F Y!
elf
I� I y9 I Iis, i
p eo
4
9
]33 r
- JJ
pv- s
,If
Ar
�y qp V.�o-iL
m c Q Sdti
v
'40
a�
City of Burlingame
BURLINME Parks & Recreation Department
1wtaniv, 850:Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
?arks Division Telephone (650) 558-7350
Fax: (650) 696-7216 * Email: parksaburlinaame.or¢
January 3, 2005
Vincent Falzon
Assistant Superintendent Street& Sewer
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Eucalyptus Tree Hazard at 1800 Easton Drive
We are in receipt of your letter requesting the removal of the City's Eucalyptus tree at the above address. Based on
information submitted by Kevin Kielty(Certified Arborist)of Mayne Tree Expert Company,Inc. dated December 10,
2004,the request to remove the Eucalyptus tree has been denied.
N,fr.Kieity's Summary contained within the report indicates:
This large Eucalyptus has a well defined and exposed root crown. Small amounts of decay
have been noticed on the lower trunk and root flare of this tree. The tree is in generaly good
health and has been well maintained.
Constmztproper maintenance should keep this tree healthy for years to come._however,roots
deeper in the root crown have not been inspected and their depth makes this inspection
improbable. Drills and resistographs only measure for decay where the tree has been drilled.
This means other areas in the root zone can be infected
A resistograph type measurement on root crowns )nay be advised due to the superior
documentation associated with this tool.
Anyone may review a complete copy of this report on file at the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department, 850
Burlingame Avenue.
Per your request,this decision will be forwarded to the Burlingame Beautification Commission for further review and
consideration at their February 31d,2005 Commission meeting.The Commission meets at 5:30 p.m.in Conference Room
"A" at City Hall should you wish to address the Commission at that time.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(650)558-7330.
Sincerely,
Randy Schwartz
Director of Parks&Recreation
CC: Beautification Commission,Public Works Superintendent, City Engineer, Parks Superintendent, City Arborist
Residents-v'thin 300' radius: 1712, 1715, 1718, & 1719 Easton Dr.; 1804, 1805, 1808, & 1809 Easton Dr.;
1285 & 1309 Cabrillo Avenue
Attachment D
REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission
Meeting Minutes Excerpts
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Thursday - January 13, 2005
8. INFORMATION ITEMS
8.3 From Commission to Staff
8.3.2 Comments and Communication
Chair Cohen suggest working with other Commissions and Boards
such as the Beautification Committee, to provide a different
perspective to tree removal and the associated consequences.
When funding becomes available, it was suggested that the City
invites a speaker on the subject similar to what the City of
Redwood City did to show how examples of each traffic calming
program might work.
1
BURLINGAIVH BEAUTIFICATION CON EWSSION
February 3. 2005
Chairperson Hesselgren called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission to order
at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Hesselgren, Commissioners Carney, Grandcolas, Lauder, McQuaide,O'Connor,
Absent: Commissioner Webb
Staff- Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz, Parks Superintendent Richmond, Supervisor Disco,
Secretary Harvey
Guests: Phil Scott (PW Superintendent), Vince Falzon (Asst. Street and Sewer Superintendent), Jo
Ellen Ellis
iiN INUTES
The minutes of the January 6,2005 Beautification Commission meeting were approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE
Copy of Internet Research on Tree Ordinances (with regard to views [submitted by Commissioner
McQuaide]),that summarizes problems with the lack of enforcement and inequalities of complaints.
Notes from Beautification Commission files regarding the Commission's consideration of establishing a
View Ordinance in 1979. (Submitted by Commissioner McQuaide.)
FROM THE FLOOR-
There were no comments from the floor.
Chairperson Hesselgren changed the order of the Agenda to accommodate the appellants requesting the
removal of the Eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive.
NEW BUSINESS.
Request for Removal of a City owned Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton Drive — Superintendent
Richmond stated that for several years City Arborist Porter has been reviewing this particular Eucalyptus
tree with the Public Works Department. Arborist Porter observed the large buttress root when it was
e:cposed and determined that severing the root to accomplish a flatter street grade would be inadvisable,
that the root was too significant and could end up destablizing the tree.
Superintendent Richmond reported that an Independent Arborist had evaluated the Monterey Cypress and
Eucalyptus trees lining Easton Drive. A boring(drilling)method and a mallet were used on this particular
Eucalyptus to detect rot. Based on the procedures used, the report indicated that the tree appears to be
healthy. The report stated that further testing with a Resistograph on the root crown might be advisable
because Resistographs more accurately measure the presence of decay. Superintendent Richmond
concluded that the health of the tree is not in dispute, but repairs to the roadside, the clay sewer main, and
traffic safety are at issue.
The Commission discussed the tree's health and suggestions such as re-routing of the roadside, adding
road signage, lowering the speed limit, and making Easton Drive a one-way street.
Following the discussion, Chairperson Hesselgren recognized Superintendent Scott and Asst.
Superintendent Falzon. Sunt. Scott thanked the Commission for scheduling the hearing. Asst.
Superintendent Falzon stated over the years, street repair near this tree has been a challenge and that the
tree causes traffic hazards because the buttress root extends so far into the road and doesn't allow for
traffic to safely pass.
Request or Removal of a City-owned Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton—(Cont'd)
Supt. Scott showed a Power Point presentation showing street damage, root growth, drainage problems,
sewer damage, grade issues, and vehicular and traffic hazards. Alternatives to removal that have been
considered are: aimming the roots, covering the roots with more asphalt, re-aligning the street, and
making the stree- one-way travel. Supt. Scott stated that the City Arborist believes trimming or shaving
the buttress root could cause the tree to be unstable and covering the root with more asphalt could damage
the root system. Supt. Scott added that covering the root with more asphalt would also make the hump
even Nigher. Re-aligning the street would not only mean other trees would need removing, but is cost
prohibitive (up to $100k). Re-alignment of the street would affect all 4 comers and would also require
removal and construction of various new sections of curb, gutter, and roadway, as well as utility pole
relocation. Supt. Scott concluded that making the street one-way travel is not feasible in residential areas
because it pushes traffic onto smaller streets. It would confuse the driving public, is costly, would make
library access difficult, and Easton Drive is the only street that provides direct access for residents in the
Canyon Road area.
Following the presentation the Commission discussed the various issues. Commissioner Grandcolas
asked if the tree was mature and had it stopped growing. Superintendent Richmond stated that the tree is
mature in top growth but would assume that the root would continue to grow. Commissioner McQuaide
stated that other cities have one way streets or use less costly alternatives such as signage (Caution Tree
Cross/Caution Slow), and that the sewer could be moved to the other side of the street. Commissioner
Grandcolas stated that he slows down when approaching the area, that if accidents were occurring or
residents were complaining he would be more inclined to consider removal as a solution but both cases
are absent. He added that these trees are part of the character and charm of a Tree City USA.
Commissioner Carney stated that it is a traffic hazard for cars coming in opposite directions, particularly
if you are not totally aware. She added when it rains, the roadside puddles up making it more difficult to
see the hump. Commissioner O'Connor stated she frequents the area; accessibility is an issue and has
been for many years. Chairperson Hesselgren commented that she is torn, having all the Eucalyptus trees
removed on Easton Drive would change the whole character of the neighborhood, however,this particular
tree is presenting substantial liabilities and danger. The tree is causing damage to curbs, sidewalk,
drainage; an 8' root extending into the street causing a grade nchne of 2', and if left to remain,will end up
causing ongoing future costs and liabilities to the City. Commissioner Lauder responded that she agreed
with Chairperson Hesselgren, that this tree is causing significant liabilities to the City. She stated that
removal of this tree would not take away from the purpose and intent of the Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection ordinance but if removal is granted, she would like it to be replaced with a fast growing tree . .
. that it should be a"grand tree". Director Schwartz informed the Commissioners that the City Council, at
it's January 29b budget and goal study session, agreed to ask the Beautification Commission to develop a
long range reforestation plan for the Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive. He stated that any decision made
regarding this tree or a possible replacement, should be made in consideration of the long term plan.
Following the discussion, Commissioner Lauder moved to uphold the appeal and grant removal of the
City-owned Eucalyptus tree at I800 Easton Drive due to safety hazards, damage to the sewer main,
drainage problems, traffie flow problems,and accessibility issues But with the recommendation, that
the tree be replaced with a sizeable specie to be determined by the Commission at a future meeting;
seconded, Carney. Motion carried S—I (McQuaide)—I absent(Webb).
OLD BUSINESS -
Tree View Ordinance— Commissioner Grandcolas stated the draft for a policy has yet to be developed
by the Committee, but that Commissioners McQuaide and Lauder would present what they had
researched on their own.
Superintendent Richmond stated that City Planner Monroe has agreed to come to the March Commission
meeting to discuss what the Planning Department considers with regard to views for new construction.
• _ :. �;
at
Yx
.:.+ y� � ! •� I.c� l���"v, _ Com.
2
3 M''
VN
-•' -
Je
-
-•' • ss s
- 1;- -
c �
r 1z
�y � �y..-,�i� �•".yam� �. �
alums
r
AW
GO
mq
s
��` ,�,t+M� .'Y'�y _ -.b r .- _ ten•. _
Which Lane ? All Terrain SUV
i Hand nn I Altt=m;;ivP_g to rPmnvinn TrPP
• Trim the roots
• Cover the roots with more asphalt
• Re-align the street
• Make the street one-way travel
I
i
Trim the Roots Cover the Roots
City Arborist feels that this will cause
• Arborist feels that this would damage
the tree to be unstable and could fail.
the root system
Danger of damaging buttress root.
• Would make the hump even higher
3
Re-Align the Street )dente the Street one-We travel
• ther trees would neea to be removeo that
• Not Teasibie in residential areas
are in the way of needed alignment
Cost prohibitive=approx$100 k Confuse the driving public
• The re-alignment of the street would require • Costly
the removal and construction of various new
sections of curb, gutter and roadway • Library access would be very difficult
• Would require utility pole relocation • Easton is the only street that provides
direct access for residents in the Canyon
• Would affect ail four comers Road area.
a �
4
CITY aCITE' OF BURLINGAME
PARXS & RECREATION DEPAR NT
BU RLI lV GAME
850 Buriingame Avenue. 3urlingame. California 94010-2899
Telephone (.6f0) 558-7300 • Parks/Trees (650) 558-7330
T'POR4TE0 j
'lax (650) 696-71.16 . I-mail: recreation@burhngame.org
February 7, 2005
Vincent Falzon
Assistant Superintendent Street& Sewer
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL TO REMOVE THE CITY OWNED EUCALYPTUS TREE
@. 1800 EASTON DRIVE - BURLINGAME
At its meeting of February 3, 2005, the Beautification Commission voted 5 - 1 -1 (absent)to uphold
the appeal of the denial to remove the City owned Eucalptus tree at the above address. The decision
was based on the find* s that the tree creates accessibility and safety hazards to pedestrians and
vehicular traffic flow, has damaged the sewer main, and affects drainage in the area.
Anyone may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council in writing by February 18th. Such
letters of appeal must be accompanied with a$250 fee (made payable to the City of Burlingame) and
delivered to the Parks &Recreation Department, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010.
If no appeal has been received by that date, the tree will be scheduled for removal. At a later date, the
Burlingame Beautification Commission will be making recommendation for a replacement tree.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may call the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330.
Sincerely,
Tim?richmond
Parks Superintendent
TR/kh
CC:Beautification Commission, Public Works Superintendent, City Engineer, City Arborist,
Parks Supervisor, Director of Parks &Recreation, Director of Public Works
Residents within 300' radius: 1712, 1715, 1718, & 1719 Easton Dr.; 1804, 1805, 1808, & 1809
Easton Dr.; 1285 & 1309 Cabrillo Avenue
G�
Email sent to Burlingame City Council
My name is Susie Dillon Lahey and I live at 1719 Easton Dr., with my husband, Sam and two
small children. We are'kitty corner'to the tree. My whole family is shocked and saddened that
this tree will be removed. Our family has lived on this corner for over 55 years. We believe it is
the uniqueness of the trees and the history of this street is what makes it such a special place to
live.
During our many years here on Easton we have lots of stories to tell...and not surprisingly,
everyone has a story of a speeding car whizzing by ...Unfortunately people speed on this
street and do not stop completely at the stop signs on the corner of'Easton and Cabrillo. This
beautiful, strong tree acts as a natural speed deterrent.
I would like respond to a few of the comments I've seen from the various daily papers...
"...roots make a hump in the road...° -thank goodness, it slows people down. Is it too bumpy?
Sure...how about paving it over smooth, painting some lines on it and putting up a 'Caution Bump'
sign??There are many other cities that have installed natural barriers to neighborhoods to deter
speeding (round about, trees, planting areas)at great expense...we should utilize this tree to
benefit safety.
"...makes driving unsafe and hard for pedestrians and the elderly to get to the library..."-Again the
tree does not make driving unsafe...dis-courteous drivers who speed make driving unsafe. The
cross walk is very clearly ahead of the tree...there is a lovely path way just built during the
remodel that makes it accessible for all. Again, this tree acts as a natural barrier, if anything, it
would shield children and elderly from a speeding, out of control car.
"...makes it hard to make a right hand turn from Cabrillo on to Easton..."the road does narrow
there, and during a busy time of day (OLA school drop off and pick up) it can get a little crazy
there...however, there are many places through out town that have the same difficult
situation...for instance, turning right from Chula Vista on to Carmelita during the afternoon when
cars can park on both sides of the street...you must wait for an opening or hope someone is not
speeding down the road... How about a no right turn sign during certain hours or a drive safely
sign??
"...bark falls down during a storm..." Bark, leaves and acorns do fall from TREES during severe
wind storms...In all these years I've never heard a story of someone getting hurt from
bark...cutting this particular tree will not cut down on natural debris during a storm.
"...concerned some of the old trees could come down on a house..."THANKS to the wonderful
tree trimming protocol the City of Burlingame has enacted, these trees are strong and sturdy.
During the last severe storms we had, we looked long and hard at ALL the trees around our
home...they are all safe, as stated by the independent arborist.
Burlingame's attitude towards its rich history, beautiful trees, and citizens who take pride in their
homes and neighbors, is why our entire family has worked very hard all these years, to preserve
2/11%2005 10:24 ALM
this'little slice of heaven'for our future generations...We will feel a great loss if this tree, that we
look at so many times each day its hard to count...not to mention the many birds who nest high
up in these trees...is gone.
Please help me to block the removal of this tree, and to come up with other alternatives to the
concerns mentioned.
Sincerely,
Susie Dillon Lahey, Sam Lahey
The Dillon f=amily
Resident
650-342-4302
2/11/2005 10:24 AM
GZ
RECEIVED
_Z 71 9 Ea- itar fDrai6, FEB 14 2005
C,4 .94010
CITY OF BURLINCAME
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Appeal of the removal of Eucalyptus Tree, 1800 Easton Dr.
This letter Is to formally appeal the removal the Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton Drive,
Burlingame.
Our family has lived on this corner for over 55 years. We believe it is the uniqueness of the trees
and the history of this street is what makes it such a special place to live.
It is understandable that trees and under street pipes have a difficult time cc-existing. The
demands of modem living and the trees that never caused a problem in past, now can place
engineering difficulties on-renovation Projects.
A solution should be found to both preserve the integrity of the trees as well as underground
utilities. Cutting a healthy (as stated by the independent arborist) 100 year old tree, can only be
the beginning of the demise of every tree on Easton, which remains a beautiful and historic
avenue to Burlingame's past.
It seems a shame after the long and well thought out restoration of the Easton Branch Library
that the same consideration can not be given to an older and more majestic monument to
Buriingame's rich history.
Saving this tree would reflect the pride we have in ourwonderfui community.
Sin;ereiy
'�-tfsie Dillon Lahey m Lahey
The Dillon Family
Resident
650-342-4302
attachement
2/11/2005
TBEDAILYJOURNAL LOCAL Tuesday•February 15,2005 3
POLICE REPORT
Tree'sdeathsentence-,, a ea eBuilding 1�11ored
At 11:28 a:ni. on Wednesday,
the windOW of the abandoned By Stephen Baxter
Lucerne restaurant or') 4t6 ,Sala DAILY JOURNAL STAFF
Mateo Avenue in Sari Brunn
�a >a
was broken.The iestauraut watt A resident on Easton Drive in
sold three years ago trsomeone Burlingame appealed the city's pro-
in the phdippines and hasn't posal to cut down a century-old
been in business since eucalyptus with roots lifting the y .
pavement:
"4 r
Susie Lahey said she feared the a
SAN BRUNO city might try to chop down other i
healthy trees, and said it set a bad
Fraud. Long distance calling cards precedent, '" "
were
e stolen and charged,over$89 on
Wednesday at 12:15 a.m. on the 50 1 think as a resident of Easton we t
have to be very cautious;" she said ,
block of Tanforan Avenue.
The mother of two filed an appeal
Grand theft.On Wednesday at 3:03 with the city's Parks and Recreation a
p.m.,a DVD player was taken from . ..
Department last week.
a new vehicle at San Bruno Ford on
"Obviously these trees are going h �
601 El Camino Real. a
to teach the end of their lifespan but �
we can't be cutting down random
REDWOOD CITY trees,"she said on Monday:
The Mayne Tree Expert Co. Inc. k
Vehicle burglary.A car was broken evaluated,all 80 trees on Easton
into on the 1100 block of Whipple Drive between El Camino Real and �
Avenue sometime before 8:19 a.m. Vancouver Avenue in October and
Friday. said they were healthy.But No 37
Vehicle burglary.A car was broken a red gum eucalyptus directly in M
into on the corner of Birch Street front of the library, required more
and Whipple Avenue sometime stability tests on Dec.7 and Dec. 9:
before 8:54 a.m.Friday. Mayne Arborist Kevin Kielty DAILY JOURNAL FILE PHOTO
Vehicle burglary.A car was broken reported the tree"in generally good Healthy eucalyptus No.37 in front of the Easton Branch of the Burlingame library is slated to be cut down in the
into on the 400 block of Pine Street health" and "well-maintained," but next two months.
sometime before 8:56 a.m.Friday. because it protrudes into the street Water often pools next to the in the name of safety though its the city could be liable, said City
Vehicle burlgary.A cat-was broken and lifts the pavement about a foot, hump, and,Commissioner Jeanne hump actually helps slow traffic. Attorney Larry Anderson.
into on the 1200 block of Broadway the Beautification Commission took Carney said driving is dangerous He also said if it is apublic safely On a windy day a few years ago a
a closer look. near the tree,especially in the rain. hazard it ought to but removed. tree on California Drive fell on a
sometime before carr was
Friday. On Feb. 3, the commission met The Commission voted 5 to 1 to "I'd be disappointed to see it go truck and a SamTrans bus.The city
Vehicle burglary..A as broken and discussed other options like y settled a lawsuit with the truck's
into on the 600 block of Maple trimming its roots, but that might and oreplace with another fast-grow- to bit it's
bullet,"Cohen said.
have owner,Anderson said.
P
Street sometime 5.59 p.m. further destabilize it. Adding more mg species. Commissioner John No. 37 is a "heritage tree, and Lahey said her family had owned
Vehicle burglary.A cat was brokenasphalt to cover the roots would Webb was absent for the vote. has to meet criteria for erosion, her house near the corner of Easton
into one 100 blockof Hazel make its hump higher and more of a Russ Cohen, chair of the Traffic, wind protection, noise and privacy, Drive and Cabrillo Avenue since
Avenue sometime before 8:18 p.m. hazard, the commission said, and Safety and Parking Commission; among other things. 1939,and her grandfather went door
Saturday.A purse with credit cards realigning the street would cost up said on Monday he thought it was The tree isnot likely to fall but if to door to save the trees on the street
and$200 was stolen. to$100,000. ironic the city k cutting down a tree it did land on a house,car or person decades ago
0
Februarj 16, 2005
Honorable Mayor Galligan and City Council
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mayor Galligan:
RE: Removal of the Tree at the Comer of Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue
The Library Board of Trustees reviewed the matter of removal of the tree on Easton
Drive at their meeting of February 15, 1005. We support the decision(4 yes and 1
abstention) of the Beautification Commission to remove this particular tree.
There were a number of issues that were of concern: safety of pedestrians, safety of
vehicle drivers, concern for falling limbs on homes or the library itself.
In addition, it is difficult to turn left from Cabrillo to Easton safely because of the
location of the tree. This tree narrows the Easton arterial considerably. We understand
t iat the Beautification Commission looked at: a) removal of the root in the street, which
would likely shorten the life of the tree; b)re-routing traffic off Easton onto the side
streets, which would route traffic onto streets not designed to carry this traffic; c)make
Easton one-way, which would again route traffic onto side streets, no longer making
Easton the important arterial street it is.
Randy Schwartz, Park and Recreation Director, spoke to the commission about the need
to manage the urban forest and not have all trees end their life at the same time. In
keeping with this long range strategy, we support the removal of the tree and the planting
of new tree species. We understand that this will likely need to be done in other parts of
the city so that trees that come to the end of their lives are not removed all at once,
completely changing the urban forest environment.
The Board will be available for comments at your March?'h meeting, should you wish
further comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important decision.
Sincerely,
Mary Herman
President, Library Board of Trustees
David Carr, Secretary
Carol Rossi, Trustee
Patricia Toft, Trustee
Katie McCormack, Trustee
TAF OR
BURLINGAME
AGENDA
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB TED
BY �-
DATE: March 7, 2005
APPROVED
ERom: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION'S DECISION
TO ALLOW FOR A TREE REMOVAL AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council hold an appeal hearing regarding the
decision of the Beautification Commission to allow the Eucalyptus Tree located at 1800 Easton
Drive to be removed and reolaced.
BACKGROUND:
Public Works applied to have the Eucalyptus tree located at 1800 Easton Drive removed because
of its disruption to the roadway and sidewalk, driver safety issues and flooding problems. The
City hired Mayne Tree Company to assess the health of the tree. The report, which included drill
testing as well as non-invasive evaluations, indicated the tree to be in good health (see attached).
In attempting to resolve the street disruption and flooding issues, City staff examined a wide
variety of options, including:
1. Cutting or trimming the main root
''. Paving over the root to smooth out the roadway
3. Rerouting the street
4. Turning Easton Drive into a one-way street
Public Works staff will be at the Council meeting to discuss each of the options.
The Beautification Commission examined the information presented by Public Works and
discussed the options in-depth before voting 5-1 to allow for the removal of the tree. The
Library Board also reviewed the information and options at their February 16th meeting and
voted 4-1 to support the decision of the Beautification Commission.
Following a letter from Susie and Sam Lahey, 1719 Easton Dr., to appeal the Beautification
Commission's decision, Council member Baylock called the item up to Council. In their letter,
the Lahey's said ". . . the uniqueness of the trees and the history of this street is what makes it
such a special place to live." The Lahey's have been invited to the Council meeting.
At the Council's Budget%Goal study session on January 29, 2005, the Council asked the
Beautification Commission to develop a lona-term strategy for the reforestation of the trees on
Easton Drive. This plan would include selection of tree species that would be used as eventual
replacement trees for the street. If the tree at 1800 Easton is removed, it would be replaced as
part of this reforestation plan.
BUDGET IMP ACT:
The cost of the tree removal is anticipated to be approximately $8,000 and would be paid for by
the City's sewer enterprise fund.
ATTACH>IENTS:
Letter from Public Works Assistant Superintendent Falzon to City Arborist Porter dated
March 18, 2004
Arborist Report dated December 10, 2004—Mayne Tree Expert Company
Letter from Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz to Public Works Assistant
Superintendent Falzon dated January 3, 2005
Minutes of the February 3, 2005 Beautification Commission Meeting
Letter from Parks Superintendent Richmond to Public Works Assistant Superintendent
Falzon dated February 7, 2005
Letter dated February 11, 2005 from Sam and Susie Lahey, 1719 Easton Drive
Letter from the Library Board dated February 16, 2005
O
Cl
BU'RLIl°NGAME CITE'COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting of March 7, 2005
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 Joe Galligan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Mary Herman.
"T l'1 — '—c'c'TQ T
d.LiI, Cl�7)01sj
CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following:
a. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government code §54956.8:
Property: City Parking Lot B-1 on Chapin Avenue
Agency Negotiators: Jim Nantell.. George Bagdon, Syed Murtuza
Negotiating Parties: Bertetta Family -
Under negotiation: Access across property to 1421 Chapin Avenue
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony
Councilman Coffey attended bv_ teleconference from South
Lake Tahoe. California.
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. MINUTES
Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2005 regular Council
meeting; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by roll call vote. 5-0.
�. PRESENTATIONS
a. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH AS RED CROSS MONTH
Mayor Galligan presented a proclamation declaring March as Red Cross Month to Mary Watts, Chairwoman
for the San Mateo County Leadership Council who accepted for the American Red Cross of the Bay Area.
i
Buninuarne Cite Council March 7-2005
Approved'Minutes
h. BURLING,_,TME YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS UPDATE
P&RD Schwartz introduced Hank Sauer_ Burlingame Youth Baseball Association President. Mr. Sauer
reported on the 2004 season, improvements to Bayside Park, and pians for the 2005 season.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. APPEAL OF THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION'S DECISION TO ALLOW FOR A
TREE REMOVAL AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
P&RD Schwartz requested Council hold a public hearing on the Beautification Commission's decision to
allow removal and replacement of the Eucalyptus tree located at 1800 Easton Drive. The tree is next to the
Easton Branch Library, and the Library Board have voted to support the Beautification Commission's
decision. Public Works Superintendent Phil Scott made a PowerPoint presentation on the options available to
remedy the following problems caused by the tree's roots: street damage, water ponding, sewer infiltration
and traffic hazards. Mr. Schwartz stated that no resistograph test was performed because the tree is healthy
and is in good shape. If the tree were removed, it would be replaced as part of the reforestation pian, which is
currently being developed by the Beautification Commission. Mr. Scott stated that the sewer rehabilitation
program for Easton Drive is scheduled for this summer or fall.
Mayor Galligan opened thepublic hearing. The following residents spoke in favor of the appeal: Fred
McElhany, 1009 Laguna Avenue, Michael Dillon, 1719 Easton Drive, and Susie Lahey, 1719 Easton Drive.
The following residents spoke against the appeal: Dr. Bruce Bainton, 1907 Easton Drive, and Richard
Medeahini. 1260 Bernal Avenue. Antonio Rockalino aka Michael David Vail, Jr.. 932 Howard Avenue,
spoke on replacing the existing sewer line. Russ Cohen. Traffic Commissioner. requested that this item be
presented to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for further study. There were no more comments,
and the hearing was closed.
Council requested that the reforestation program be in place and traffic issues be addressed before making a
decision. Council continued action and referred this item to the Beautification Commission and to the
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission for further study.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Lara Lighthouse, 87 Loma Vista, spoke on the Jefferson-Martin transmission line. Russ Cohen, 605
Lexington Way,, spoke on items occurring in the press. Carla Bagneschi. 1127 Capuchino, spoke on the
number of required hours of education for massage permits. Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way, spoke on
democracy Katherine Carlin, 1740 Lexington Avenue, San Mateo, spoke on Jefferson-Martin transmission
line. Lei Gong of Fremont spoke on opening a spa in Burlingame. Anoela Johnson spoke on the cost of
Councilman Coffey's teleconference call. There were no further comments from the floor.
S. STAFF REPORTS
a. CONSIDER FURTHER AMENDMENT TO MASSAGE ORDINANCE REGARDING
EDUCATION REOUIREMENTS FOR MASSAGE PERMITS
CA Anderson provided survey results showing the number of education hours required for a massage permit
in other Bav Area cities and various states. After some discussion, Council reques:_ed staff to reduce the
number of required hours to 200 and to phase-in increased hours up to 500, over the next two to four years.
Buriingaane Cir<,Council J March 2005
Approved Minutes
b. CONSIDER. APPOINTMENT OF THREE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
CM Nantell requested C ouncil consider the appointment of three Planning Commissioners filling two seats
with four-year terms and one seat with a-avo-year term due to the resignation of Commissioner Chris Keele.
Councilman Coffev. as a member of the interview subcommittee, made a motion to appoint Tim Auran and
David Cauchi for the two four-year terms and to appoint Andrew Reback for the two-year term: seconded by
Mavor Galligan.
Vice_Mayor Baylock made a motion recommending appointment of Joe Bojues and Jerry Deal for the two
four-year terms; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel.
Councilwoman O'Mahony stated that she would support Jerry Deal for the two-year term since that was his
request. Councilman Coffey expressed concern that Mr. Deal, as a commissioner, would have to recuse
himself from making Planning Commission decisions on the many projects in Burlingame with which he is
professionally involved.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to close the nominations_ seconded by Mayor Galligan, approved
by roll call vote, -0.
Mavor Galligan called for roll call votes on each applicant nominated to fill the two four-year terms. The
results of the roll call votes follow:
Tim Auran, 3 -,otes (Baylock and Nagel declined)
Joe Bojues, 2 votes (Coffey, Galligan and O'Mahony declined)
David Cauchi, 3 votes (Baylock and Nagel declined)
Jerry Deal, 2 votes (Coffev. Galligan and O'Mahony declined)
Tim Auran and David Cauchi were appointed to fill the two four-year terms on the Planning Commission.
Mayor Galligan called for roll call votes on each applicant nominated to fill the two-year term. The results of
the roll call votes follow:
Jerry Deal, 3 votes (Coffey and Galligan declined)
Andrew Reback, 2 votes (Baylock,Nagel and O'Mahony declined)
Jem, Deal was appointed to fill the two-year term on the Planning Commission.
Council thanked Joe Bojues for the eight years he served on the Planning Commission and for his support of
the commission's subcommittees.
C. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR
THE EL CAMINO REAL NORTH AND ROULINS ROAD SUBAREAS OF THE NORTH
BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN
CP Monroe requested Council introduce an ordinance to adopt General Improvement Policv and
Development Fees for public improvements in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Planning Area.
J
Burlinaame Citv CouncilMarc? ;,1005
Approved Minutes
Council noted that adding the Adrian Road Landscaping Project was important; should be coordinated with
the auxilian7 lane project on U.S. 101; appropriate for adjacent development to provide streetscape
improvements of lot frontages; park improvements at frontage road in front of plaza shipping center should
include bicycle access- need to think of ways to entice auto dealers to Adrian Road to support City's base.
Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance adopting General
Improvement Policy and Development Fees for public improvements in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Planning Area. Councilwoman O'Mahony waived further reading of the proposed ordinance;
seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock. approved unanimousiy by roll call vote, 5-0.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor
Baylock, approved unanimously by roll call vote.. 5-0.
Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days
before proposed adoption.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwoman Nagel requested a description of the completed project for Item 9.c. P&RD Schwartz
pr..,;A� A � 1_T_r A-S „+;..,� -�+l,0 1�„�t���„o„r.,;o.+tC screen she RAPT tn;I t<"acl'.c.
y v,_.0 u V_ uw viiruvai of uiv wiu.�a.u,Yv ravJv.,� -
a. RESOLUTION NO. 16-2005 AWARDING PERSHING PARK PLAYGROUND-
RENOVATION PROJECT TO SCAPES. INC.
P&RD Schwartz requested Council approve Resolution No. 16-2005 awarding Pershing Park Playground
Renovation Project to Scapes. Inc.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 17-2005 AWARDING PERMIT TRACKING SOFTWARE
ACQUISITION AND IMPLEMENTATION TO CRW ASSOCIATES
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 17-2005 awarding permit tracking software
acquisition and implementation to CRW Associates.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 15-2005 ACCEPTING THE SART LANDSCAPING PROJECT ON
CALIFORNL-DRIVE NORTH OF DUFFERIN AVENUE
P&RD Schwartz requested Council approve Resolution No. 18-2005 accepting the BART Landscaping
Project on California Drive north of Dufferin Avenue.
d. APPROVAL FOR 2005 ART & JAZZ FESTIVAL.AUGUST 13 &14.2005
A Shinday requested Council approve the-1 005 Burlingame Art& Jazz Festival to be held on August 13
and 14, 2005,
e. APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR
FinDir Nava requested Council approve the Finance Director's travel to Norwalk. Connecticut to attend the
Winter Meeting of the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Committee April 3-5. 2005.
4
Eurlineame City Council March 7,2005
Approved Minutes
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman
Coffey, approved unanimously by roll call vote. 5-0.
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Except for Councilman Coffey, Council reported on various events ana committee meetings each of them
attended on behalf of the Citv. Councilman Coffev stated that he would provide his report at the next regular
Council meeting.
11. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
12. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Parks & Recreation and Joint Parks &Recreation/City Council, February 17,
2005: Planning, February 28, 2005
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
-Doris J. Mortensen
City Clerk
5
Burlingame Citv Council March 7,2005
Approved Minutes
Attachment L
REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission
Meeting Minutes Excerpts
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Thursday - March 10, 2005
8. INFORMATION ITEMS
8.2 From Staff to Commission
8.2.1 Traffic Engineer's Report
Mr. Chou stated that at the March 7 City Council meeting, the
Council heard from Public Works staff about a situation regarding
the proposed removal of a large eucalyptus tree at Easton Drive
and Cabrillo Avenue. The Council referred the matter to the
Commission to conduct a technical evaluation in regards to traffic
volumes and roadway reconfiguration.
8.3 From Commission to Staff
8.3.2 Comments and communication
The Commission determined that two sub-committees should be
formed to look into the school crosswalks issue and the Easton
eucalyptus tree issue. Commissioners Condon and Conway would
steer the school crosswalk sub-committee and Commissioners
Cohen and Warden would steer the eucalyptus tree sub-committee.
1
Attachment M
REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission
Meeting Minutes Excerpts
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Thursday, April 14, 2005
8. INACTIVE ITEMS
8.5 Easton Drive - Eucalyptus tree at Easton and Cabrillo
Commissioner Cohen stated that he found this issue to be of a challenge,
given the structure of the Eucalyptus roots. He added that accident counts
would be taken into consideration, but that the Commission needed to
make sure that it exhausted and explored all opportunities on Easton Drive
before looking at tree removal. He cited examples such as curb
realignment, one-way traffic, and working with the Beautification
Committee.
Chair Warden stated the Beautification Committee was already working
on reforestation and studying the life of useable trees.
Commissioner Cohen reported that the trees were inspected, and were
deemed in good health with a life expectancy of 30 to 60 more years.
1
Attachment N
REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission
Meeting Minutes Excerpts
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Thursday, May 12, 2005
8. INACTIVE ITEMS
8.2 Easton Drive Eucalyptus Trees on Easton and Cabrillo
Chair Warden reported that he, Commissioner Cohen, and Traffic
Engineer Chou met with Parks & Rec Director Randy Schwartz to discuss
the area that this Commission would be evaluating, and to review the
Beautification and Parks Committee plans. He stated that a public hearing
would be scheduled later in the year.
1
Attachment
REMOVAL OF EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE
Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission
Meeting Minutes Excerpts
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Thursday, June 9, 2005
8. INACTIVE ITEMS
8.1 Easton Drive - Eucalyptus tree at Easton and Cabrillo
Traffic Engineer Chou reported that the Public Works Department
received new traffic counters, and that counts could be conducted in the
next month or so. However, it was questioned whether the data from the
counts would be accurate since the counts would not include school traffic
if done during summer.
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 14, 2005
8. INACTIVE ITEMS
8.1 Easton Drive - Eucalyptus tree at Easton and Cabrillo
Traffic Engineer reported that this item was still inactive due to
pending subcommittee action and the completion of traffic volume
counts that need to be conducted after school is in session.
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Thursday, August 11, 2005
8. INACTIVE ITEMS
8.1 Easton Drive - Eucalyptus tree at Easton and Cabrillo
Traffic Engineer Chou reported that he was expecting to conduct
traffic counts in September and have this item ready for discussion
in October.
1
op
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
LONG RANGE REFORESTATION PLAN FOR EASTON DRIVE
COMATUNITY MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006
OUR LADY OF ANGELS CATHOLIC SCHOOL
1721 HILLSIDE DRIVE CABRILLO AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Beautification Commission Chairperson
Leslie McQuaide.
Roll Call
Present: McQuaide, Lauder, Carney, O'Connor, Ellis
Absent: Grandcolas, Lahey
Staff: Parks &Recreation Director Schwartz, Parks Superintendent Richmond,
Parks Supervisor Disco
Guests: Hing &Lillian Dear, 1911 Easton Drive; Wayne Walden, 1613 Easton
Drive; Rich Reardon, 2012 Easton Drive; Scott Hill, 1908 Easton Drive;
Michael Bohnert, 19 Highland - 92; Steve Warden, 736 Acacia Drive;
Augustine Chou, City Hall —PW Dept.; Patrick Cloherty, 1912 Easton
Drive; Richard Medeghini, 1260 Bernal Avenue; John Faust, 1712 Easton
Drive; Helene Landry, 1705 Easton Drive; Anne Gouailhardou, 1809
Easton Drive; Martha Beslore, 1234 Vancouver Avenue; Sam Lahey,
1719 Easton Drive
From the Floor There were no comments from the floor.
Easton Reforestation
Chairperson McQuaide welcomed those in attendance. She reviewed the history and
current status of trees on Easton Drive (El Camino Real to Vancouver Avenue). She
described the historical role of Eucalyptus trees in the development of the street. She also
reviewed several trees species that were under consideration for reforestation of the
street.
Chairperson McQuaide then invited those in attendance to speak generally or specifically
about the development of a plan to reforest Easton Drive. The discussion included the
following questions and comments:
Beautification Commission Minutes
April 6, 2006—page 2
uestions
1) When would this plan take effect?
2) How long can the Eucs live?
3) Why are our Eucs not as straight as those on ECR?
4) Will this just be used for replacement or will they fill the spots where we park?
5) Will these be on private property or just in the planting strip?
6) How do you evaluate tree health?
7) Have the trees been resistograph tested?
Concerns
1) Need for parking spaces on Easton—Discussion
2) City should pay for sidewalk damage (bring JJR back on repairs)
3) Street would look terrible with no trees*
4) Safety of tree in front of library (traffic—reflectors)
5) Sense of uniformity— spacing—Mixed
6) Continue canopy above height on other streets - 91 —Discussion— 70'+
7) Evaluations— Safety
8) Light—Low priority
9) Wind protection—Low priority
10)Lean
11)Root barriers
12)Weight of branches—Falls
13)Disease resistant
14)Impacts of streets
15)Locations to plant—planting strip only or behind sidewalk
16)Don't plant on curb
Chairperson McQuaide thanked the attendees for coming to the meeting. There was a
general consensus to continue the discussion and begin to focus on specific solutions.
The meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m.
Respectively submitted,
Tim Richmond
Parks Superintendent
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
OCTOBER 5.2006
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
by Chairperson McQuaide.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson McQuaide, Carney, Grandcolas (late), and Wright
Absent: Commissioners Ellis,Lahey (Excused), and O'Connor(Medical)
Staff. Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, and Secretary Harvey
Guests: Dave Dockter, Managing Arborist, City of Palo Alto, John Faust (1712 Easton Dr.),
Donald Huff(2001 Easton Dr.), Stuart Coxhead (2316 Easton Dr.), Betty Jo & Lee
Wade (1608 Easton Dr.), Sherri Boismenu (1704 Easton Dr.), Jill Lauder (449
Bloomfield Rd.), Wayne & Susan Walder (1613 Easton Dr.), Helene Landry (1705
Easton Dr.), and Dawn Stefko (2012 Easton Dr.)
MINUTES — The Minutes of the September 7, 2006 Beautification Commission Meeting, were
approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to Ken & Susan Graven, 10 Clarendon Road, informing them that the Commission upheld the
appeal for the removal of a City owned Ligustrum tree, because of the noxious fruit complaint, and
recommended that a permit be issued to the Property Owners to remove and replace the tree with a
tree from the Official Street Tree list at their expense.
Flyer announcing the Community Meeting, hand delivered by Commissioners McQuaide and Lauder
to the Easton Drive residents.
Letter from the Beautification Commission to the Easton Drive Residents, informing them of the
upcoming Community Meeting on October 5th, at Our Lady of Angels Catholic School, to discuss
appropriate Eucalyptus varieties for the Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive.
Letter from Commissioner Jill Lauder to City Council stating that, after serving 5 terms on the
Beautification Commission, she would not be reapplying for another term.
Letter from Director Schwartz to the newly appointed Commissioner, Donna Wright, congratulating
her on the appointment to the Beautification Commission.
FROM THE FLOOR-None
COMMUNITY FORUM AND DISCUSSION
Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive - Chairperson McQuaide welcomed and thanked
those in attendance for coming to this community discussion. She stated that the existing Eucalyptus
trees are 100-150 years old and eventually when one of the trees needs removing, it will need
replacing. The Council has asked the Beautification Commission to work with the community to
develop a Long Range Reforestation Plan before any removals may occur on Easton Drive.
Commissioner Grandcolas reiterated that the "plan" is a vision of what might be planted when the
existing trees on Easton Drive reach the end of their natural life span and require removal, (on a one
to one basis) and that, this "plan" should not be confused with a wholesale removal and replacement
plan. Chairperson McQuaide explained that at the April 6th Community Meeting approximately 35%
of the Easton Drive residents (from El Camino to Vancouver)were present. Primary to their concerns
were safety and maintaining a uniform look, while keeping the unique, grandeur look, with a
somewhat lower canopy, on the street.
1
COMMUNITY FORUM AND DISCUSSION - Lone Ranee Reforestation Plan for Easton
Drive—(Contd.)
Chairperson McQuaide continued that it was also the general consensus of those attending the first
meeting that a more suitable Eucalyptus specie (that would meet the criteria discussed), would be the
preferred specie for the reforestation plan. She reported that the Committee took the input from that
meeting to develop a list of appropriate Eucalyptus species as recommended by Eucalyptus expert
and Managing Arborist, Dave Dockter, from the City of Palo Alto.
Chairperson McQuaide then provided a list of the different Eucalyptus species to the audience and
introduced Dave Dockter to provide information on the trees while Director Schwartz showed a slide
presentation of the recommended trees. Mr. Dockter commented that all the trees were selected for
hardiness; he remarked on the importance of having at least 2 different varieties to avoid developing
a monoculture He provided information on the varying sizes, height, structure, canopy, and
characteristics of each of the following Eucalyptus varieties: Citriodora Lemon-Scented Gum;
Cladocalyx Sugar Gum; Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum; Microtheca Tiny Capsule; Nicholli Willow-
Leafed Peppermint; Saligna Sydney Blue Gum. Mr. Dockter noted that the Eucalyptus specie was
introduced in the late 1800's and was primarily used to provide wind breaks and that though it is not
native to California, it is considered"naturalized", adapting well to the California climate.
Following the presentation, an open forum discussion was held with the Commission, Staff, Dave
Dockter, and the audience. Items discussed were: the importance of retaining the ongoing testing and
drilling of the existing Eucalyptus trees; continuation of routine maintenance practices; differences
between El Camino planting sites and CalTrans maintenance practices on El Camino from those
planting sites on Easton Drive and the City of Burlingame's maintenance practices; historical
information on the Eucalyptus specie; desired height, trunk size, structure, character, etc., as well as
the pros and cons of the different varieties.
Following the discussion, Director Schwartz clarified the group's consensus that two of the species
be considered for Easton Drive: One being the already existing street trees, the Tazmanian Blue
Gum, and second, the Cladocalyx Sugar Gum to be used as the primary replacement street tree. The
consensus of the group for the type of accent tree to be used on the corners of the blocks was the
Nicholii Willow-Leafed Peppermint; although the Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum was to be
considered as a possible replacement for the Eucalyptus tree fronting the Easton Branch Library.
Director Schwartz commented that the group's consensus would be discussed at the next
Beautification Commission meeting on November 2°d, that photos and descriptions of the
recommended trees would be distributed to the residents before the meeting, and that all are
encouraged to attend. He concluded that based on the outcome of the November meeting, staff will
create an Easton Drive Street Tree list to be presented and adopted by the Council before the end of
2006.
Chairperson McQuaide thanked Dave Dockter for sharing his expertise and thanked the audience for
the input shared to help establish a consensus for the long range plan.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by Chairperson McQuaide at 9:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Karlene Harvey
Recording Secretary
2
0
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
omu -\ phone: (650) 558-7300 - fax: (650) 696-7216 s �
rr
NGAME recreationgburlin a�org
M RANDUM
M E O
To: EASTON DRIVE RESIDENTS
From: Randy Schwartz, Parks & Recreation Director
Date: October 23, 2006
Re: EASTON DRIVE REFORESTATION
On October 5`", the Beautification Commission held their second public meeting regarding the
reforestation of Easton Drive at Our Lady of Angels. Approximately 15 members of the public were in
attendance, as well as Dave Dockter, Managing Arborist for the City of Palo Alto's Planning Division, 4
Beautification Commissioners and staff.
Group consensus was achieved on the following items:
Limiting the number of species used on Easton
Use of trees with large trunks
Use of accent trees
Focusing on fast growing trees, with minimal limb drop and residual debris
Two Species for Easton Drive Street Trees
TAZMANIAN BLUE GUM, the existing street tree, will be retained on the Easton Drive street
tree list
CLADOCALYX SUGAR GUM is recommended to be the primary replacement street tree
Use of Accent Trees
NICHOLII WILLOW-LEAFED PEPPERMINT will be used as an accent tree on the corners
of blocks
FICIFOLIA RED FLOWERING GUM is recommend for planting in front of the Easton
Branch Library
The Easton Drive Reforestation Plan will be discussed by the Beautification Commission at its
November 2, 2006 meeting. The public is invited to attend the meeting (which will be held at
Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road at 5:30pm) and give the Commission your comments
before a recommendation on an Easton Drive Street Tree List is made to the City Council.
Photos and descriptions of the recommended trees are on the next few pages.
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
; TASMANIAN BLUE GUM
The Tasmanian Blue Gum tree is the existing
R� street tree on Easton Drive. The Blue Gum's
large trunks are smooth and grayish-white
, x and its bark sheds in long reddish-brown
44
LL 2 r ribbons. The green, glossy leaves are 6 to 14
{< inches long on rounded stems and are sickle
k �� shaped. The yellow flowers produced by the
. ° # N Blue Gum in the fall, lack petals and so
assume a feathery starburst pattern with the
multitude of stamens arising from calyx. The
tree can grow in a variety of soil types,
. _ y growing rapidly up to 80 feet in its first 20
years, and can reach heights of up to 160 feet
in its introduced habitat of California.
f
CLADOCALYX SUGAR GUM _ "
The Sugar Gum is a hardy tree, IA
tolerating a wide variety of soil types, , ,,
and is one of the most striking of
eucalyptuses. Planted for structure, it ,' '{
has been used as a "Skyline" tree on
the Southern California coast with its
characteristic puffly clouds of foliage
separated by open spaces. In its native
t f
habitat it has been commonly planted
on farms in western
Victoria and South
Australia. The Cladocalyx sugar gum has shiny, reddish 3-5
inch leaves, oval or variable shaped. Its attractive bark sheds
yearly to reveal white, gray or yellow patches. The Sugar
Gum trunks are straight, tall, and stately, growing to 80+ feet.
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
NICHOLII WILLOW-LEAFED
- c PEPPERMINT , �
` ?Yan ro
z4`.
The Eucalyptus nicholii, commonly called the
Willow-leafed Peppermint, is awell-behaved,
graceful, weeping tree with narrow, willow-like,
'
decidedly blue leaves. The short, narrow
leaves which have a distinctive peppermint
aroma when crushed, disappear into the ground
S cover. It has a compact crown and is resistant to
frost. The matted bark is rough, does not shed,
and ranges in color from yellow/brown to
gray/brown. The Eucalyptus nicholii which has
been cultivated in Australia and California as an ornamental street or shade
tree, tolerates heat, any soil, is drought resistant, and can reach up to 50' in
warmer climates.
FICIFOLIA RED FLOWERING GUM
The Ficifolia red flowering gum is native to
Western Australia. The Red-Flowering �
Gum is a tidy, round headed tree and has a
striking appearance with its bright red ,
flowers, in the spring and the fall, cast -.n.
against the dark brown-green leaves and the
rough gray bark. The Red-Flowering Gum
is not detrimental to gardens, as it has a very
deep root system allowing plants and lawn ,
to be grown right up to it. It is a drought- s 4
tolerant species and will grow up to 40 feet.
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
Benefits of Urban Street TreesC'SFortsrSer3x ktccandfigratsaridrierrnarRrrzgfep midk;
demii»ramirra, =n�ernae�auCfir.. Once:evna.high{problenaarirfaa•nornlyret.or•,xncernee,sareprinirrgrobea
eraanniuero;r:-cpia�i•,•ing,tOri71r2.,hoMM-g,:garbmr.�a:e4ngnr;dmoroerr_e in and rhrvughwt! pincat.
I Reduced and more appropriate 1 Create safer walking :.Trees call for
urban traffic speeds.Uftanstreettree- environments.by forming and planting strips,
creareverc.alwa:ls:ra=mi!strezts•and :rammg vt;ua:wa.ls and provid tk wt-.ch further
a defined edge.helping motorists guide distinct edges to s:iewniks so that separate motorists
the:,movement and assess the:r speed motorists better distinguistbetneen from pedestrians.
leading to overall speed reductions). their environment and one shared buildings act other
mitt peop.e. urban fabric
Increased security..Mees create more pleasamr walking
err:roomenc.bringing aboiti mcreasedwalkicg.talkmg. S.Imp roved business.Businesses ontreescapec
price.care of place.assoc:auot ace therefore asoma streets 0:bw', `_iz:;eriincome-reams.an:d.
ownership and survei:laner
ce of homes, blocks. is often the essecta:compeve ecle teecec
neighborhoods plazas.businesses and other civic spaces far main street store-access,venus:ompeti�ot
from plaza discount score prices
d.Less drainage infrastructure.
Trees absorb the firstW.ofmost Rain:sun,heat and skinprotectian.ror S Reduced harm from tailpipe
precipitation throigh their leaf ti€rte:moderate timm.pedesr-iansfind lei; emissions.-ailp:peermsmonsareaddmg
system.allowmgetapormonback reed for rain protection -emperature to asthma•ozone and otter healti
into the atmosphere.Thismoisrare differentials of S-l: degrees are felt when impacts. Impacts are reduced
never hits the grouci walkicg under tree canopied streets si=nificantly from protdmity to trees.
9. Gas transformation lig.Lower urban air temperatures.Asphalt and cocaete treeis aciparkirig lots are
efficiency. Trees :n street known to:caease•araan temperntaree=•'degrees A properly shaded neighborhood.
proximity absorb 9 times more mouly from ubac-Meet trees.can reduce energy bills for a hoasehold from L-?S'.
pollutants than more distant
trees,converting harmfu:gasses 11.Lower Ozone.lncreaeee in urban street temperances di,ecdv above asphalt where
back into o%vgen and other taiip:peemtsswmioccur dtamancatlyincrease creation ofharmfulozone and otter easses
nsefj*ntdnatural zMes. into more nom Ioussubstancesimpactcg'lea:rhofpeop.e,an:ma:sand agnculwallands
12.Convert streets,parking and walls into more aesthetically pleasing environments.There are few
streetmakicg e.emen:s,,Ut do as much to when wide.grey v:saal wa-.:e'.acis created by wide streets,
parking lots and massive.but sometimes necessary Katk walls ttrc trees
li Soften and screen :a.Reduced blood pressure,improved overall emotional and
necessary streetfeaturessuch psychological health.People are impacted by ugly_ or attractve
as utility poles.:ightpoles aci enri:an en:>where:-.es spend nme
otter needed street fmcittce.
Trees are h:ghl•effective at Time in travel perception.rlotorsts perceive it takes longer to mi.,
screening those other vertical get the ni zl:a:reeles s environment trip than ace that is ueei r•
features to roadways tzar are :6.Reduced road rage.Motorist road rage a:ess in green urban ver sus stark suburban areas
needed for many safety and Trees and aest::etics.which reduce blood pressure.may tand:e some of this calming effect
functional reasons.
:'.Improved operations potential.A yen properly posidanee ani maintn:nei the Backdrop
of street trees allow features such as vital traffic s:gns to be bene,seen
18 Added value to adjacent 19.Filtering and screening agent.Softens and screensutility po:es.lgttpo'--
homes,businesses and tax and other features creating visua:pollution to the street
base.Ferd=based essimnres
ofsceet tree versus non mem. 20.Longer pavement life_ Studies m a variety of Ga:iforma emtronmem i
tree comparable str",.srelate showt_e:"nceo,&Dan-,zTeeta-esadcitoin 404(r.more tfe To costly asphalt
n S15-25.000 increase:n ?..Connection to mature and the human semses.::rbac street teesprovae
tome orBustnessvalue. z canopy ncd rbor stractire for a comformble urbzn-dant.
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 2. 2006
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
by Chairperson McQuaide.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson McQuaide (departed at 7:05), Carney (departed at 7:05), Ellis, Lahey,
O'Connor (arrived at 6:20), and Wright
Absent: Commissioner Grandcolas
Staff. Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, and Secretary Harvey
Guests: Terra Pratt (2116 Easton Dr.) and Dawn Stefko (2012 Easton Dr.); Doug Pherson
(PG&E Area Supervisor), Erin Parks(PG&E Vegetation Manager), and Tacy Alferos
(PG&E Public Affairs)
MINUTES — The Minutes of the October 5, 2006 Beautification Commission Meeting, were
approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE
-- -- Lettei from-Director-Schwartz to Ciiy of P—la o Afto City Manager, Frank Benest, thanking the City of
Palo Alto for allowing Managing Arborist, Dave Dockter, to participate in the Community meeting
on October 2nd, and to share his expertise and knowledge with the Commission and Community
members.
Key Ethics Law Principles for Public Servants from the Institute for Local Government.
Letter from Superintendent Richmond thanking former Commissioner Jill Lauder, for the 5 terms
served on the Beautification Commission, for her commitment to the urban forest, as well as her
dedication and reliability to the Commission.
Letter from Jennifer Pfaff regarding street tree policies in the City of Burlingame, stating that the
planting of one or two types of trees in neighborhoods, (to give a more elegant, cohesive look), be
considered, rather than allowing homeowners to choose the types of replacement trees from the
Official Street Tree lists.
FROM THE FLOOR — None
OLD BUSINESS
Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive — Director Schwartz complimented the
Commission for the excellent public outreach to gain consensus on the Easton Drive Reforestation
plan. Residents on Easton Drive were sent a copy of tonight's agenda as well as the brochure
recommending select Eucalyptus varieties as replacement trees when removal of an existing
Eucalyptus tree is required. Chairperson McQuaide thanked Director Schwartz for creating the
picture brochure and the information provided on the different trees. Director Schwartz noted that if
the Commission approves the selected replacement species, the recommendation will be forwarded to
the Council for its approval at the December meeting.
Chairperson McQuaide then recognized guests, Terra Pratt (2116 Easton Drive) and Dawn Stefko
(2012 Easton Drive). They stated that they were there to just to listen but were pleased to know that
the existing trees would only be removed when necessary on a case by case basis and will be
replaced with suitable Eucalyptus varieties.
1
OLD BUSINESS—
Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive—(Contd.)
Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Carney moved that it be recommended to the City
Council that the existing Tasmanian Blue Gum be retained on the Easton Drive street tree list, the
Cladocalyx Sugar Gum be used as the primary replacement tree, the Nicholii Willow-leafed
Peppermint be used as the corner accent tree, and the Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum be used for the
replacement in front of the Easton Branch Library; seconded, Commissioner Wright. Motion carried
4—0—2 (absent/Grandcolas, O'Connor) 1 (abstain/Lahey).
P.G.&E. Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame
Chairperson McQuaide stated that representatives from P.G.&E. have been invited to discuss current
pruning practices and concerns made by the public with regard to those practices.
Doug McPherson, Area Supervisor, stated that he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the
Commission regarding these issues, that P.G.&E. wants to cooperate with the Communities they
serve. He stated that P.G.&E. is proud that for 12 years in a row, they have been awarded the "Best
Management Practices" award. He noted that safety and reliability is P.G&E.'s primary goal and
_ that it is a state law that the trees be a minimum distance of 18" from the power lines. Every line is
linspected every year; foresters then identify the trees that need trimming for line clearance. The
contractor, Asplundh Tree Company, most often trims to the "Best Practices" trimming standards,
but at times is unable to because of the previous pruning practices on some trees i.e., pollarded
Sycamores. He concluded that the tree crews receive extensive training but admitted that some
crews are better than others.
The Commission further discussed with Doug McPherson and Erin Parks the different pruning
techniques, options for homeowners, notification of property owners, registering complaints, crew
scheduling and monitoring, identifying pruning circuits/schedules/maps,yearly permits with the City,
bidding practices with pruning contractors, undergrounding of power lines, replacement of trees that
are damaged due to pruning techniques, etc. Mr. McPherson stated he would be interested in
meeting with City Staff and Commission representatives on site to discuss with him, Erin, and Carlos
(Asplundh crew supervisor) specific trees or areas that were improperly trimmed and how the job
could be done differently. Erin Parks believed that schedules/circuits could be provided to the City
to assist with public communication and that, the crews could be reminded of the "Best Practices"
standard that is to be followed. She also stated that P.G.&E. is currently updating their website to
help provide better information to the public and that complaints to the 1-800-743-5000 number are
responded to within a week.
Following the discussion it was the consensus of the Commission and the P.G.&E. representatives
that a meeting with Staff and a Commission representative be scheduled for mid December, early
January. The Commission will provide specific trees/areas of particular concern to be discussed.
Street Tree Planting in Vacant Areas—"Street Tree Reforestation Proiect"
Superintendent Richmond reported that the Council approved the project to plant trees in targeted
planter strips throughout the City that are vacant. Funding will be considered in the 2007-2008
Budget. He stated that the Commission has been asked to determine areas to be planted and
brainstorm ideas to get the public involved. Director Schwartz stated that the Commission will need
to begin to identify other funding sources such as grant opportunities, bequests, or individual
donations to the general fund; that this project will not be funded through the existing "Tree
Replacement Fund". He noted that he and Superintendent Richmond would be meeting with the City
Planner, Meg Monroe, to discuss mandating street tree planting for residential reconstruction or
remodels as well as for commercial developments.
2
OLD BUSINESS—
Street Tree Plantine in Vacant Areas—"Street Tree Reforestation Proiect"(Contd.)
Director Schwartz directed the Commission to the letter submitted by Jennifer Pfaff that addresses a
changing philosophy to that of the existing street tree policies,suggesting the planting of only one or
two species on a block to provide a more uniform look. Secretary Harvey reported that currently on
blocks that have only one species, attempts are made whenever possible to replace with the same
species, but that primary utility lines and narrow planter strips sometimes hinder those attempts.
Director Schwartz stated that as part of the Street Tree Reforestation Project,the Commission may
also wish to discuss with different neighborhoods, different reforesting policies for their block,
similar to the process used on Easton Drive. Superintendent Richmond also noted that there are
property owners that do not want trees in front of their homes and that those and other issues of
concern such as responsibility for sidewalk damage would also need to be addressed.
Commissioner Ellis then read a list of areas identified by Chairperson McQuaide as needing street
tree planting: Ray Drive near El Camino Real,Vancouver Avenue &Easton Drive, and Laguna
Avenue near Lincoln & Edgehill. She then noted that Jennifer Pfaff had suggested Bayswater
Avenue as a block having numerous vacant planting strips. Director Schwartz directed the
Commission to identify other areas needed for planting and to report back at the next meeting.
NEW BUSINESS-
Reinstatement of Landscape Award
The Commission briefly discussed reinstating the Landscape Award. Commissioner Lahey stated
that she had researched what other cities do and will provide the information to the Commission for
the December meeting for further discussion.
Arbor Day Ceremony—Wednesday,March 7,2007 at 10:00 am
Superintendent Richmond asked for suggestions for planting sites. Commissioner O'Connor
suggested that Village Park could use more trees.It was the consensus of the Commission that unless
there are any other suggested sites,the Arbor Day Ceremony be held at Village Park. Secretary
Harvey will check with the Burlingame Elementary School District to confirm that there are no
conflicts with the date.
The Commission also discussed incorporating Arbor Day into the centennial theme by planting 100
trees as part of the Arbor Day Ceremony in 2008. Director Schwartz stated that additional funding
would be required to plant that many trees and planning well in advance would be necessary. The
Commission asked that the Arbor Day Ceremony for 2008 be placed on the next agenda.
REPORTS
Superintendent Richmond
a. Removals: Siberian Elm at 1145 Oxford(major lateral failed and exposed decay and
failure potential of additional laterals); diseased Pine in Washington Park next to
Basketball Court;diseased Pine in rear of Washington Park.Both Pines were in serious
decline from Pine Pitch Canker..
b. Fall Tree Planting is near completion. Over 130 trees were planted.
c. Tree Contract pruning is continuing on Skyline Blvd. Contract crew has completed the
block from Margarita to Rivera. Crew will complete some work assignments on Easton
then resume pruning on Skyline where work stopped last spring.
d. From Council concerning Commission attendance: Council has asked that Staff report
attendance,late arrivals, early departures, and those who were present when quorums
could not be obtained.
3
REPORTS — (Contd.)
Director Schwartz
Director Schwartz reported to the Commission that injured tree worker Fel Esikia is rehabilitating at
home but it will be several weeks or months before he can return to work.
Commissioner Ellis
Commissioner Ellis reported that she attended the Town Hall Meeting arranged by Councilman
Cohen, and reported on some of the various suggestions offered up by the public: planting of only
deciduous trees; only allowing 2 to 3 different species on each block; developing an Arts and
Entertainment Commission.
Commissioner O'Connor
Commissioner O'Connor apologized for being late but stated that at times, she is unable to leave
work and at other times commute traffic interferes. After a brief discussion, the Commission asked
that meeting time be placed on the next agenda for further discussion.
Commissioner Wright
Commissioner Wright announced that she would be out of town for the December Commission
meeting but stated she would like to serve on the Landscape Award Committee, the 2008 Arbor
Day Committee, or any other Committees that may be formed during her absence.
Commissioner Lahey
Commissioner Lahey reported that she attended the Town Hall Meeting and participated in a
round table discussion led by Council person, Ann Keighran, regarding: trash and overflowing
garbage cans in the business districts and in the parking lots, garbage in the grates, assessments
for street cleaning, steam cleaning sidewalks, etc., various ideas for clean up projects, and
coordinating volunteer efforts for ongoing cleanups including ways to get the community to
participate.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Karlene Harvey
Recording Secretary
4
0
CIT7
BUPUNGAME
b
�o a°
�Rnr[b pure b.
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting of December 4, 2006
STUDY SESSION
SOUTH BAY WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY CONTRACTOR SELECTION PROCESS
Robert Hilton of HF&H Consultants presented aspects of the contractor selection process.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Mayor Terry Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Fiona Hamilton.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran,Nagel, O'Mahony
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. MINUTES
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2006 regular Council
meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Cohen
abstained).
5. PRESENTATIONS
a. LAUNCH OF CITY'S NEW WEBSITE
Mayor Nagel announced the official launch of the City's new website. Officer Ronda Caine-Alcantara, the
City's Website Committee Chair, displayed the website at www.burlin ame.org and reviewed the highlights.
Mayor Nagel commended the City staff members and community volunteers who spent many hours
developing the new site. CM Nantell presented Certificates of Recognition to the following volunteers: Joe
Bojues, Don Donoughe, Jo-Ellen Ellis, Julianna Fuerbringer, Stephen Hamilton, Anne Hennegar, Kent
Lauder,Norm Persing, Alex Veech, Charles Voltz, Councilman Cohen and Mayor Nagel. A memento was
presented to City staff members who were instrumental in helping to develop the new website, including
former employee, Netie Shinday, who had been the initial Website Committee Chair.
1
Burlingame City Council December 4,2006
Approved Minutes
b. AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FROM THE GOVERNMENT
FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA AND CANADA
FinDir Nava presented the City of Burlingame with the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting as awarded by the Government Officers Association of America and Canada.
C. KEY INDICATORS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
FC Reilly presented the key indicators and related accomplishments since the establishment of the Central
County Fire Department in April 2004. Vice Mayor O'Mahony commended Chief Reilly for his diligence,
leadership and loyalty.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION ON SKIN CARE CLINIC
AND SPA USE AS A HEALTH SERVICE USE
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and consider an appeal by
SkinSpirit of the Planning Commission's determination on skin care clinic and spa use as a health service
use. SkinSpirit's application is for a skin care clinic and spa and administration of Botox treatments to be
located in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District where health services are not
permitted.
Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: John Ward, representing the
applicant, Lynne Heublin, Debbie Sharp and Stacey Yates of SkinSpirit, and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa
Avenue.
Council comments: the definition of businesses in this zoning area may be outdated; this is a personal service
business; Botox is an FDA-approved drug requiring a licensed medical professional to administer injections;
Botox injections are a health service.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's determination; seconded by
Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Baylock dissented).
Vice Mayor O'Mahony encouraged the applicant to participate in the Specific Area Plan for Howard Avenue
this coming year.
b. ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR YEAR 2007 FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID)
CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing on the levy of
assessments for 2007 in the San Mateo County Tourism BID and to adopt Resolution No. 94-2006. CA
Anderson advised that the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau(SMCCVB) had provided
Council with a letter responding to Council's questions posed at the November 6th regular Council meeting.
Councilman Cohen asked about the benefits of Burlingame being the lead agency for the BID. Anne LeClair,
CEO of the SMCCVB, stated that at the inception of the BID, Burlingame was chosen because it had the
most to gain from its high number of hotel rooms. Councilman Cohen also asked about the Film Commission
and its potential for bringing more revenue into San Mateo County. Ms. LeClair advised that the Film
2
Burlingame City Council December 4,2006
Approved Minutes
Commission had facilitated an increased number of productions and was instrumental in building
tremendous relationships in the industry.
Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 94-2006 establishing and levying 2007
assessments for San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and approving programs and
activities for 2007; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was passed unanimously by voice
vote, 5-0.
At Councilman Cohen's request to invite the Film Commissioner to train our staff to better promote
Burlingame productions, CM Nantell advised that the City would meet with SMCCVB.
C. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1795 TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR ISSUING A
DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CLARIFICATION OF PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE
WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1795 amending the Municipal Code to issue a Demolition Permit and clarification of
penalties for work done without a Building Permit.
Councilman Cohen stated that while he understands the urgency to adopt this ordinance as introduced, he
expressed the desire to revisit this ordinance at the earliest appropriate time to make it more robust.
Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on this item. There were no
further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1795 amending Chapter 18.07
to specify requirements for issuance of a Demolition Permit, to clarify civil penalties for work without
construction permits, and to clarify the fee schedule for construction permits; seconded by Councilwoman
Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Nagel directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
John Root, 728 Crossway Road spoke on the Tourism BID. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, requested
Planning Commission meetings be televised. Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue, spoke on the Citizens
for a Better Burlingame's presentation on the results of Burlingame's charrette. There were no further
comments from the floor.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. UPDATE ON PLANS FOR CELEBRATION OF BURLINGAME'S CENTENNIAL
ANNIVERSARY
P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council provide direction regarding plans for the
Centennial celebration, a Centennial magazine, and the proposed Centennial monument design competition.
3
Burlingame City Council December 4,2006
Approved Minutes
Councilwoman Baylock provided a sample anniversary guide with no advertising and a sample fundraising
brochure. She stated that the Burlingame Historical Society is sponsoring the making of a hardcover
Centennial book covering Burlingame's history. Vice Mayor O'Mahony stated that the estimated cost of
$28,000 for the Centennial Magazine is high and prefers a more simple publication especially since formal
fundraising has not yet begun. She suggested that the generous in-kind newspaper donors, San Mateo County
Times and the Daily Journal, might provide advance publicity of Centennial events in their publications.
Councilwoman Keighran stated that she has seen no budget and was concerned about fundraising.
Councilman Cohen stated that other communities have promoted events that educate their citizens on the
history aspect of the event and have asked their local newspapers to publish quarterly commemorative
supplements to provide event updates. Some events appear to have no historical relationship. He also
suggested projects be considered and possibly to narrow down the number of events to keep volunteer
interest high. Mayor Nagel suggested a commemorative booklet be published rather than a magazine and
would like to see a specific budget, as well as specific plans for the events with the names of those who will
be putting on the events. She stated that with so many Centennial events, we may be competing with other
community events already planned.
On the Centennial monument design competition, Mayor Nagel stated that the Executive Committee met
with the architectural community. They suggested that to receive serious design proposals, we should offer a
dollar amount. The committee recommended $3,000 for placing first, $2,000 for second, and $1,000 for
third. Entries should reflect a collaborative effort by engineers, architects and artists for a comprehensive
proposal and include, if possible, an entire plaza concept for the west side of the Burlingame Train Station.
Councilman Cohen requested that the competition be open to everyone.
Council requested that the number of events be narrowed down, each event should be tested against its
historical objective, the Centennial publication should be a simple booklet; a detailed Centennial plan with
budget figures be presented in February; and the monument competition be open to everyone.
b. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
CA Anderson explained that the new appointment process reflects interim changes due to the full Council
now taking part in the interview process. As each candidate's name is called out, Council members may vote
for as many appointments that are to be made.
As a result of the voting process, J. Mark Noworolski received three votes (Baylock, Cohen and O'Mahony)
and was appointed to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission.
C. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Councilman Cohen stated that he would abstain from the voting process since he did not fully participate in
the interview process for the two Civil Service Commission seats.
As a result of the voting process explained in Item 8.b., Elise Clowes, who received four votes (Baylock,
Keighran,Nagel and O'Mahony), and Jeffery Griffith, who received three votes (Baylock, Keighran and
Nagel), were appointed to the Civil Service Commission.
4
Burlingame City Council December 4,2006
Approved Minutes
d. ADOPTION OF EASTON DRIVE STREET TREE LIST
P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt the Easton Drive Street Tree List as
recommended by the Beautification Commission. The list consists of Tasmanian Blue Gums, Cladocalyx
Sugar Gums as the primary replacement street trees,Nicholii Willow-Leafed Peppermints as accent trees on
the corners, and the Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum to be used in front of the Easton Branch Library.
Council concerns: Sugar Gum tree is still a type of Eucalyptus, looks like a lollipop-shaped tree, bark sheds
as often as the Blue Gum; immature replacement trees will not create a canopy. Council requested
photographs of Sugar Gums at different stages of maturity.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to adopt the Easton Drive Street Tree List; seconded by Councilman
Cohen. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Keighran dissented).
e. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION TO REMOVE
TREE IN FRONT OF EASTON BRANCH LIBRARY
P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and determine
whether to support or deny the recommendation of the Beautification Commission to allow the Eucalyptus
Tree located at 1800 Easton Drive to be removed and replaced.
Asst. DPW Murtuza stated that this item had been discussed by a joint subcommittee made up of
commissioners from the Traffic, Safety and Parking and Beautification Commissions. They looked at
alternatives to replacing the tree, such as one way street traffic, cutting some of the tree roots, and
realignment of the street which would cost approximately $120,000. Engineering staff looked at existing
volumes of traffic and how other streets would be impacted if Easton Drive were one way.
Council concerns: tree roots in street cause traffic to stop; cars must drive around the roots which are too
high to drive over; need a current traffic study to determine impacts; consider shifting the outside curb as an
alternative.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to support the Beautification Commission's recommendation to allow
the Eucalyptus located at 1800 Easton Drive to be removed and replaced; Mayor Nagel amended the motion
by adding the provision that a specific plan be filed to show what the area would look like with the new tree
and new signage in the area and to include the timing of the tree replacement; seconded by Councilwoman
Keighran. The amended motion was approved by voice vote, 3-2 (Baylock and Cohen dissented).
f. NATIONAL CITIZENS SURVEY
CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and requested Council concur with his recommendation to participate
in the ICMA National Citizen Survey as part of the California Regional Consortia.
The City of Palo Alto has taken the initiative to form a consortia of peninsula cities as a way for each city to
get more value for their money and to ensure that data from other nearby cities can be used to compare
results.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve participation in the ICMA National Citizen Survey;
seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
5
Burlingame City Council December 4,2006
Approved Minutes
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Nagel requested removal of Item c. from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
a. APPROVE ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICES OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR
CA Anderson requested Council accept the rotation list for Mayor and Vice Mayor for the coming year.
b. RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2007
CC Mortensen requested Council accept the 2007 City Council Assignments.
d. UPDATE AND RESOLUTION NO. 93-2006 ACCEPTING MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIR
PROJECT BY HILLSIDE DRILLING
Asst. DPW Murtuza provided Council with a progress update of emergency repairs to the Mills Canyon
mudslide and requested Council approve Resolution No. 93-2006 accepting improvements for Mills Canyon
Slide Repair by Hillside Drilling Company
e. MAP AMENDMENT TO RECORDED CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR UNITS 401 AND 402,
LOT B, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME LAND CO. MAP NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 345 LORTON
AVENUE
Asst. DPW Murtuza requested Council approve the condominium map amendment for Units 401 and 402 at
345 Lorton Avenue.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve Items a., b., d. and e. of the Consent Calendar; seconded
by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
C. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT 2007 CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
Mayor Nagel stated that the scheduled date of the Commissioners' Dinner would be announced at a later date
and requested that the scheduled date of March 2, 2007,be removed from the Calendar.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the amended 2007 City Council Calendar; seconded by
Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on several community issues. There were no further comments from
the floor.
12. OLD BUSINESS
After viewing Caltrain's fencing plan, Councilwoman Baylock requested staff to ensure that Caltrain would
place their fence behind the foliage and that no mature foliage would be removed.
6
Burlingame City Council December 4,2006
Approved Minutes
Mayor Nagel thanked the following outgoing commissioners for their service to the community:
Gene Condon, of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission, and Linda Lees Dwyer and Rolando Pasquali,
of the Civil Service Commission.
13. NEW BUSINESS
Mayor Nagel announced that after conferring with the City Manager, staff responses to Council requests for
updates would be provided at the meeting following the request.
Councilman Cohen requested Council and staff consider term limits for commissioners in the future.
Council set January 2, 2007, as the hearing date for the Planning Commission appeal of 3 Rio Court.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, September 14, 2006; Beautification,
November 2, 2006; Planning,November 13 &November 27, 2006
b. Department Reports: Police, October 2006; Finance, October 2006
c. Letter from Comcast concerning a price increase for cable services effective January 1, 2007
15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting to the Closed Session at 11:11 p.m. in memory of Wacek Dennaoui,
Manager of local Comcast services.
CLOSED SESSION
CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following:
a. Threatened litigation(Government Code §54956.9(b)(1),(3)(c)): Claims of Rosa Oliva; Jocelyn
Najera; Patricia Cano; and claim of Ali Kuc and Sahite Kuc
b. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government code §54957.6:
City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Deirdre Dolan
Labor Organizations: BAMM, Fire, Fire Administration, Department Heads and Unrepresented
Group, and Teamsters
16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 11:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Doris J. Mortensen
City Clerk
7
Burlingame City Council December 4,2006
Approved Minutes
1800 BLOCK EASTON DRIVE REALIGNMENT REVISED December 12,2006
ITEM ESTIMATED ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1 CONSTRUCTION SITE SURVEY 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $5,000.00
2 SITE DEMOLITION 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $15,000.00
3 CONCRETE BASE REMOVAL 135 C.Y. $ 85.00 $11,475.00
4 INSTALL 12"AGG.BASE 660 TON $ 40.00 $26,400.00
5 INSTALL 1.5"LEVELING COURSE 80 TON $ 80.00 $6,400.00
6 1 INSTALL 2.5"AC SURFACE 135 TON $ 80.00 $10,800.00
7 JENGINEERED PAVING MAT 975 S.Y. $ 5.00 $4,875.00
8 SIDEWALK&DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT 800 S.F. $ 12.00 $9600.00
9 INSTALL CURB&GUTTER 650 L.F. $ 40.00 $26,000.00
10 INSTALL CURB RAMPS 4 EACH $ 2,000.00 $8,000.00
11 ADJUST MANHOLES 1 EACH $ 400.00 $400.00
12 SEWER CLEANOUT RELOCATION 5 EACH $ 1,200.00 $6,000.00
13 TRAFFIC MARKING&SIGNS 1 L.S. $ 2,000.00 $2,000.00
14 lUTILITY POLE RELOCATION 2 EACH $ 5,000.00 $10,000.00
SUBTOTAL: $141,950.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE $151,950.00
CONTINGENCY(10%) $15,195.00
ENGINEERING&INSPECTION(10%) $15,195.00
TOTAL ESTIMATE $182,340.00
NOTES:
1 STREET LENGTH:600'.STREE ROW WIDTH:80'. AC PAVEMENT WIDTH:22'. SIDEWALK WIDTH:V EACH SIDE.
PLANTING STRIP WIDTH:16'-20'EACH SIDE.
2 UTILITY RELOCATIONS SUCH AS SEWER,WATER,PG&E ARE NOT INCLUDED BUT MAY BE REQUIRED.THE COST IS
NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ESTIMATE.IN ADDITION,TWO PHONE POLES NEED TO BE RELOCATED.
3 TWO TREES ON SOUTH OF THE STREET MAY NEED TO BE REMOVED.THE COST IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ESTIMATE.
f/ 1 ,
f
l /
0 `
fi
0,
f
24' f
80' \ SD'
1809 = \ >>
8
Faole to be relo ted
Tree to be r oved 4W I
due to re- I nment 4)��
re-al ' ned /
Isting J
�O ,1 7
°8
The City of Burlingame EASTON DRIVE RE-ALIGNMENT Date: 12/28/06
Public works Department Scale: NTS
P (preliminary concept) Drawn by: Jon Roldan
EUCALYPTUS TREE AT
1800 EASTON DRIVE
AGENDA
Background
Issues
' Process
Options
Public input
Council direction
BACKGROUND
Easton Drive is a 2-lane collector street with daily traffic volume
of over 2000 vehicles
oadway segment between EI Camino Real and Vancouver is
lined with large old-growth eucalyptus trees
Tree trunk and root of a large eucalyptus tree have encroached
significantly into the roadway forming a hump and reduced the
effective width of the road to essentially one lane
One reported accident at the location
r W
ri ,��rppr�
Wi
r ,`J
f rl J:
r'1
r
f
r ('r
Z J yh fJ
Fm
r �
,J ..
((Ji abs ".
Cf)
W � k. r�• o
LLrJr rJJ
1,lxrfl' r rt
QJ: 1J
t,Sr v r'f lU f
i'
The Ckyof Burlingame EASTON DRIVE REALIGNMENT dad' IM
Scale;NTS
v-16C wall OVEIRUL reliMha 0onte t DIM l' ,o•coed.
CAM" r _
y
7. r
r
• •
p
x
z.
, � 1
r ' llll)`r
FM 4
W
Wrf ......
LL
LL OL 6 8 L 9 54
'IN 10
4-a
wl
W4-a,�
3rd.
4-j O
U)
C
FM
� Ct3
AM AS
� ' ti •,l
{ A �
[ � V
�1�
HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO SPEED
HUMP? OR SPEED TABLE?
aoS
, — iz1.nX
9E
a a a
Speed Tables/Humps are 3 to 3 1/2 inch high with maximum 4 inch height
Typical length of 22 — 24 feet across the street
State wide accepted design standards and supported by Traffic Engineers institute
ISSUES
Westbound vehicular traffic goes into the opposite lane to avoid
driving over the hump creating potential for head-on collision
1 Risk of vehicle collision with the tree trunk
Vehicle under-carriage damage
e
Roadway maintenance is not performed due to the risk of tree
roots damage and stability of the tree
Storm water ponding
i
I�
�J
x
fr
DR NG OVER tE HUMP ( 1 )
i
�. r
WESTBOUND
DRIVING OVER THE HUMP(2)
y
EAST BOUND
DRIVE RSV0RC ED INTO OPPOSITE
LANE
t
r,
.vim'^► � - �`�'.( �----
N
,r
;.
�`" _
• •
� .., ri.. , �'� i '
_- � �'
{ _ . �'
,:
�,: �;�
`:
r- � a'y � a ...,��.-.�.,v... c — � 'r'
Y r�. „"" ,
��,
t �.-i ��RF'."
__
•�; ..
�.
..... H:
. . r �,.,�..,�
_, � ;.
_., . � x
f
,.
-+
��"
<..
,� �,.,� ..� .: u�� ,; �
,�
� e
�r
Y;
xVE C
LLE U ` E RCARRIAG E DAMAG E
p•. � r,Ai( �„ Y,6Tc w� t,�,T`,Fs y'� ✓'�!� .t 5%" ,5" {" ��y,�1Ak-�y'�� �' ,*,�
V n. TS
y
,r
1.# '.
• t \ 'r � �
' �,, r�,
� .,`. ,.,
rr
,� .. �
�� � ��
,� `
� � ,�
,. r ���(�
��� r, .• �� �IL�
E ,: IL
..�. ,
i 1�. � �u
� t;
�` r
/, '���
.t� ',�►1 Iy�.
�zt���� •��.�' •I71• ;t�+ .�
i �
,.
t
_ '�1:�Ss .r ,,
_ �. ,,. °:
„t
J k k,r �".
t +� a� '�4
-� .�
rn
. .
. : � . _: �;
p�
���f
..
� t �
rn
z
z
n
. . r ���� rn
` 7e
i
it
64
`e.` e l �_.. •
l�
§ J
t
r
d i �
r
PROCESS
Mar 2004, staff consulted City arborist regarding the tree and
presented issues with the trees
Oct 2004, Mayne tree arborist conducted evaluation of the tree
and determined it to be in generally good health
Feb 2005, the issue was presented to Beautification
Commission (BC). The Commission recommended tree
removal
Feb 2005, Library Board recommended tree removal
Mar 2005, the BC decision was appealed to the City Council.
Council directed BC to develop a reforestation plan before
considering the decision to remove the tree. Also, the Council
requested the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) to
review traffic issues
PROCESS
Mar 2005 — Nov 2005, TSPC conducted field meetings and
held several discussions regarding possible options. They
considered a traffic study for one-way street option , but was not
undertaken due to skewed traffic data caused by school
summer recess and construction activity on Easton Drive.
Therefore, it decided to wait for the results of the reforestation
plan and not to proceed with an expensive unfunded traffic
study
kp r' 2006 - Nov 2006, the BC held several meetings and
worked to develop a workable reforestation plan with
community input
Dec 2006, the Council approved the reforestation plan and also
voted to remove the eucalyptus tree
Almost 3y ears have been exhausted on this issue
t
OPTIONS
Options with reflectors , signage, delineators
and striping are not presented as they do not
meet roadway design standards
OPTION 1
Preserve the tree by re-aligning the road ($180,000)
Advantages:
eliminates potential vehicle head-on collisions
eliminates potential vehicle undercarriage damage
reduces potential of vehicle collision with tree
eliminates storm water ponding
allows for regular roadway maintenance
preserves afull-growth mature tree
Disadvantages:
possible need to remove other trees to accommodate
re-alignment
most expensive option and diverts CIP funding from other
safety projects
EASTON DRIVE RE -ALIGNMENT
; i
24'
r �r fp
--•_�_
k F 1,30
._.
ole to be re'd ed
Tree to be f oved
due to re.- gn menl
y-
re-al- ned
e listing -
f
r Y , ✓'�
The City of Burlin yame EASTON DRIVE REALIGNMENT u�: Ism
Scale: NTS
P%Jdk VA— 1 Dm IFU IL rel imina ry Conae Qr&1A UY: j•5.1bud
OPTION 2
Replace the tree and repair the roadway ($20,000)
Advantages:
eliminates potential
- vehicle head-on collisions
- vehicle undercarriage damage
- vehicle collision with tree
- storm water ponding
allows for regular roadway maintenance
does not divert CIP funding from other safety projects
Disadvantages:
loss of afull-growth mature tree
HOW DOES LOOK?
Ficifolia Flowering
I'�V4�-' !
^y � �S, `�'• � '+. 'y"y .•� #Its i � II; �,• I�_:. ,� �•�. i Y r' ; / i"i.
i
714 • '., '1. �,��.. � .� • e�, . a •1. . .Ir,..;+ { ,
,
••
r "
,�,..� r•�.�"` � . . '�} � .fit � � � �.� ��+ � � 1�'
-*� •off, � � . a � ♦�. � � � .�� •• , �t'�,{ �, r i�, � ,
. �•� d + + . r i ,1 � y y
Jrr ;' ter " •`I r A ` �,' 11 ' ♦, •i • •
� Www.,, ';i..r . ' Mf t ,� , •• 1
r .
•
s , r
„. f i i �L � 7�1. i � 7 �'1 i•'] �
, L� � I � I � i � i L• 1 I�•1L- L•�• 1L7,�' 1LL-' �-� -
approximately • •
consistentgrows over 40 feet tall with 25 - 30 feet spread
• • • • Reforestation
OPTION 3
reserve the tree by making Easton Drive and
urrounding streets one-way ($60 ,000)
dvanta es
eliminates potential vehicle head-on collisions
eliminates potential vehicle undercarriage damage
reduces potential of vehicle collision with tree
preserves afull-growth mature tree
MW
Disadvantages:
creates potentially significant traffic circulation impacts in the
neighborhood including access to the library
does not eliminate storm water ponding
3 times more costly than option 2
OPTION 4
tatusquo/no chan e
vantages:
does not immediately require funding
preserves afull-growth mature tree
Disadvantages:
does not eliminate the potential of:
- vehicle head-on collision
- vehicle undercarriage damage
- vehicle collision with tree
storm water ponding will continue
does not allow regular roadway maintenance
could result in future claims
41 c4
,YY 0 STAFF REPORT
BURLINGAME AGENDA
ITEM# 6b
ot MTG.
c`Aa,fo 4„NE 6 9 DATE 01.16.07
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: January 4, 2007
APPROVE 4�.,�A41r
FROM: CITY PLANNER sY
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW,
FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED
GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED
GARAGE AT 1557 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
Action:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action 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 approve the application;
b. to reverse the Planning Commission and deny the application by resolution; or
c. to deny the request without prejudice and return it to the Planning Commission with comments.
Action alternative descriptions and the criteria for findings for each action required are included at the end of
the staff report.
Conditions on the project recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 13, 2006, sheets A-0 through A-3.1, L1.0, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES
Coordinator's September 11, 2006, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 20, 2006, memo,
shall be met;
3. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall
not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with
all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing
the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
5. that the wall between the garage attic and house attic shall contain no openings and that the area in the
rafters over the garage shall only be accessible from inside the garage and shall only be used for
storage;
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1. January 16,2007
6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners
and set the building footprint;
7. 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;
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. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
11. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall
be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence,
the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm
Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff,
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
16. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation
Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
application.
-2-
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1. January 16,2007
Planning Commission Action:
On October 23, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for design review, front setback
variance and special permit for attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached
garage (October 23, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission expressed concerns with the
massing and configuration of the attached garage and the setbacks between the subject house and adjacent
house at 1561 Drake Avenue. The Planning Commission denied the project without prejudice with direction
given.
The applicant revised the project to address the Commissions' concerns. At their meeting on November 27,
2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 3-2-2 (Cers. Auran and Deal dissenting, Cers.
Cauchi and Osterling absent) on a roll call vote to approve the applicant's request for design review, front and
side setback variances and special permit for attached garage to build a new two-story single family dwelling
and attached garage at 1557 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1. In their discussion the Commissioners noted: think
existing residence with entry and garage location are the best given the 10 foot frontage and entry courting
area and existing conditions; porch addresses the front of the lot appropriately, garage address access and
safety, development back in to the "T" area into the creek is less desirable, if push mass to the rear have a
problem with 1553 Drake; this effort increases the front separation from the house at 1561 Drake Avenue to
10 feet with interior modifications and does not shift the house to the rear, support, like added landscaping
which will allow for a future property line fence along front setback and will diminish the presence of the
garage for the neighbor, eyebrow reduces the visual massing of the garage, makes the roof mass more
consistent with the rest of the house. Met with architect and discussed different options for locating the
garage, none were as functional or elegant as this, this moves the house back from 1561 Drake 10 feet and
improves the existing garage arrangement, there is no opposition in the neighborhood present, seem to
support; best use of this site for the particular house. Like design of the house,but this is a large property built
to the maximum, applicant put the garage in the front to keep the back yard, on another standard lot
Commission would not allow, where the patio looks to redwoods have a 7 foot setback on both sides at the
rear, should relocated the garage, move it to the left, cannot support, need to be consistent regarding parking
and garage location. No street parking at this end of the block, would like more space for parking on this site,
10 feet is not enough separation from 1561, there is room to incorporate the garage into the house and have the
same size house.
In their findings the Commissioners noted: variance findings require that there be a hardship relating the
property, in this case the configuration of the lot, relationship of the lot to the creek, and the determination of
the lot orientation which affects the front, rear and side setbacks which impacted the layout of the house
resulting in variances, the house is located properly on the site given the surrounding conditions and adjacent
properties. Discussion of adequate parking, if there were a way to get three cars on this lot would support it,
but given the parking issues at the end of the street this is a covered garage which will be used, added space
between the houses is important for livability and also a justification for exception.
Background:
The property owners, Jay and Janet Garcia, and applicant/architect, Randy Grange of TRG Architects, are
proposing to demolish an existing single-story house with an attached garage and shed(2606 SF, 0.35 FAR) to
build a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached two-car garage at 1557 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1.
This unusually shaped lot is located at the end of Drake Avenue. Although the lot is 53'-9" wide at the front
there is only 10'-0" of street frontage (see Site Plan, sheet A1.0). The remainder of the lot front abuts the side
property line of the adjacent property at 1561 Drake Avenue. Because of the unique shape of the lot, staff
established the required front, side and rear setbacks (see map included in the attached Planning Commission
staff report).
-3-
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK
VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1. January 16, 2007
The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 3,449 SF (0.46 FAR) where 3,501 SF
(0.47 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 52 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The
project includes an attached two-car garage which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-
bedroom house (office/guest and media rooms are considered bedrooms for parking calculation purposes).
One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010);
• Front setback variance for an attached two-car garage (10'-0" proposed where 35'-0" is the minimum
required) (CS 25.28.072, b, 2, B);
• Right side setback variance (4'-0" proposed where T-0" is the minimum required) (CS 25.28.072, c);
and
• Special permit for attached garage (CS 25.28.035, a).
Neighbor Comments at the Planning Commission Public Hearing:
At the Planning Commission meetings on October 10, October 23 and November 27, 2006, several neighbors
and citizens spoke about the proposed project noting: (October 10, 2006): tower element is something that is
going to help define the house; designer has put together a very good looking house; biggest problem is
probably the good neighbor fence between the two properties not block the ability to park; the project tries to
deal with all things that could go wrong; architect did a good job; delighted project was originally sent to a
design review consultant because that brought Randy Grange on board; there is no actual front to the house
which is the reason for the tower; do not see a situation where a 3-point turn could be done on-site to get out
of the driveway; if the house was moved back 20' it would have to be completely redesigned; neighbors at
1553 Drake have seen the plans and they are happy with them; the back up between the driveways in this area
has never remotely been an issue; the architect further noted that whatever you do with the garage, you still
have to back a car out of a 10' wide space. (October 23, 2006): do not have a problem with the housing having
the maximum floor area allowed, when ask for the maximum, should be able to build without a variance, it
feels like the houses are crowded and jumbled at the end of the block because of the street layout, the solution
is to set the house back to give the feel of a cul-de-sac and slide the garage to the left; there are options to
redesign the floor plan, could relocate the office to the rear of the house next to the media room, would have
better visual approach from the street, the garage would be hidden and you could see past it to the adjacent
house; there are ways to get enough back up space for the garage, the objection seems to be to the post
between the two spaces, would be better off to have a larger door without a post, could get in and out easier,
porch would be at the side of the garage facing the street; might be helpful to see a streetscape design to help
make a decision on what would fit in best; the issue with the fence is that it blocks parking options; this fence
seems to be a dispute between neighbors, have witnessed other hearings on this block, should grant variance
for this situation. (November 27, 2006): There were no comments from neighbors at the November 27, 2006
meeting.
Mr. Otto Miller, property owner at 1537 Drake Avenue, submitted several e-mails and letters of concern dated
October 10, October 23, and November 27, 2006 (attached). His concerns with the project focus on the
variances being requested for a new house, the attached garage and compatibility with the neighborhood. In
his email to the Planning Commission dated November 27, 2006, he objected because the applicant is
requesting two variances and the attached garage is still the most dominant feature of the house (Otto Miller e-
mail, dated November 27, 2006, attached). Mr. Miller notes that the Planning Commission should not set a
precedent with this submittal, since there are numerous alternatives to the design. He also notes that there is
-4-
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK
V_4RIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1. January 16,2007
more than enough space on the lot to accommodate all of the applicants' needs without requesting two
variances.
Staff Comments:
There are no comments from staff.
Environmental Review Status:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Article
19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small
facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone.
In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption.
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Alternatives and Design Review, Variance and Special Permit Criteria
Planning Commission Minutes, November 27, 2006
Otto Miller email, dated November 27, 2006
Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments
Otto Miller letter, dated December 7, 2006, requesting appeal hearing
Otto Miller email, dated January 2, 2007, regarding request sent to City Council
City Council Resolution
Notice of Appeal Hearing, Mailed January 5, 2007
-5-
Action Alternatives and Criteria for Findings for 1557 Drake 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 Planning Commission.
DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
A design review application in an R-1 district shall be reviewed for the following considerations (CS 25.57.030 (e)
(1-6)):
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.
6. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure
as remodeled.
VARIANCE CRITERIA
In order to grant a variance the,City Council must find that the following conditions exist on the property(CS
25.54.020 a-d):
(a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved
that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(d) That the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass,bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA
The City Council may grant a special permit in accord with this title if, from the applicant and the facts presented at
the public hearing, it finds (CS 25.51.020 a-d):
(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.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
Chair Bro igg called for a voic ote on the motion to de he motion passed o 4-0-1-2(C. V' ica
abs g, C. Cauchi and C. terling absent). Appeal rocedures were advise This item con ded at
9..4-6'p.m.
7. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,FRONT AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;JAY AND JANET GARCIA,PROPERTY OWNERS)
48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that there was a
letter from Otto Miller received today at the Commissioners desks. Commissioner asked: what is the
required front setback for a double car garage? ZT noted that when off set the closest door must be set back
20'the second door 25',when one double door it must be setback 35 feet. There were no further questions of
staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect,represented the project. Jay Garcia,
property owner 1561 Drake. Tried to find a balance between the function of the garage,the creek setting and
the setbacks;this revised project appears to be the best balance,increases the space between 1561 by moving
the house to the left, flipped the inside 10 feet on the right side of the garage,pushed the garage back to the
rear wall of the existing garage, can maneuver in and out easily now, does create a side setback variance
because of the `T' in the lot; changed the design of the dormer to eyebrow so garage looks like a carriage
house at the end of the street, eyebrow balances the curved entry; with this solution can landscape the area
between this house and the one to the east. Commissioner asked if had prepared a streetscape drawing. Yes,
architect submitted to the Commission, noting that with a flat dead end to the street is a problem to
document,but can see the carriage house feel. Commissioner asked why not put the garage where the entry
porch is so go directly from street into the garage? Looked at that but resulted in a long narrow corridor
inside the house to get past the garage before getting to the living area. Commissioner noted willing to look
at variances given problems with the lot,but would like to see more direct access to the street and reduce the
FAR. Architect noted to reverse the garage and porch would need to bring the porch forward 7 feet in front
of the garage so it could be seen, then have 35 foot hall inside house and resulted in a larger FAR and a
worse floor plan. Concerned that misunderstood when developed the idea of this house, existing house at
1561 Drake is 1900 SF, have a family of 5, been in existing house 24 years need a larger house which is
affordable to live in permanently; will stay in this new house as long as possible; believe this design is
respectful of 1553 Drake,house will be comfortable for family. There were no further comments from the
floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: think existing residence with entry and garage location are the best given the 10
foot frontage and entry courting area and existing conditions; porch addresses the front of the lot
appropriately, garage address access and safety, development back in to the"T" area into the creek is less
desirable,push mass to the rear have a problem with 1553 Drake;this effort increases the front separation to
10 feet with interior modifications and not shifting house to the rear, support,like added landscaping which
will allow for a future property line fence and will diminish the presence of the garage for the neighbor,
eyebrow reduces the massing of the garage,makes the roof mass more consistent with the rest of the house.
Met with architect and discussed different options for locating the garage, none were as functional or elegant
as this,this moves the house back from 1561 Drake 10 feet and improves the existing garage arrangement,
there is no opposition in the neighborhood present, seem to support; best use of this site for the particular
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
house. Like design of the house,this is a large property built to the maximum,put the garage in the front to
keep the back yard,on another standard lot would not allow,where the patio looks to redwoods have a 7 foot
setback on both sides at the rear, should relocated the garage,move it to the left,cannot support,need to be
consistent. No street parking at this end of the block,would like more space for parking on this site, 10 feet
is not enough separation from 1561,there is room to incorporate the garage into the house and have the same
size house.
C. Vistica moved approval of the revised project as presented for the reasons stated in the record by
resolution with the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
November 13, 2006, sheets A-0 through A-3.1, L1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the
conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES Coordinator's
September 11, 2006, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 20, 2006,memo, shall be met; (3)
that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not
occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the
regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope
of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
Planning Commission review; (5) that the wall between the garage attic and house attic shall contain no
openings and that the area in the rafters over the garage shall only be accessible from inside the garage and
shall only be used for storage; (6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor
shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (7) 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; (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. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (9) that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; (10) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,
etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (11)
that all air ducts,plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (12) that the project
shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame; (13) that the project shall comply with the Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration
projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of
a structure,interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (14) that during demolition of the existing
residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence,the applicant shall use all applicable"best
management practices"as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff; (15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of
Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (16) that the project is
subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006
Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was
seconded by C. Terrones.
Comment on the motion: CA noted that variance findings require that there be a hardship relating the
property in this case the configuration of the lot,relationship to the creek,and the determination of the front,
rear and side setbacks impacted the layout of the house resulting in variances,the house is located properly
on the site given the surrounding conditions and adjacent properties. Discussion of adequate parking, if
there were a way to get three cars on this lot would support it,but given the parking issues at the end of the
street this is a covered garage which will be used,added space between the houses is important for livability
and also a justification for exception.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve this project with the conditions in the
staff report. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers. Auran and Deal dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling
absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m.
8. 3 RIO URT, ZONED APPLICATION FO ESIGN REVIEW HILLSIDE AREA
CO RUCTION PERM FOR A FIRST AND COND STORY ADD ION (MONICA LIANG,
S WART ASSOCIA S,APPLICANT AND D SIGNER;JEFFREYMARK,PROPERTY OWER)
36 NOTICED PROS CT PLANNER: ERICA�STROHMEIER i
Reference staf eport November 27, 20 , with attachments. CP/Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and aff comments. Eleven nditions were suggested�for consideration.
/thall
rownrigg opened the pu is hearing. John Stewa ,architect, 1351 Laurel Street San Carlos stated
g ,
architectural comme s have been addressed,the issue tonight on this project is view blockage; and
only part of the v'�from 1821 Loyola D�being blocked is the view/of some trees.
Other comments fr the floor: A. Tabrizziy S Rio Court;Mario Muzzi;814 Loyola Drive;and Lawrence
Barulich, 1821 yola Drive,spoke. Onl}';4 houses on Rio Court,all-houses are built on fill,be. use of this
the soil on th illside is vulnerable. All houses are currently almost the same weight,wha will happen if
the weight's changed on one side othis curved court? If the soil collapses it could cause catastrophe;has
a geometric study been conducted'as part of this proj ect? second story on this house�will block a view on
yone �e of 5 Rio, will remove existing privacy and will obstruct afternoon sunli h�o the property;would
o ask the Commission dot to approve the project- ivew from the rear of the prposed house facing west
windows and applic/arit will have direct view into existing living roo and master bedroom of 1 4
Loyola; surprised th privacy issues are not add view
in the code; thi�ffirst time these concerns/have
come into the nei hborhood because this is t efirst and second sto r uested• homes in the nei orhood
1} rY�q
were built righ/t, ext to each other becaurthey are all one-story;rking has been a problem, an imagine
that an incre e to the number of bedrooms would only increase the parking problem;thank you for coming
out to hoi/i,sinvited the project arc�itect and homeowner j,6ome by but they did not;Mouse was built to
take advantage of the view and tje'addition will severely irnpact that view; the archi ctural balance of the
neighborhood is all single story,hate to see a precedence started over view blocky e in the neighborhood-
it
it is devastating to have the potential to lose existing views. The architect responded that a soils re rt
ill be conducted by a oils engineer as a part of t1le Building Permit Appl'dtion.
// %
Commission commeiited to architect: cou d look at cedar roofing Zilth
tenal, should install b' ger 6X knee
braces; has a window manufacturer be dpicked? Wood window simulated divided/light would be
better. Feels the/re are improvement , like the front, not the b k, overall feel of theck is completely
12
Page 1 of 1
PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From: Ottojmiller@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:31 PM
To: mbrownrigg@chinavest.com; dcauchi@apr.com;jda@jerrydeal.biz; rt@cssanf.com; vistica@mbtarch.com;
tim@timauran.com; roc@ralphosterling.com
Cc: PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Subject: 1557 Drake
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I understand that the application for 1557 Drake is on the agenda for this evening. I took the opportunity to review the
plans that were resubmitted to the Planning Commission. Unfortunately, the Garcias did not take the direction of the
Planning Commission. They are still requesting 2 variances, and the garage is still the most dominant feature of the
house as you drive down the block. I feel that the Commission should not set a precedent with this submittal, since
there are so many alternatives to this design. They have more than enough space on the lot to accommodate all their
needs, without requesting two variances. The Garcias should take into consideration the compatibility of their design
and the well-being of the neighborhood they call home. I think a streetscape would be beneficial to show how this home
will interface with the end of the block. The Garcias should take this opportunity to design a home that will be
welcomed by the neighborhood.
Regards,
Otto Miller COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATIOlf
OF STAFF REPORT
11/27/2006
Item# '7
Action Item
r gE� F• � JJJ 'i.� � r
.ti
Al
p.
r .
% 7
%
}
PROJECT LOCATION
1557 Drake Avenue
(existing house to be demolished)
City of Burlingame Item# 7
Design Review, Front and Side Setback Variances and Special Permit Action Calendar
Address: 1557 Drake Avenue Meeting Date: 11/27/06
Request: Design review,front and side setback variances and special permit for attached garage for anew,two-
story single family dwelling and attached garage.
Applicant and Architect: TRG Architects APN: 026-033-250
Property Owners: Jay and Janet Garcia Lot Area: 7501 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 —(a) construction of a limited
number of new,small facilities or structures including(a)one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in
a residential zone. In urbanized areas,up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under
this exemption.
Summary of Revised Project(plans date stamped November 13,2006): On October 23, 2006,the Planning
Commission reviewed an application for design review, front setback variance and special permit for attached
garage for a new,two-story single family dwelling and attached garage(October 23,2006,Planning Commission
Minutes). The Commission's expressed concerns with the massing and configuration of the attached garage and
the setbacks between the subject house and adjacent house at 1561 Drake Avenue. The Planning Commission
denied the project without prejudice with direction given. In response to the Commission's concerns, the
applicant has submitted revised plans, date stamped November 13, 2006. The following revisions were made:
■ First floor plan was revised at the office/guest room,bathroom, storage/coat closets and attached garage a
(see revised sheet A2.0). There were no changes made to the second floor plan.
■ Front setback was increased by 4'-8", from 5'-4" to 10'-0" (see revised sheet A1.1). A front setback
variance is still required (10'-0" proposed where 35'-0" is required for an attached garage). Five, 15-
gallon pittosporum trees and one,24-inch box Grecian bay laurel tree were added along the front property
line in the setback between this house and the neighboring house at 1561 Drake Avenue (see revised
sheet L1.0).
■ Right side setback was decreased by 3'-0", from T-0" to 4'-0" (see revised sheet ALI). A side setback
variance is now required (4'-0"proposed where T-0" is required).
■ Clear back-up area behind garage was increased by 4'-0", from 20'-0"to 24'-0" (see revised sheet Al.1).
■ Decorative dormer above attached garage was redesigned from a square-shaped dormer with square
windows and a hip roof to an eyebrow-shaped dormer with a semicircular window(see revised sheet A-
3.0).
■ Floor area was reduced by 39 SF,from 3488 SF(0.46 FAR)to 3449 SF(0.46 FAR)where 3501 SF(0.47
FAR) is the maximum allowed). The propose project is 52 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.
■ Lot coverage was reduced by 26 SF,from 2400 SF(31.9%)to 2374 SF(31.6%)where 3000 SF(40%)is
the maximum allowed). The propose project is 626 SF below the maximum allowed lot coverage.
This unusually shaped lot is located at the end of Drake Avenue. Although the lot is 53'-9"wide at the front there
is only 10'-0"of street frontage(see Site Plan,sheet A1.0). The remainder of the lot front abuts the side property
line of the adjacent property at 1561 Drake Avenue. Because of the unique shape of the lot,staff established the
required front, side and rear setbacks (see map included in the staff report).
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single-story house with an attached garage and shed(2606 SF,
0.35 FAR) to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached two-car garage. The proposed house
and attached garage will have a total floor area of 3,449 SF (0.46 FAR) where 3,501 SF (0.47 FAR) is the
maximum allowed. The proposed project is 52 SF below the maximum allowed FAR.
Design Review,Front and Side Setback Variances and Special Permit 1557 Drake Avenue
The project includes an attached two-car garage which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed
five-bedroom house(office/guest and media rooms are considered bedrooms for parking calculation purposes).
One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
• Design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010);
• Front setback variance for an attached two-car garage (10'-0" proposed where 35'-0" is the minimum
required) (CS 25.28.072, b, 2, B);
• Right side setback variance (4'-0" proposed where 7-0" is the minimum required) (CS 25.28.072, c);
and
• Special permit for attached garage (CS 25.28.035, a).
1557 Drake Avenue
Lot Area: 7501 SF Plans date stamped: November 13, 2006
Existing Previous Proposed f Allowed/Required
(10/16/06 plans) (11/13/06 plans)
I
SETBACKS
Front(1st flr): 5'-011* 5'-4" to att. garage _ 101-0111 35'-0" for attached
two-car garage
(2nd flr): none 31'-10" 36-8" 20'-0"
Side(left): 4'-011* 7'-0" 4'-0" 2 71-011
(right): 3'-011* 7'-0" 7'-0" 7'-01'
Rear(1st flr): 15'-6" 18'-8" 17'-1" 15'-0"
(2nd flr): none 41'-8" 40'-5" 20'-0"
Lot Coverage: 2606 SF 2400 SF 2374 SF 3000 SF
34.7% 31.9% 31.6% 40%
FAR: 2606 SF 3488 SF 3449 SF 3501 SF 3
0.35 FAR 0.46 FAR 0.46 FAR 0.47 FAR
* Existing nonconforming conditions.
' Front setback variance for an attached two-car garage(10'-0" proposed where 35'-0" is the minimum
required).
2 Right side setback variance (4'-0" previously proposed where 7-0" is the minimum required).
3 (0.32 x 7501 SF) + 1100 SF=3501 SF (0.47 FAR)
Table continued on next page.
2
Design Review, Front and Side Setback Variances and Special Permit 1557 Drake Avenue
1557 Drake Avenue
Lot Area: 7501 SF Plans date stamped: November 13, 2006
Existing j Previous Proposed Allowed/Required
(10/16/06 plans) (11/13/06 plans)
#of bedrooms: n/a 5 5 ---
Parking: 2 covered j 2 covered 2 covered 2 covered
1 uncovered (20'x 20') (20' x 20') (20'x 20')
1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered
(9' x 20') (9'x 20') (9' x 20')
Garage: attached attached 4 attached 4 attached with special
permit
Height: _single story 29'-9" 29'-9"_— 30'-0"
DHEnvelope: n/a complies complies see code
4 Special permit for attached garage.
Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that the initial application in March,2006 included a
detached garage with a proposed FAR of 3,900 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,900 SF (0.52 FAR) is allowed for a
project with a detached garage. The current proposal includes an attached garage with a proposed FAR of 3,449
SF (0.46 FAR)where 3,501 SF (0.47 FAR) is allowed for a project with an attached garage. Compared to the
previous application, the proposed project is 451 SF smaller.
Planning staff would also note that there is an attachment at the end of the staff report titled 'Correspondence
Submitted for Previous Designs'and includes a letter from the applicant, dated October 12,2006; emails dated
October 10 and 23, 2006, from Otto Miller,property owner at 1537 Drake Avenue,Lots 9 and 10(vacant lots);
and letter dated October 23, 2006, from Terry Yee, property owner at 1553 Drake Avenue.
Project Processing History: On March 13,2006,the Planning Commission reviewed an application for design
review and rear setback variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at this site
(March 13,2006,Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission noted numerous concerns about the design
and referred the project to a design review consultant. In addition, the Commission asked staff to provide the
FAR for the adjacent house to the right(1561 Drake Avenue) and the two adjacent houses to the left(1553 and
1547 Drake Avenue).
Address Approved/Built FAR Maximum Allowed FAR Difference
1547 Drake Avenue: 2,799 SF 3,022 SF 223 SF below max FAR
(Lot 11of S37Drake) 0.47 FAR 0.50 FAR
1553 Drake Avenue: 3,384 SF 3,411 SF 27 SF below max FAR
0.56 FAR 0.57 FAR
1561 Drake Avenue*: 2,800 SF 4,306 SF 1,506 SF below max FAR
0.28 FAR 0.43 FAR
* Creek lot
3
Design Review, Front and Side Setback Variances and Special Permit 1557 Drake Avenue
After an initial meeting with the design review consultant, the property owners decided to hire a different
architect to design the project. Since the project has been completely redesigned, the revised project is being
reviewed as a design review study item. A design review analysis/recommendation was not provided since the
owners decided to hire a new architect and start over.
October 10,2006 Design Review Study Meeting:At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on
October 10, 2006, the Commission requested that the applicant address several concerns regarding the project
(October 10,2006,Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans,
date stamped October 16,2006. Listed below are the Commissions'suggestions and responses by the applicant.
1. Would like a corner entry that addresses itself coming in from the narrow street frontage; reconfigure
porch element to create more of an entry that approaches the corner.
• The applicant revised the front entry from a rectangular to a circular design(see revised Floor Plan and
Building Elevations, sheets A2.0 and A-3.0). In his letter, the applicant notes that he has created a
classic, rounded, shingle style porch that allows one to enter at an angle (facing the site entry). The
configuration of bedroom 2 above the porch also changed from a rectangular to circular shape (see
revised Floor Plan, sheet A2.1).
2. Why ask for a 5"variance at the side setback, should take the 5"out of the house and comply.
• With the revised project,the request for a side setback variance has been eliminated bypulling the garage
and office/guest room wall in to comply with the T-0" side setback requirement(see revised Site Plan,
sheet A1.0). With this changes and the changes described above, the lot coverage decreased by 4 SF,
from 2404 SF (32%) to 2400 SF(31.9%); and floor area ratio decreased by 13 SF, from 3501 SF (0.47
FAR) to 3488 SF (0.46 FAR).
3. Concerned with how you access the street from the driveway, could there be a safer arrangement,
concerned with driveway configuration; could move house back 20' to have a 24' back-up with
maneuverability from garage and would allow for extra off-street parking; if did move garage back 20',
could drive forward out of the lot;if move house over, would impose on another side setback,but there are
no neighbors to impose on if moved back,hammerhead turn around should be considered;with concept
ofmovinggarage back, could relocateguest room and pull house back 4';applicant should take a look at
moving the garage, do not think that moving the house is necessarily a good solution; there are some
advantages to reconfiguring the garage but do not know if it could bepulled off,parking really needs to be
addressed, could have five drivers living in the house at one point, need more off-street parking;is there
some middle ground to which an off-street space can be oriented beside the garage;maybe slide garage
over ten feet so footprint stays the same, architect should go back and come up with a plan for better
access, not just research the alternative; want to see an explanation of the effort to address the garage
reconfiguration.
• At the design review study meeting,the Commission requested that the applicant study alternate garage
configurations. The applicant provided diagrams of several options studied, including backing onto the
street and exiting in a forward direction. These diagrams and letter discussing the options are included in
the staff report for your review. Other than increasing the front setback at the garage from 4'-8"to 5'-4",
there were no changes made to the proposed location or configuration of the attached garage.
4
Design Review, Front and Side Setback Variances and Special Permit 1557 Drake Avenue
4. The house is right up to the maximum allowable square footage, a wall without openings should be built
between the garage attic and house and a condition should be added that area over garage,accessible only
from the garage, can only be used for storage.
• A condition of approval has been added requiring that the wall between the garage attic and house attic
contain no openings and that the area over the garage shall only be accessible from inside the garage and
the rafter area shall only be used for storage.
The revisions in response to the October 10, 2006 comments were submitted for the October 23, 2006 action
meeting. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and the project was denied without prejudice. The
applicant chose to redesign the project further and submitted revised plans date stamped November 13, 2006.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the
Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance for front and right side setback,the Planning
Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that
do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for attached garage, 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 exiting structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roof line, fagade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or
addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
5
Design Review,Front and Side Setback Variances and Special Permit 1557 Drake Avenue
(c) the proposed project is consistent with there is 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.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action
should be by resolution and include findings made for design review,front and side setback variances and special
permit for an attached garage. 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
November 13,2006,sheets A-0 through A-3.1,L1.0,and that any changes to building materials,exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES
Coordinator's September 11, 2006, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 20, 2006,memo,
shall be met;
3. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall
not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all
the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the
roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
5. that the wall between the garage attic and house attic shall contain no openings and that the area in the
rafters over the garage shall only be accessible from inside the garage and shall only be used for storage;
6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and
set the building footprint;
7. 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;
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.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
6
Design Review,Front and Side Setback Variances and Special Permit 1557 Drake Avenue
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the proj ect has been built according
to the approved Planning and Building plans;
11. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible, to a single termination
and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001
Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan
and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall
require a demolition permit;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence,
the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm
Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff,
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management
and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
16. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation
Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit
application.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c. TRG Architects, applicant and architect
Jay and Janet Garcia, property owners
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
6. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK
VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE(RANDY GRANGE,TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; JAY AND JANET GARCIA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report October 23, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road, project architect; and Janet
Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue,presented the project,noting that the neighbor to the left had submitted a letter
in support of the plan as now proposed,outlined the changes made to the plans to eliminate the side setback
variance and to increase the front setback to the garage;the front entry was turned towards the street with a
rounded porch; a garage exit study was done for different configurations as requested by the Commission,
noting constraints with placing the garage doors at a 90 degree angle to the previous proposal and exiting the
garage through the narrow driveway at the front of the lot,if garage is pushed back to meet the setback,will
create other variances at the rear of the lot and encroach into the portion of the lot adjacent to the creek.
Public comment continued: Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road,representing Otto Miller who owns property on
the block; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, don't have a problem with the housing having the maximum floor area
allowed,when ask for the maximum, should be able to build without a variance,it feels like the houses are
crowded and jumbled at the end of the block because of the street layout,the solution is to set the house back
to give the feel of a cul-de-sac and slide the garage to the left; there are options to redesign the floor plan,
could relocate the office to the rear of the house next to the media room,would have better visual approach
from the street,the garage would be hidden and you could see past it to the adjacent house. There are ways
to get enough back up space for the garage, the objection seems to be to the post between the two spaces,
would be better off to have a larger door without a post, could get in and out easier, porch would be at the
side of the garage facing the street; might be helpful to see a streetscape design to help make a decision on
what would fit in best. The issue with the fence is that it blocks parking options; this fence seems to be a
dispute between neighbors, have witnessed other hearings on this block, should grant variance for this
situation.
Additional public comment: Randy Grange,project architect,and Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake,noted that the
garage post is not the only problem with backing out, it has to do with the shape of the lot,house at 1547
Drake is not constrained by the driveway width on the street like this one and the side entry garage works
well; looked at moving garage 15 feet from front property line, caused variances at the rear of the lot, one
way or another, there will be a variance required,will have to pick the best option; there used to be a fence
between 1557 and 1561 Drake, a tree came down and flattened the fence, there are many houses that have
side entry porches and main entrance at the side,that is the case for 1561 Drake,it is considered a side entry
not front entrance, so not an issue that other house is close.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: Understand it would be difficult to rotate the garage 90 degrees, but still
concerned that the garage is too close to 1561 Drake,could it be ten feet from property line,that would help
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006
a lot,as it is proposed,it will provide shadow to front door at 1561 Drake;mass of garage faces 1561 Drake,
two properties are now in same ownership,won't always be, should look at garage mass with different roof
style; this is a new house on a larger than standard lot, will have more back yard than most due to the lot
shape,have to determine the degree of variance,the lot has an odd entrance,when you drive in or back out
there has to be a lot of maneuvering; don't see need to set back the garage by 35 feet, even though we're
calling it a front it has the look of a side view, not agree with the need to reduce the mass next to 1561
Drake, it is like a side yard; can work with a garage without a post, for safety purposes, need to be able to
exit in a forward direction.
Commissioner comment continued: This is a congested street,have to use the same criteria for all houses,
when you allow houses to be built with extra bedrooms,will need more parking,there is no street frontage,
will need adequate on-site parking and turnaround, same criteria as applied on other projects on the block,
cannot approve as proposed;don't know if existing garage location is best location,creates a blunt end to the
street, learned tonight that there are configurations that can generate a great house and a better parking
configuration,convinced that there are better ways to lay the house out;proposing the maximum size house
on a 7,000 SF lot,but it is placed on a piece of the lot that is smaller than a typical lot,may have to encroach
into the "T" formation of the lot, it is possible that a variance is justified, but think there are better
configurations for parking and garage location; was in favor of current configuration, but have been
convinced that there are alternatives that will make a better project; as now proposed the garage door is a
major element; proposing to fit a large house on one-half of the lot, it doesn't fit, cannot approve as
presented, landscape plans need to be redone to match new design.
Further Commissioner comment: Don't have as much problem with the location of the garage,similar to the
way the existing residence is situated with a fore court and coach house, but still have a concern with the
massing of the garage,needless attic space presenting itself to the corner of 1561 Drake;don't see the need to
require more on-site parking than is required for others, don't think this house should bear the burden
because the street has a choke point, can't create enough space to properly place the garage, didn't like the
original layout with the garage at the left rear corner of the lot;this is a workable plan if the massing can be
reduced on the right wing; think the applicant should look at pushing the house northerly adjacent to the
creek, house can extend into that area and be pleasant with a wooded setting, would give relief to the
bottleneck at the garage and driveway, house could be nestled in trees, has problems as now designed.
C.Vistica moved to deny the project without prejudice,with the direction given. The motion was seconded
by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: To clarify the intent,the garage could be put into different location,house could
encroach into area to the north, there could be leniency to the setback on the other side since there are no
houses adjacent there;there are reasons for a variance on lot,it is not the intent to make variances go away,
can be leniency in possibility of a different variance, there are plenty of options, architect is talented, can
address; if you look at aerial photo,there are no residences close by at the rear of the lot,the hardship is the
shape of the lot,house can be built in a different configuration that can relieve the congestion at the front;
will vote in favor of the motion only for reworking of the massing of the garage, not the location; oppose
motion, if just massing of the garage, could continue the item, would like to see more room between the
houses at 1557 and 1561 Drake,could increase the setback between the two houses,maybe amassing issue.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a
4-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Terrones and Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:30 p.m.
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10,2006
Chair Brownrialled for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions.The motion
passed on a 6 MIC.Osterling absent Appeal procedures w advised. Thus item co uded at 8:30 p.m.
7. ND THE MUNICIP CODE WITH UIREMENTS FOR IS G A DEMOLITION
RMIT AND TO C PENALTIES F WORK DONE OUT A CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT UBLIS IN SAN MATEO T S PROJECT P :MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff ort October 11,2006 th attachments. CP Mo oe and CBO Cyr presen d the staff
report notin at thus amendment not to the zoning code t the process proposed ould tie the
impleme 'on of the CEQA re ' w,zoning/design review d the building permit t ether and hold
demo' 'on permits until all the approvals had been compl d. Second the ordinance dresses the issue
of nalties for doing work ithout a pemut setting a t ' es fee limit based on a hours of staff time
ed to attain compliance ith the code. CP noted tha a Commission had revie ed the Subcommittee's
suggestions for this or ' ante at the September 25, 6,meeting,so it is being ought forward for public
hearing and action s evening.
Commissione's comment: Chair Bro ' g thanked the Subcommi ee of Cers. Cauchi, De and
Terrones,f their quick action on this r ommendation;commissio r asked how this would ect fast
trackin ajor projects;CBO noted this proposal is consistent ith the current industry s dards for
revie of large projects,if there is mething unusual about a giv n project it would be co idered at that
ti ;clarified that a demolition mut is a type of building pe t. CP noted that cunen rovisions of the
uilding Code require all pen ties be paid before a Buildin ermit can be issued
Chair Brownrigg open a public hearing. There wer o comments from the or. The public hearing
was closed.
C.Deal moved at the Planning Commission ecommend the propose ordinance changes to e City
Council for a on.The motion was seconde y C.Terrones.
Comm on the motion: CA noted tw eclmical changes that sho d be made before the dinance would
go f and to the City Council.
hair Brownrigg called for a ice vote on the motion t recommend the pro sed ordinance changes
addressing demolition p 'sand civil penalties for wo without a permit to City Council for approval.
The motion passed on a -0-1(C.Osterling absent). . This item concluded t 8:35 p.m.
IX DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,FRONT AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;JAY AND JANET GARCIA,PROPERTY OWNERS)
(48 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the decision for designating the
front yard,rear yard and side yards was made by staff and if it was open to change by the Commission. Staff
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
responded that the decision was made by Planning staff and that it may be changed or altered by the
Commission. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road suite 203, spoke: unusually
"T" shaped lot with a wooded creek side setting; the mass of the house pushes away from 1553 Drake and
towards the creek and the woods; looked at access and parking in the previous proposal and decided to leave
the garage where it currently is, it had to be attached because it couldn't be in the rear setback; maintaining
the existing parking pattern; project may be at maximum but it is 400 SF smaller than what was looked at
before because of the attached garage; a variance is required to replace the garage where it currently is; and
because of the "T" in the lot, 7'-0" setbacks are required.
Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Janet Garcia, property owner, Jay Garcia,
property owner. Tower element is something that is going to help define the house; designer has put
together a very good looking house; biggest problem is probably the good neighbor fence between the two
properties not block views; the project tries to deal with all things that could go wrong; architect did a good
job; delighted project was originally sent to a design review consultant because that brought Randy Grange
on board; there is no actual front to the house which is the reason for the tower; do not see a situation where
a 3-point turn could be done to get out of the driveway; if the house was moved back 20' it would have to be
completely redesigned; neighbors at 1553 Drake have seen the plans and they are happy with them; and the
back up between the driveways in this area has never remotely been an issue. The architect further noted
that whatever you do with the garage, you still have to back a car out of a 10' wide space. There were no
other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented:
■ Working with what is now on the site makes it hard to determine setback arrangement;
■ Would like a corner entry that addresses itself coming in from the narrow street frontage; reconfigure
porch element to create more of an entry that approaches the corner;
• Tower element reinforces the idea of where the front of the house is, appropriate based on how it is
massed; if the tower element was deemphasized you would lose the front entrance area; tower
element at landing is nice;
■ Why ask for a 5" variance at the side setback, should take the 5" out of the house and comply;
■ Like upstairs windows taking advantage of views of rear yard;
• Concerned with how you access the street from the driveway, could there be a safer arrangement,
concerned with driveway configuration; could move house back 20' to have a 24' back-up with
maneuverability from garage and would allow for extra off-street parking; if did move garage back
20', could drive forward out of the lot; if move house over, would impose on another side setback,
but there are no neighbors to impose on if moved back; hammerhead turn around should be
considered; with concept of moving garage back, could relocate guest room and pull house back 4%
applicant should take a look at moving the garage, do not think that moving the house is necessarily
a good solution; there are some advantages to reconfiguring the garage but do not know if it could be
pulled off;
• The house is right up to the maximum allowable square footage, a wall without openings should be
built between the garage attic and house and a condition should be added that area over garage,
accessible only from the garage, can only be used for storage;
■ property owners have not had driveway problems for 25 years, and house is at end of cul-de-sac with
little traffic; house has been designed nicely, would like to see it remain the way it is;
■ the openness between the two driveways helps to maintain a view for backing up a car; not too much
concern with the driveway; and
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006
■ parking really needs to be addressed, could have five drivers living in the house at one point,need
more off-street parking.
C.Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with guidance for the applicant
to consider re-orienting the garage for safety and usability. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on motion: is there some middle ground to which an off-street space can be oriented beside the
garage;maybe slide garage over ten feet so footprint stays the same;realize that this is an odd lot and that it
is likely that the project is going to require variances; architect should go back and come up with a plan for
better access,not just research the alternative; if house was built as is it would be a positive addition to the
neighborhood;want to see an explanation of the effort to address the garage reconfiguration;because this is
an unusual lot the City will offer considerations because the lot creates constraints; the design has come a
long way; superb job on the building;okay with size of the house and the orientation;good project,trust the
architects judgment; and overall happy with the design.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar with
guidance for the applicant to consider re-orienting the garage for safety and usability. The motion passed on
a voice vote 5-1-1 (C. Cauchi dissenting and C. Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m.
9. 1336 PAJLOMA AVENUE, ZONED 1 — APPLICATION FOR DE N REVIEW AND FRONT
SETS K VARIANCE TO THE?FIT AND SECOND FLOORS FO ANEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE
FILYDWELLINGAND DEHED GARAGE(JESSE GE E,APPLICANT AND DESIGNE ,
;T`02alz LEYDEN PROPERT WNER 70 NOTICED PRO T PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
ZT Strohmeier briefly esented the project description. mmission asked staff how much sq e footage
is exempted for a b ement area from the FAR calcul a ' n. Staff responded up to 600 SF is e rapt plus 100
SF for utilities.
Chair Br nrigg opened the public comme . Jesse Geurse,405 Bayswater Avenu ,represented the project.
C ission commented:
■ like the front elevation, t uneasy with the flat portion of the of, if the entire roof was at th
appropriate pitch it w Id need a V variance for height;the fl roof indicates the scale of the h se
is too big;
■ driveway side as interesting aspects, almost approac i g a Colonial fagade; like the el ation,but
will look ry boxy and big when it is built;
■ left h side fagade falls apart, needs a lot of rk,craftsman style disappears•
■ so second floor roof elements could come own a bit on all elevations; fro and back are better,
Is apart on the side;
basement ceiling height is 5'-11",cou e built to 7'-6"or higher and 7 0 SF of basement area wi
be exempt form FAR, could reduc mass by using this area;
■ If roof pitch and plate heights re played with, could eliminat e flat roof;
■ Issue with mass and bulk i of handled well in this design; ed wall along left h d side adds
mass and is not really co istent with the style;is a massiv ox with decorative ele ents attached to
it to try to make it le massive;
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 13, 2006
C.Deal ma�_4 motion to place this ite on the consent calendar a;a time when the requeste changes have
been m plan checked:
■ Dormers on second or along Hale be bridge y a sloped roof and be me more stately;
■ Reason for sides ack variance is becaus ey have a staircase tha snon-conforming and they
are bringing i p to current code stand s; and
• Added bay indows are deminimus far as FAR is concerne d they do a lot for the style , the
house;
■ Rev' bay on Castillo side to eflect more the design tures of the bay on Hale;
• t ' around entry door sh d be cast stone and not tyrofoam.
Thi otion was seconded C. Vistica.
Commenton motion: plicant should be sensi . e about how they revise th ormers so they don't ad oo
much mass and bu to the house;this applic ion is doing a lotto enhan the house and is a minor de off
for the FAR v 'ance.
Chair Au called for a vote on th otion to place this item the consent calendar w n plans had been
revise as directed. The mo ' n passed on a voice v9 e 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abs t). The Planning
Co 'ssion's action is advi ry and not appealable. Thus item concluded at 10:15 p.m.
11. 1557 DRAM AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND REAR
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
(DON VISEL, VIA BUILDERS, APPLICANT; JAY AND JANET GARCIA, PROPERTY OWNERS;
AND TODD SUPPORT SERVICES,INC.,DESIGNER)(50 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HUR N
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if aside setback variance would be
required based upon the diagram that was provided in the staff report,because it looks like the nook on the
west side would be intruding into a required 7'-0" side setback. Staff responded that will conform the
setback compliance. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Auran opened the public comment. Ralph Saviano represented the property owners and the design
team, commented that the setback issue may be a mistake on the plans and was available to answer any
questions. Commission commented.
■ New house with a ceiling height of 10'-0"on the first floor and 9'-0" on the second floor is larger
then what Commission has been allowing;reduce plate heights to 9'-0"on the first floor and 8'-1"
on the second floor;
■ How does this design match the character of the neighborhood? should go through design review
booklet to obtain guidance of how to fit in with the design guidelines and the design of the
neighborhood;applicant needs to think about what architectural style they want and have that style in
place with some revisions prior to meeting with design review consultant; start from the beginning;
■ The adjacent houses have incorporated elements that have diminished the second floor presence
should include; proposed second floor is almost same size as proposed first floor;
16
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 13, 2006
• house has a lot of elements that have been tacked on to the outside that don't relate to one and other;
too much stuff going on in elevations;what is the style?Does not compliment the design guidelines;
elevations are busy in nature, east elevation in particular; 15 total French doors or windows in ten
different types, demonstrates how busy the windows are and lack of consistency;
• A little chaotic and awkward with such a large second floor;when going to maximum FAR,second
floor has to be designed to be less massive looking; layer cake approach; nothing wrong with
building to maximum FAR,however there is a responsibility to reduce the mass and the bulk of the
house; serious questions about the massing;
■ Needs more articulation;
■ Garage eaves cannot encroach too close to property line, confirm ok;
• Issue with how second floor comes down on curved roof of nook;
• Some windows look distorted,might want to do a 3D rendering;
■ would like property lines better defined out in the field, can't get a sense of how building will fit;
difficult to see shape of lot and relationship to house on the right;
■ landscape plan is very weak,Crepe Myrtle in area doesn't work;massive presentation of house with
a minimal landscape plan; beef up landscape plan, could be a lot more interest and screening in
landscape plan;
■ strongly encourage to take at least 100 SF off of plan so that there is room for changes if needed
during construction;
■ Are Coast Redwoods being put in? They get awfully large and create problems for neighbors;
Redwoods get too large in scale and there could be a better choice; landscape architect should note
that cones and leaves of Redwoods stain the colored concrete, so should be located away from
patios; want more appropriate landscaping; reconsider Redwoods;
■ might be nice for the neighbors to have redwoods incorporated into the design;
• difficult to find hardship for rear setback variance on second floor for new construction; if second
floor were reduced, may be receptive to setback variance, not appropriate for mass and size as
shown; shouldn't be applying for a variance;
■ need explanation of how driveway at the entry is going to work to avoid any problems;
• May be a feeling that this is a narrow lot,but actually 50' wide and Commission sees this width all
the time; and
■ Would like to see a copy of the topographic map to get a better sense of the lot when the project
comes back.
Architect responded that wanted to maximize the use of land at the rear of the lot; wanted to set this house
back closer to the older houses and fade away instead of being right at you; lot setup creates a vary narrow
footprint; asking to go into rear setback by only a few feet, only 35 SF would be within the setback areas;
based on the lot and the lot width,consideration has to be given to the narrowness of the lot and the setbacks
within the finger of the parcel.
Mark Hudak,216 Park Road, spoke in opposition to the project,repeating a serious of comments that were
originally spoken or written by the Garcia's in opposition to the projects at 1537 and1553 Drake Avenue,
which he felt might apply to this project. These included FAR, compatibility with neighborhood design,
number of bedrooms,requested variances,awkward ingress and egress,need for an arborist report,providing
a streetscape rendering and compatibility with the overall size of homes in the neighborhood.
Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, represented the project, stating that Mr. Miller's project at 1537 Drake
Avenue varied from their proj ect because it involved replacing one existing home with three new homes;the
proposed project only has three bedrooms upstairs and a media room and den downstairs which are counting
17
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 13, 2006
as bedrooms; does not see this as a five bedroom house. There were no other comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented: could staff find out how large(square footage) adjacent home to the right is and
how large the two adjacent homes to the left are?
C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: concerned with comments over the years about parking in this neighborhood; this
house needs more on-site parking because of unique location on the dead end street;if owner intends to live
in new house,could resolve issues with driveway and property lines as far as setbacks are concerned for the
house to the right; in favor of Redwoods,project could handle that mass and they would be a benefit to the
area; design needs reworking; would like access to the property prior to action hearing to get an idea of
where Redwoods are going to be.
Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the direction
and comments given. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
X. PLAN REPORTS
eview of City Council lar meeting of March 6, 2006.
CP Monroe reviewed e March 6, 2006, council m ing.
- FYI— 1556 Los ntes Drive—review requeste changes to approved des' review project.
Commission f that these proposed change proved the design, and eed to them.
- Update on int City Council/Planning C ission Meeting—Mar 18, 2006
CP Mo e noted that the staff report'fof the Joint Study Meeting as at the Commissioner's Zsks. The
meet' g will be held at Fire Statio 4, on California Drive, o aturday,March 18,200 , at 9:00 a.m.
XI. OURNMENT
Chair Auran adjourned t meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Respectful submitted,
Jerry Deal, Secretary
18
m J
b3 �
d:
na
0
s
d
s000,
01; a�G► dd. .'' `Q'�
0'1
s �
999
�
10/03/2006 16:57 6505790115 TRGARCHITECTS PAGE 02
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DUARTMENT 501 PIUMR05E ROAD P(650)558-725D F(650)696-3790
Awik
E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application: Design Review ✓ Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number: 0SkC0-QS3- QS0
Project address: 11559 1>01 a pwftve
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER
Name: ICIA Gvelt1 Mame:
Address: 5559 gXaKe kgmge Address:
city/State/Zip: BorYMo►rne gy01p City/State/zip:
Phone(w): Phone (w):
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name: iye Aticti�4ea 5 " candy Granc e�"
Address: w %AK RoQ4 *e' ,ad3 Please indicate with an asterisk
City/State/Zip:
�+urC� ame Oh gg0to the contact person for this project.
�
Phone(w):
(h): see 010o4e
(f): (-G5o).5-1q-oil
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: -Te0xd0wcn House
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATU ereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and carr o the best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: Date_ 10-lb-oG
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
Property owner's signature: Date:
PCAPP.FRM
Architects
September 26, 2006
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame RECEIVED
501 Primrose Rd. f
Burlingame, CA 94010 SEP 2 8 2006
Subject: 1557 Drake Ave. CITY of BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Commissioners,
Attached you will find a proposal for a new home at 1557 Drake Ave. A different design
was previously reviewed by you and subsequently sent to the design review process. This
new proposal represents a hard look at this unusually difficult site, and a complete re-
thinking of the design approach.
The first and most significant design decision made was how to handle the garage and
parking requirements. The previous design that you reviewed had a detached garage in
the far Southwest corner of the lot. We believe that a garage in that location, while it has
its merits, creates a driveway that could be difficult to navigate; one couldn't see any
potential obstructions while backing out until their car is actually edging into the street.
Keeping an attached garage in the same location as the existing attached garage seems
like the right solution; one can see out into the street as they back up. Our proposed
garage location comes with the need for setback variances and a special permit, but the
unusual lot configuration and narrow access point render a situation that really can't meet
every aspect of the zoning code. Additionally, the proposed parking and access match
what has been there since the lot was first developed.
While the FAR is at its limit with this proposed design, we have actually reduced the
structure by over 450 SF. This is due to the attached garage counting as floor area
whereas it did not count in the previous submittal. The proposed massing is pushed back
and away from the neighboring properties behind sweeping rooflines. The primary spaces
all look away from the neighbors and towards the creek which provides maximum
privacy for both the neighbors and this property owner.
We hope this letter is useful in your analysis of the project, and we look forward to the
meeting.
Sincerely,
Randy Grange AT
Project Architect
205 Park Road, Suite 203, Burlingame, CA 94010
650.579.5762 Fax 650.579.0115 www.trgarch.com
n
p '
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burhngame.org
FKo�A r :SF-T5 C*-
CITY-G
� a
BURGWCiAME
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54:020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions;
a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances-or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties in this area.
RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary.for the preservation and enjoymentof a
substantial property right and what unreasonable properly loss or unnecessary hardship
might result form the denial'of the application.
fit✓e
a Explain why--the proposed,uses at,°the;proposed location .will-not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,general
welfare or convenience.
r. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
VARFRM
November 19, 2006
Attachment A
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK
a. This lot configuration creates extraordinary circumstances which do not apply to
other properties in the area. In fact, this is a case where it's difficult to apply the
zoning code, which assumes more typical lots. There is an existing home on this
"T" shaped lot, with a very narrow access point that is only the width of the
driveway. The planning department, needing to establish a base-line for the
project evaluation, determined that the front yard is the right side of the property
as one approaches the end of Drake Avenue. When one looks at the site, this
designated "front-yard" actually appears more like a side yard, and in fact, the
existing structure treats it as such with a 4'-8" setback to the existing garage wall.
b. The variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights. There is an existing garage in the same location as the
proposed garage, and that condition must be "preserved" in order for the property
to function properly; this proposal is simply to retain an existing condition. Due to
the narrow entry to the site and extremely limited sight lines, other garage
locations would create a hazard for cars backing out. The new proposed setback
increases to 10% forcing one to greater setbacks than proposed would create an
unnecessary hardship in this unique circumstance.
c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience. The proposed garage location retains the same
conditions that exist now, and have existed since the neighborhood was originally
developed. Therefore,this application does not create any detrimental situations
d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity. As stated above, a building is already situated at the proposed setback,
and therefore very little change with regards to the neighboring property. The
house's massing has been handled such that it pulls away from the neighbors and
looks towards the creek.
.LF
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlinQame.org
51 D I- SST.$A Gk
rb;CITT. C
�RlJI!ll3AME
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink: Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
a. Describe the exceptional or ewtraordinary circumstances:or conditions applicable to your
property which do not apply to other properties in.this.area.
s� 4 T-/'�C H ►�� t� � RECEIVED
SEP 2 8 2006
CITY OF BURLINIG ME
PLANNING DEPT.
b. Explain why the variance request is necessary.for the preservation and enjoyment of a.
substantial property right and what unreasonable.property loss or unnecessary hardship
might result form the denial of the application.
r sE' C
Explain why,the proposed uS�;at.the proposda�lrtrl :not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvemenIs'in the vicinity or to public health,safety,general
welfare or convenience., '
C-
d plow will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
It
VAF-FRM
November 19, 2006
Attachment B
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK
a. This lot configuration creates extraordinary circumstances which do not apply to
other properties in the area. In fact,this is a case where it's difficult to apply the
zoning code, which assumes more typical lots. There is an existing home on this
"T" shaped lot, with a very narrow access point that is only the width of the
driveway. The planning department, needing to establish a base-line for the
project evaluation, determined that the front yard is the right side of the property
as one approaches the end of Drake Avenue. This makes the perpendicular lot
lines running East-West the side-yards. The leg of the property in question at the
proposed garage functions as a 50' wide lot(which would have a 4' setback
requirement as represented by the existing structure). Due to the creek side "T" at
the middle of the property, which widens the over-all dimensions of the lot,the
theoretical required setback becomes 7'.
b. The variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights. There is an existing garage in the same location as the
proposed garage, and that condition must be "preserved"in order for the property
to function properly; this proposal is simply to retain an existing condition. Due to
the narrow entry to the site and extremely limited sight lines, other garage
locations would create a hazard for cars backing out. This proposal actually just
retains the existing setback. Retaining the existing setback and shortening the
garage on the door side creates a typical and very functional garage arrangement.
It would create unnecessary hardship to impose greater setback requirements on
this property.
c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience. The proposed garage location improves upon the similar
condition that exists now. It does not create new detrimental situations.
d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and
character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity. As stated above, a building is already situated closer to the property line
than what is proposed here, which decreases the impact on the neighboring
property.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650)559-7250 F(650)696-3790
A-T1"i4GttF-,.D G ASU
"T' CITY OF BURLINGAME
yBURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION
Sae K6`96
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance(Code
Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making
the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink.
Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions.
1. Explain why the blend of mass,scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the
existing street and neighborhood.
L 1 - RECEIVE
SEP 2 8 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT,
2. Explain how 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.
Ir G lr
SEL•
3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines
adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)?
SE C- C
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 isproposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is
appropriate.
II Lr
sE � G
RECENED
Attachment C SEP 2 8 2006
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE CITY of BURUNCAME
1557 Drake Avenue PLANNING DEPT.
This is a proposal to have a two car attached garage. The purpose of attaching the garage
is that it's really the only reasonable way to accommodate a garage on this site. It
replaces an existing attached garage in the same location,merely retaining an existing
condition. Due to the highly unusual circumstances with this site, this is the best location
for the garage
1. The mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction
are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and
neighborhood. The proposed garage is similar in size and location to the existing
garage on the site, which is also attached, and therefore doesn't change anything
in the neighborhood.
2. The rooflines, fagade, materials, and elevations of the proposed garage are similar
to that of the existing and proposed house. The proposed garage is similar to the
existing garage.
3. 1. The architectural style is compatible with that of the existing house and
character of the neighborhood. The garage is similar to the existing garage. The
house is all new,but works with the neighborhood.
2. The attached garage being proposed is consistent with the neighborhood since
one already exists in the same location.
3. See items 1 and 2 above for comments about style, mass and bulk.
4. There will be minimal impact on neighboring properties as the garage is similar
to what is currently there, and is a one-story element.
4. There is a full landscaping plan being proposed for this project. This property is
also a creek side lot with mature trees and other unique features.
5. No trees are being proposed for removal within the proposed footprint.
F -�__' Project Comments
Date: September 8, 2006
To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271
X Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600
City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727
13 City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for application for design review, special permit for attached
garage, front and side setback variances for a new, two-story single-
family dwelling and attached two-car garage at 1557 Drake Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-250
Staff Review: September 11, 2006
1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC),
the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal
requirements.
2) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a
completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The
Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for
the project.
3) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise
residential buildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications
and details.
4) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window
or door that complies with the egress requirements.
5) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height
at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the
Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30"
in height.
6) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers.
7) Provide lighting at all exterior landings.
8) NOTE: Plans that specifically address item #4 must be submitted before
this project can move forward for Planning Commission action.
Revie db Date: j
Project Comments
Date: September 8,2006
To: d City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist
(650)558-7230 (650)558-7271
❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal
(650)558-7260 (650)558-7600
❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650)558-7254 (650)342-3727
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for application for design review, special permit for attached
garage,front and side setback variances for a new, two-story single-
family dwelling and attached two-car garage at 1557 Drake Avenue,
zoned R-1,APN: 026-033-250
Staff Review: September 11,2006
1. See attached.
2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works—
Engineering Division at(650)558-7230 for additional information.
Reviewed by: V V Date: 9/11/2006
PT I]BLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS ` "5
Project Namet n=M1 &Iicw
Project Address: �p
1 : ':6tlowing requirements apply to the project
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.)
_ The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to
drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit
issuance.)
3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for
approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit.
4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's
flood zone requirements.
5 A sanitary sewer lateral int is required for the project in accordance with
the City's standards. fRalljoW I ftnedw kaidding agio )
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.
Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis
shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any
sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures.
Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project.
�a 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.
U. � 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 1 of 3
L riaate development\PLANNING REVIEW COND ENTS.doc
VIUBLIC 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.
Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel
map.
The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions
in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
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.
g 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.
i;, No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek.
The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to
prevent storm water pollution.
G The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re-
submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is
proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject
to City Engineer's approval.
The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans
showing the driveway profile with elevations
Page 2 of 3
U ',lr wo.e development\PLANNING REVIEW CONSMNTS.doc
1'1=-BI..IC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION
�— 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.
.__ 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.
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
f
7 lwjr,' development\PLANNING REVIEW CONMENTS.doc
Project Comments
Date: September 8, 2006
To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271
❑ Chief Building Official Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600
❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for application for design review, special permit for attached
garage, front and side setback variances for a new, two-story single-
family dwelling and attached two-car garage at 1557 Drake Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-250
Staff Review: September 11, 2006
Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence.
1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter.
2. Provide double backflow prevention.
3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall
clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings
shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation.
Reviewed by: Date:
Project Comments
Date: September 8, 2006
To: ❑ City Engineer X Recycling Specialist
(650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7279
❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal
(650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600
❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator
(650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727
❑ City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for application for design review, special permit for attached
garage, front and side setback variances for a new, two-story single-
family dwelling and attached two-car garage at 1557 Drake Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-250
Staff Review: September 11, 2006
Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Pan for
approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects
prior to construction or permitting.
—a
Reviewed by: Date:
Project Comments
Date: September 8,2006
To: City Engineer Recycling Specialist
(650)558-7230 (650)558-7271
Chief Building Official Fire Marshal
(650)558-7260 (650)558-7600
City Arborist Q NPDES Coordinator
(650)558-7254 (650)342-3727
City Attorney
From: Planning Staff
Subject: Request for application for design review,special permit for attached
garage,front and side setback variances for a new,two-story single-
family dwelling and attached two-car garage at 1557 Drake Avenue,
zoned R-1,APN: 026-033-250
1) Any construction project in the City,regardless of size,shall comply with the City
NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not
limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management
Practices(BMPs)and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases
of the construction project(including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater
BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following:
• Store,handle,and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly
to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater;
• Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants,including
pavement cutting wastes, paints,concrete,petroleum products,chemicals,
wash water or sediments,and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains
and watercourses;
• Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering
site and obtain all necessary permits;
• Avoid cleaning,fueling,or maintaining vehicles on-site except in a
designated area where wash water is contained and treated;
• Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction
impacts using vegetative buffer strips,sediment barriers or filters,dikes,
mulching,or other measures as appropriate;
• Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather;
• Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted
runoff;
• Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points;
• Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site;clean off-site paved areas
and sidewalks using dry sweeping method;
• The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and
subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs.
1 of 2
Project Comments Con't —1557 Drake Ave. — 2-story SFD with
attached garage
2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging
and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. The
easement shall be protected from any site runoff.
3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (if necessary):
a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls
continuously until permanent erosion control have been established;
b. Address method(s) for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and
diverting off-site runoff around the site;
c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site.
4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following:
a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control
measures, including inspection frequency;
b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of
vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material.
Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for
your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project
proponents.
For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727.
Reviewed by: ES Date: 09/11/06
2 of 2
WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION?
ri Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as
Vii ' construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times
`t'' ° " {4` ' �'' that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that
- 2, j t•p
•iT�F'.F .3.YS�L',A—s.:.+.@S�s37�.:' r rJ- Ti+q�i i�rd'8aaz4i.`•; n....Fn- ..e a'1e:;.
. ,s=' :_ u" ` ; 3''=>`=.0 hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water
and increase its chances of eroding.
• G ' ' The Ions of soil from a construction site results in Loss of topsoil,
minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the
Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it,carries with it clog
streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys
tants such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re-
wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality. servoirs.
Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, local As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills
government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars above Lake Temescal filled the lake to such an extent that it had
a year. to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of $750.000.
x �
NEED MORE INFORMATION?
ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion addresses problems and solutions as they apply to
called "Money .Down the Drain." It is available for showing California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from
to any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415) ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries
841-9730, and in city and county public works and planning depart-
ments.
A-BAG has also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur-
face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to
with designs and practices for, erosion prevention, sedi- provide more information on specific erosion problems.
ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual
This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of
Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park
District.
//��■���//��ff''�� ASSOCIATION EAST BAY REGIONAL
/rlaf'*rlAREA
cwEw VENTS I PARK DISTRICT
PROTECTING
YOUR
P TY ' �t
PRO ER
FROM +
EROSION
M:F/
EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT
YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT
FUTURE HEADACHES < r
z .......
Vegeta tion-stab£llzed Bare Slope:Headaches
t slope:Security and Llab£1£ty
(� (�:�� • soil in place • mudslide danger
• minimum of loss of topsoil
erosion • clogged storm
(,1 • fewer winter clean drains flooding • r
up problems problems
• protection for expensive '
house foun- cleanup
Y/ ,L dations • eroded or
7 buried house ✓
/ ) foundations /• �:'
// :n�{'r SSR' ;ff„ 7 n °'r,. ;�•:t\ iia••
CMP
Y
® TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNER
4 ,
mom`
"Winterize" your property by mid-September. Don't Seeding of bare slopes
wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need • Hand broadcast or use a "breast seeder," A typical
winter protection. Final landscaping can be done yard can be done in less than an hour.
later. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer.
• Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves,
Inexpensive measures installed by fall will give you bark chips or straw.
protection quickly that will last all during the wet • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes.
season, • Check with your local nursery for advice.
Winter alert
In one afternoon you can: • Check before storms to see that drains and ditches
• Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water away are not clogged by leaves and rubble.
from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear
• Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as
the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will necessary.
hold seeds. • Spot seed any bare areas,
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise
covered.
CONTROL EROSION
AND PROTECT
YOUR PROPERTY
G
Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol-
lars
ol lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for
damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to
be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains,
channels, lakes and the Bay. Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water,
restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel-
You can protect your prop- ing access roads and driveways.
erty and prevent future
headaches by following
these guidelines: TEMPORARY MEASURES TO
11.0 ;_. STABILIZE THE SOIL
BEFORE AND Grass provides the
DURING f ctr
cheapest
sshort-terms
ero-
sion cion control. It grows
quickly and covers the
ground completely. To
find the best seed mix-
• Plan construction activities during spring and summer, I II / tures and plants for
so that erosion control measures can be in place when ( /�1 / your area, check with
the rain comes. ' 1 :' your local nursery, the
4: ..;7rJ��U.S. Department of Ag-
• Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of '' _�:'y`�' u riculture Soil Conserva-
the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site :_ tion Service, or the
design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work. University of California
Cooperative Extension.
• Preserve existing vegeta-
tion as much as possible.
Limit grading and plant ;
removal to the areas Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection
under current construc- _ from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi-
tion. (Vegetation will ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy-to-obtain
naturally curb erosion, mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips
improve the appearance and straw
and the value of your
property, and reduce the Straw mulch is nearly 100%effective when held inplace by
cost of landscaping later.) spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber(tackifiers), by
punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack-
Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic. ing a netting over it.
If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as-
phalt or porous paving blocks.
Commercial applications of
• Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the wood fibers combined with
earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded various seeds and fertilizers
areas are exposed. (hydraulic mulching)are effec-
tive in stabilizing sloped areas.
• Minimize the length and Hydraulic mulching with a
steepness of slopes by tackifier should
benching, terracing, or be done in two _
constructing diversion separate app li- - -
structures. Landscape cations: the first
' benched areas to stabilize composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch,the second
the slope and improve its composed of the remaining mulch and tackifrer. Cornmer-
appearance. tial hydraulic mulch applicators—who also provide other
erosion control services—are listed under"landscaping"in
• As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation the phone book.
• Riprap (rock lining)—to
protect channel banks I� 7
from erosive water flow
• Sediment trap—to
stop runoff carrying s r �5. • !!
,:,W: sediment and trap the
sediment
Mats otf excelsior,jute netting and plastic sheets can be ef-
fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with
the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Storm drain outlet
--� protection—to reduce
the speed of water flow-
ing from a pipe onto
Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con- ;_' a open ground or into a
tainers or routed into lawns, planter boxes and gardens. natural channel
Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos-
quitos, too. Excessive runoff should be directed away from Diversion dike or perimeter dike—to divert excess
your house. Too much water can damage trees and make water to places where it can be disposed of properly
foundations unstable.
STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS
• Straw bale dike—to stop and detain sediment from
Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to small unprotected areas
protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have (a short-term measure)
time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent
ways to transport water across your property so that it • Perimeter Swale—to divert
doesn't cause erosion. runoff from a disturbed area ,
or to contain runoff within
To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump- a disturbed area y �•
ing it into nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you
need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some exam- Grade stabilization structure—to carry concentrated
ples of what you might use are: runoff down a slope
jute netting
� Yrft tlIl�)rlir)'rl.� aJr..r:n.
landscaping Ih,
\ .Itl
hydraulic mulch \ -- � 't!
plastic sheeting
IUB _ f'�y.'•j�?i;, �; :'�:' `1� .,.�.i
perimeter dike _ VAL. diversion ditch
ILL F� �;,• ...i,..•.+t. ..;;:•:• '' :> :�`�
bench
straw mulch sediment trap outlet protection
4W
Correspondence Submitted for Previous Designs
1557 Drake Avenue
Architects
October 12, 2006
Planning Commission
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd. RECEIVED
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: 1557 Drake Ave.
OCT 16 2006
CI OF BURLINGAME
Dear Commissioners,
pLANNING DEPT.
Attached you will find a revised design, and additional requested information, regarding the
proposal for a new home at 1557 Drake Ave.
In terms of the design, a couple of comments were made at the last meeting; that we eliminate the
5" side yard variance, and that we look at revising the house entrance to respond better to the site
entry point. Our initial design took the approach that this lot was so unusual that the side setbacks
were open for interpretation at the Planning Commission level, hence, the 5" request. We have
eliminated the request by pulling the garage and den wall in 5". As for the entry, we have created
a classic, rounded, shingle style porch that allows one to enter at an angle (facing the site entry).
Additionally, the setback of the right side of the garage (front setback) has increased from 4-8" to
5'-4"
As you may recall, the request was made that we study alternate garage configurations and
compare them to that which has been proposed. There were three basic configurations discussed
at the last meeting; the proposed (which is the same as the existing garage on site), a side entry
garage that is 24' away from the fence line between 1557 and 1561 Drake, and one similar to the
proposed but moved over 10 feet further away from 1561 Drake. We used the standard City of
Burlingame auto template to analyze these three options, which are attached. The City tries to
limit the number of maneuvers to (3), with a maneuver being defined as a "change of direction or
a change of pivot point". The diagrams order the number of maneuvers to pull into the garage;
backing out would be the same moves in reverse. The exercise has been repeated for each parking
bay within a particular garage. In all cases, if there is not already a car parked in the garage, it's
easy to get in.
The possibility of exiting in a forward position was also discussed, and although very few
Burlingame driveways allow for this, we did look at it. Options one and two both allow one to
exit forward with a lot of maneuvers. If there is only one car in the garage, exiting forward is
more practical.
We hope this study is useful in your analysis of the project, and we look forward to the meeting.
Sincerely,
Randy Grange AIA
Project Architect
205 Park Road, Suite 203, Burlingame, CA 94010
650.579.5762 Fax 650.579.0115 www.trgarch.com
RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT,
1
PROPERTY LINE -
O
r-
I
I
4 _8
\ � 1
1 i
- - - - - - - -
10 \
oronod to
I RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I
PROPERTY LINE
O
I
I
3
I
I
I
1
RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
1 CITY OF BURLINGAME
1 PLANNING DEPT.
PROPERTY LINE
O
...............................................................
1-
I
i
d
1
I
1
5
r7?o
JI Of 1
RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
CITY OF
BURLIN
GAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PROPERTY LINE
O
r
I
24'-O"
4
0
1
1
i
t
' RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
CITY OF BURUNGAME
' PLANNING DEPT.
PROPERTY LINE
O
0
r
2 � .
1
orrrlo�/
40
RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PROPERTY LINE
O
r
24'-O"
o
y �
Ul �
Mono/ 0 �
RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PROPERTY LINE
i
2 '-O"
• � ' i
............... "No
2
r
I
I
G
7
7-7--f- Ex or
RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAME
1 PLANNING DEPT.
1
PROPERTY LINE
O
I
1
3
I
1
1
I
I
o
i
1
RECEIVED
OCT 16 2006
I
CITY OF BURUNGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PROPERTY LINE
O
I
1
I
I
�E c U IT c? S MOVES "
fy Vf�!)Z7 T1GPFr
1
vY � _
RECEIVED
OCT 2 3 2006
AME
From:Ottojmiller@aol.com[mailto:Ottojmiller@aol.com] CITY AN iNe DEPT.PLFWNINCi[�.
Sent:Monday,October 23,2006 8:57 AM '
To:ralph@ralphosterling.com
Subject:1557 Drake COb1MUN1G1T10NRECEIM
OM P"W"HON
OFSTAFFREPOR?
Dear Ralph: PG I p Z 3
I have reviewed the site plan and floor plan for the property at 1557 Drake,Burlingame,and
have produced what I think is an acceptable alternative,with minimal changes.I hope the
Planning Commission would agree.I have built many homes in the Easton Addition and have
never,ever requested a variance. I have completed two homes on this block,one at 1547 Drake
and the other at 1553 Drake.The property at 1547 Drake has a 24 foot setback for a one-car
garage,so obviously,this setback design works.My applications for 1537 and 1543 Drake will
come back to the Planning Commission due to modifications so we could accommodate the
grove of redwoods that sits on lot 9(1537).If I was able to design two homes around a grove of
redwoods without a variance and constrict not only the design but also the size of the homes to
accommodate these magnificent specimens of nature,I feel that the Garcias have a much easier
site with many more options.I have listed below some alternatives which would not only
eliminate the need for a variance,but which make the home more compatible with the
neighborhood:
1) As you can see,I have moved the garage back to accommodate for the 25-foot setback,
and showed available space where the office could be placed.
2) The second floor can still be utilized as designed.
3) It makes the end of the block feel less constricted.
4) The design is more compatible with the neighborhood,because it now needs no variance
and achieves the average setback for the block.
5) Also,it eliminates the Planning Commission's concern about off-street parking because
the house has no real street frontage,and the street frontage close to the house is now a
red zone,for the benefit of the applicant who resides at 1561 Drake,so they can back
their car out of their garage.
6) This design also helps the interaction between 1557 and 1561,both owned by the
applicant(Garcia)
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Otto Miller
_ rid""// f f .-•--•-:_- II
J
�I -tI 1I IIIIII L':•-. ___..;:r..............1 ': � IIII
rC•.1• :.:•i II I.
. \:\:.:.:.:: .1:.:.:.•:.. .:. :.
I III t••��•_ ...... '•'- �
� -- III r'.. •:::::.-5...t:... .:...... ... ....ti�i.::. a
Ul :
•::: {•::•::-:::•.:"• :'::•::•::t: II
..... ......../is": II
(W s
LKflTOBE .
}i:: ::. �y%..
r �.. I . -- :.r.^T:::
-. t _._:_ ...
•.T.•- 1"RTt R. .
F.......
uj
..'... //
W 04 m z
Lu
. 'JAW ONINNVId
. . 3WVE)NIiuni3 d0 ALo
9002 E 9 100
Y64O•
]b• 146• ]V•
Rte` cti
oFF` � ge��ct •
• .mss r
OW
N PATb
4
n
Rm Ifs
p }
v
��• �Tb' 6b' Tb•
b'
ke
F/RST FLOOR PLAN
Md 3113
1
aw
wnwm► ,
1
1
,P0161
, 1
,
' mmm I �N
a3vmw *vWk
nP
M�yR S I
_ �f99n L F ,1`irca I
M 16.M.F—S ,
I
\ o glo _ J
RECEIVED 1 ;
I
OCT 2 3 2006 /
,
CITY OF BURLINGAME -
PLANNING DEPT.
Oct 23 06 U3:Utp MILLtK VtVtLUF'tMtN I P.i
VAPFU
Miller Development oN�'P.O.Box 121 T
Surtingame, CA 94011 11{650) sao a112 ,
650 340-8435 Fax
RECEIVED
October 23, 2006
OCT 2 3 2006
Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road CITY OF BURUNGAME
Burlingame, CA 94010 PUWNWG cePr•
Dear Planning Commissioners:
In the event you did not receive my email today,I have attached abard copy for your review
in response to my objection for a variance at 1557 Drake Avenue,Burlingame.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Otto Miller
Oct 23 06 03:06p MILLLK L&VELOHLMENI oouwuoaso p.t
RECEIVED
(email sent 10123106)
OCT 2 3 2006
Dear Planning Commissioners: Cm OF BURUNGAME
PLANNNG Dt'M
I have reviewed the site plan and floor plan for the property at 1557 Drake,Burlingame, and
have produced what I think is an acceptable alternative,with minimal changes. I hope the
Planning Commission would agree. I have built many homes in the Easton Addition and
have never,ever requested a variance. I have completed two homes on this block,one at
1547 Drake and the other at 1553 Drake.The property at 1547 Drake has a 24 foot setback
for a one-car garage, so obviously,this setback design works.My applications for 1537 and
1543 Drake will come back to the Planning Commission due to modifications so we could
accommodate the grove of redwoods that sits on lot 9 (1537).If I was able to design two
homes around a grove of redwoods without a variance and constrict not only the design but
also the size of the homes to accommodate these magnificent specimens of nature,l feel that
the Garcias have a much easier site with many more options.I have listed below some
alternatives which would not only eliminate the need for a variance,but which make the
home more compatible with the neighborhood:
1) As you can see, I have moved the garage back to accommodate for the 25-foot
setback,and showed available space use the office could be placed.
2) The second floor can still be utilized as designed.
3) It makes the end of the block feel less constricted.
4) The design is more compatible with the neighborhood,because it now needs no
variance and achieves the average setback for the block.
5) Also, it eliminates the Planning Commission's concern about off-street parking
because the house has no real street frontage, and the street frontage close to the
house is now a red zone,for the benefit of the applicant who resides at 1561 Drake,
so they can back their car out of their garage.
6) This design also helps the interaction between 1557 and 1561,both owned by the
applicant(Garcia)
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Otto Miller
W W
>
W
U Mz
mZ
LL
W v °
3AL6' 35._4.
iv
kmmyft ` gikrA&t
n
WON,
i
Media Rm Root '" rpt mmg
N 7
! lOYoben
N Alt
° Aarcb �
CN m
M w a
r•e• y.4• i,_�o•
75-4• rt,-�,
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
rwt.e� rN• r•.e•
W o r � • /
� J I
I311 1 0 yll�
1 "ytI �• I yl .
' � 4
Ix' ss ab• I p y .
f] 13b
5M ,. 16Af AmhAw w I ..
o�
Ocv• a�� �et�c�rft�� �
I I
1 �
POW� 1 /
1 I 1
i 7SSS pnMAR
I na-ou-om I
I
SITE PLAN 1
. forte uf•.r••t•
RECEIVED
OCT 2 3 2006
BUBUNGAME
nN114(3 DEPT.
-_may � �`` _ ;j�:•:�• _ //
............
.. . :.:::"". —
I:_rrrr: ::r:: r
I
1.... -._.T.. .... ......`. ... ..i..T. ...
MY
i II = :•::. ....
sr
r�:.... ...... .....tA�.:_...
6 !� r:::ti:t-::•�::::::::'::•::: -::::ti•^5:.-:.:•::. -. III .. r—�
`° i f':�-:.rr::ir _:::•::-:-- .--�-r-.:: . III I i 11
I I LL�
I I
rrf
11 / /
FW: 1557 Drake Page 1 of
PLG-Monroe, Meg
From: Michael Brownrigg [mbrownrigg@chinavest.com] ��� $a A �
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:11 PM 1 �4
To: PLG-Monroe, Meg
OCT 1 1 2006
Subject: FW: 1557 Drake
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Vleg -- please be sure our colleagues also see these comments. mgb PLANNING DEPT.
• --Original Message-----
From: Ottojmiller@aol.com [mailto:Ottojmillernaol.com]
Sent: Mon 10/9/2006 1:52 PM
ro: Michael Brownrigg
Subject: 1557 Drake
)ear Michael:
I had a chance to review the new plans for the Garcia residence at
1557 Drake drawn by Randy Grange. Randy is a superb architect and the plans are
i real improvement over the prior version. However, the house still needs
;ome work.
The plans call for a FAR of 3,499 SF where 3,500 SF is allowed, and a
variance from a side/front setback is needed to get this maximum-sized house.
Traditionally, the Commission has not granted variances for maxed-out
louses. Instead, the Commission has required that the designer make concessions on
louse size to avoid a variance. That should be done here (perhaps by
iecreasing the garage to one space).
Of course, I have no objection in concept to a maximum FAR house.
3ut, the house has to fit the lot and fit into the neighborhood. This house
toes not present a pleasant appearance to the street - it turns its side to the
street and faces 1553 Drake in a very odd fashion. As designed, the house will
appear to crowd the neighboring houses at the end of this street. If the
applicant were required to provide a streetscape, I think the Commission would
see that this house will look out of place from the start. More consideration
should be given to moving square footage into the rear portion of the lot and
sway from the street and houses on both sides.
During the process while I was applying for design approval for the
louses I wanted to build on Drake, the neighbors (including the Garcias)
lemanded that I respect the neighborhood and street views. I had to make several
;oncessions on the size and placement of the homes. I hope that the Commission
Evill remember that process and ensure that the Garcias also respect these
lalues, even if it means that the house gets smaller or moved into a different
Lrea of the lot.
Thank you for your consideration.
>incerely;
)tto Miller
10/11/2006
Oct 23 06 03: 34p p' 1
J l R R Y 8t TERRY Y E E P.C. I'D.23.06
COMMUNICATION RECEIVED
AFTER PREPARATION
OF STAFF REPORT
October 23,ZU06 '-�YH + b
Commission RECEIVED
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd. .
Burlingame,eA 94010 0 C T 8 3:2006
CITY OF BURUNGAME
PLANNING DEPT
Dear Commissioners:
%V'e are residents at 1553 Drake Avc. We have reviewed the plans for the new house nest door at 155?
Drake Ave. My husband and I also%vent to the architect's office to lock at the shadow impacts of the back
section of that house on our property.We were concern because vee use the outdoor apace quite&equendy&
spend most of our time:in the kitchen nook/family room located in the back of the house.We do not aunt to
see an.imposing structure there which would greatly imp-act the light on my property. I have heard that some
are saying to change the garage :and move the house back father- If that happens then we will be forced to
look at a big wall and taller roof from my backyard.Wa like the openness of our yard and the view to the trees
along creek. The structure wM greatly impact the light on to our property. We do not believe that moving the
house back is a good. idea :;race there aren't any problems with the garage the way it is nosv. We support the
original plans and feel the house will be an unprovemcnt to the street
Sincerely,
Terry ee
i
1553 nxARB AVE. • BUL1NGAME,CA • 94010
PtritlNlc- (.50.344-9028 • PAY: 650-344-9028
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW,
FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT
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, front and side setback variances and special permit for attached garage for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 1557 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:
026-033-250;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
November 27, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other
written materials and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and
comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no
substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the
environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 —
(a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a)
one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized
areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this
exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review, front and side setback variances and special permit are approved,
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such
design review, front and side setback variances and special permit are as set forth in the
minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official
records of the County of San Mateo.
Chairman
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 November, 2006 by the following vote:
Secretary
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, front and side setback
variances and special permit.
1557 Drake Avenue
Effective December 7, 2006
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped November 13, 2006, sheets A-0 through A-3.1, L1.0, and that any changes
to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall
require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and
NPDES Coordinator's September 11, 2006, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's
September 20, 2006, memo, shall be met;
3. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review;
5. that the wall between the garage attic and house attic shall contain no openings and that
the area in the rafters over the garage shall only be accessible from inside the garage and
shall only be used for storage;
6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property corners and set the building footprint;
7. 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;
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. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department;
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, front and side setback
variances and special permit.
1557 Drake Avenue
Effective December 7, 2006
Page 2
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
11. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before
a Building permit is issued;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
16. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of permit application.
CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME
N PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURIJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME,CA 94010
TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790, , .
eo �
„,tee•
www.burlingame.org 'tl'�°"' ,,, lu
5
J.
:..iia• �w'm�,r:y.T�t��_-,-3:
Site: 1557 Drake Avenue
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING
following public hearing on Monday, November 27, NOTICE
2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers,501
Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA:
Application for design review, front and side setback
variances and special permit for attached garage for a new,
two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at
1557 Drake Avenue zoned R-1. (APN 026-033-250)
Mailed: November 27, 2006
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this"project may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the Planning Department i ',6" l.,,Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California
j �r�. 't �I ar•.gY. "'*,a� 'ris
If you challenge the`subject apphcation(s)'m court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or'someone else rased'at the"':,,,
he public hearing,
described in the not>ce or in written correspondence deliv_eted to the city
at or prior to the'public Hearing ry "
Property owners who receive h> notice are responsible for informing
their tenants about this notice For additional information, please call
(650) 558-7250 Thant you ;} S" -
f
Margaret Monroe
{
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING` VOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
"'�`r '� - � ;- - 't -• .,�. a.:r'�rr tea. r�-",rye'�: ••`„- .
r ..
• ��\F �� } y� � d• i.' ..�L e�+ •ter A •
_
Y ={'..�,:. 4 Y�AA`�.•. -e�L�•.iCi k"A�'r.y y.P /�A T' �ai,, g ��.
Yb'
- �1.• `a'� a, '•t+t-' ,a, :. � � 'li 'i' Ate`^ _ ,`�,
��f. � w � r g����" iris� n i� �• aM; �rt � .� .
OF-
I IL
��L��' � .. of 1 4,y��„j���t., ,�� .sa. ,i ##`•'�� ''y ,��d+.
�'• :�r`ft` .�^� ..'e�'►,� f, ,y(y ,� y `/.✓��
��••jar� "t _ c "' �al%.�r F74� I�. '[�"�., '�
_ - X14 �yy♦p ` �- \ 'q ` T .�4
PF lL�,,r.,' "'��. ..'�g,`" 7'��.F" � 4� �► j:.
s�7 I']y�... _ y f ' ,y• ice,. �y{.a1�s11 \\iS' I
0.k C �• � � e !F irj� T ; `h �'
FT
,�a
1557'
• Avenue {Y �Mmt 7`` \� • , J r•,w\_ �eJ'\•! ,%f , '. rY�4J .
Honorable Mayor & City Council
Please schedule an appeal hearing
for 1557 Drake Avenue to be heard
at the January 16, 2007 City
Council meeting.
December 7, 2006 City Clerk
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
I would like to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on 11/27/06, regarding the
approval of a submittal for a new home at 1557 Drake Avenue, including 2 variances, to the
City Council.
Sincerely,
imOt o iller
RECEIVED
DEC - 8 2006
CITY OF BURLINGAM
PLANNING DEP .
Page 1 of 1
PLG-Hurin, Ruben
From: Ottojmiller@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:49 AM
ED
To: PLG-Hurin, Ruben
Subject: 1557 Drake
JAN 0 2 2007
Rubin: CITY Or BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
I sent this to the Council members (except Ann Keighran)
"January 2, 2007
re: 1557 Drake
Dear
Hope you had a wonderful holiday. As you know, I have appealed the project at 1557 Drake Avenue. I would like to set
up a meeting with you to go over the my concerns with this project. You can reach me at my office (650) 340-8112 or
on my cell (650) 796-1554. Thank you for you time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Otto Miller"
Regards,
Otto
1/4/2007
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,DESIGN REVIEW,
FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT
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, front and side setback variances and special permit for attached garage for a
new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 1557 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1,
Jay and Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owners, APN: 026-
033-250;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on
November 27, 2006, at which time said application was approved;
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on
January 16, 2007, 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 hereby 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 council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial
evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and
categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a
limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or
a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family
residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved.
2. Said design review, front and side setback variances and special permit are approved,
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A' attached hereto. Findings for such design review,
front and side setback variances and special permit 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, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on January 16, 2007, and
adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT"A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, front and side.setlfack
variances and special permit.
1557 Drake Avenue
Effective January 16,2007
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped November 13,2006,sheets A-0 through A-3.1,L1.0,and that any changes
to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall
require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's,City Engineer's,Fire Marshal's,and
NPDES Coordinator's September 11, 2006, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's
September 20,2006,memo,shall be met;
3. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on
the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be
required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,or garage,which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Conlmission review;
5. that the wall between the garage attic and house attic shall contain no openings and that
the area in the rafters over the garage shall only be accessible from inside the garage and
shall only be used for storage;
6. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the
property comers and set the building footprint;
7. '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;
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. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department; '
EXHIBIT"A"
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, front and side s4ack
variances and special permit.
1557 Drake Avenue
Effective January 16, 2007
10. that prior to fmal inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
11. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a
single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and
that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before
a Building permit is issued;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the
new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as
identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
16. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a
complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and
irrigation plans at time of permit application.
CITY o� STAFF REPORT
BURUNGAME AGENDA 8S
ITEM #
tip` E , MTG.
OQ AATED JYNE6,9 DATE January 16, 2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI T
BY
DATE: January 16, 2007
APA OVED
FROM: Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer BY r "
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Ballot Measure for June 5, 2007 W6 Adoption of Resolution
Determining the Public Interest and Necessity of Construction and Completion of
Municipal Improvements for Flood Control and for Safety Improvements to Existing
Recreation Center and Introduction of An Ordinance Calling A Special Municipal Bond
Election For Approval of Bonds to Finance Construction and Completion of Municipal
Improvements for Flood Control and Safety Improvements to Existing Recreation Center
Recommendation
That the Council consider the options that have been presented for placing a general obligation ballot measure
on the June 5, 2007 election to finance storm drainage and safety improvement to the recreation center and:
1. Determine the amount and use of the general obligation bonds to be placed on a ballot measure;
2. Adopt a resolution determining the public interest and necessity of construction and completion of
municipal improvements for flood control and for safety improvements to existing recreation
center; and,
3. Introduce an ordinance calling a special municipal bond election for approval of bonds to finance
construction and completion of municipal improvements for flood control and safety improvements
to existing recreation center.
Background
The Council requested that staff prepare for a possible June 2007 general obligation bond election. The next
step is adoption of a resolution determining the public interest and necessity of construction of the
improvements and introduction of an ordinance calling for a special municipal election. The resolution and
ordinance requires the Council to identify the amount of bonds to be issued and use of the funds.
The Council discussed the proposed election on January 2, 2007 and reviewed five different bond scenarios.
The Council also was presented with the option of using a special financing district. Council approved an
agreement with the consultancy firm, NBS to perform a preliminary analysis of the use of special financing
districts. The Council will be presented with the comparison as soon as it is available. A decision to proceed
with a June 2007 general bond election will need to be made on February 21, 2007.
G.O. Bond Options -2007.doc Page 1
Given the last Council discussion, staff developed and presents two additional options in this report. Option
one is for$37 million. Option two is for$35 million.
Improvements Option 1 Option 2
Storm Drainage $ 35 million $ 35 million
Recreation Center $ 2 million $ -0-
Total: $ 37 million $ 35 million
The debt service requirements and associated tax levies are enclosed as Attachment A. The analysis is based
on four sales taking place. The term of the bonds is extended to 30 years to lower the annual debt payments.
Attachment B. delineates the storm drainage projects to be funded under each option.
Staff believes that $37 million is the most appropriate amount for the bond issue. It funds the most important
work while still lowering the debt burden on Burlingame taxpayers.
Fiscal Implications
Debt service requirements will depend on the option that is chosen. Because it is a general obligation bond, it
is backed by the full faith and credit of the city. The repayment is assured by a new property tax levy. Annual
debt payments and associated administrative costs are distributed to all Burlingame property owners based on
the assessed value of their property. The annual debt payments are estimated to be:
Option 1: $37 million Option 2: $35 million
Average debt payment (for 36 yrs) $ 2,214,779 $ 2,095,335
Maximum debt payment $ 2,690,288 $ 2,543,075
Total debt payments $79,732,038 $75,432,075
The typical annual tax payment for Burlingame residents is determined using the median assessed value of a
single family residence. That amount is estimated to be$425,000.
Burlingame homeowners with this value of property will pay the following estimated amounts:
Tax Payment Option 1: $37 million Option 2: $35 million
Minimum $17.72 $16.75
Average $96.86 $91.63
Maximum $159.89 $151.13
Attachment A provides additional taxpayer payment information based on the average tax levies and the
graduated assessed values of Burlingame parcels.
Election Costs
A preliminary cost for a June election is $90,000. At present only the city measure would appear on the
ballot. Funds would need to be appropriated to the City Clerks Office from the contingency reserve.
G.O.Bond Options-2007.doc Page 2
Voter education costs are not included. If the Council believes that Burlingame voters should be better
informed about the election then additional funds would be needed for voter education materials or services.
Storm Drainage Improvements
Both options one and two fund $35 million in storm drain work. However the scope of the improvements is
reduced from the original list. Two projects would be deferred into the future. They are the Easton Creek
Levee and Catch Basin Improvements ($1.5 million) and the Bayfront Improvements ($2.5 million).
Recreation Center Improvements
Option one will make the recreation center seismically secure. The work has been identified as a necessary
improvement that will protect our citizens and preserve the integrity of the building in the event of an
earthquake. The improvements are not a long-term solution to the continuing need for a new community
center,but they serve an important purpose in ensuring citizens that their lives and property are protected.
If Council wants to eliminate the recreation center improvements from the general obligation amount, then
these costs must be identified in the capital improvements budget and prioritized. The only method to finance
the work would be to reallocate the current appropriations in the capital improvements fund. General fund
revenue that currently funds storm drainage maintenance and construction would be diverted to finance the
recreation center improvements.
Current projections indicate that the Council can fund $2.3 million for CIP next fiscal year(mostly from
onetime sources). Attachment C shows how that amount would likely be distributed based on last year's
allocations. If a"storm drainage only"bond issue is successful in gaining voter approval, then the Council
has the flexibility to use $2 million for the recreation center improvements. This would limit the amount
available for other capital improvement projects to $300,000 in next fiscal year.
Attachments
Option One:
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Determining the Public Interest and
Necessity of Construction and Completion of Municipal Improvements for Flood Control and for
Safety Improvements to Existing Recreation Center
Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Calling A Special Municipal Bond Election For Approval of
Bonds to Finance Construction and Completion of Municipal Improvements for Flood Control and
Safety Improvements to Existing Recreation Center
Option Two:
- Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Determining the Public Interest and
Necessity of Construction and Completion of Municipal Improvements for Flood Control
Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Calling A Special Municipal Bond Election For Approval of
Bonds to Finance Construction and Completion of Municipal Improvements for Flood Control
Attachment A. Average Tax Levy Comparisons, De La Rosa and Company
Attachment B. Storm Drainage Projects Funded Under$35 Million Bond, Public Works Department
Attachment C. City of Burlingame Capital Improvements FY07-08, Public Works Department
G.O.Bond Options-2007.doc Page 3
Option One: $37 Million
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY OF CONSTRUCTION
AND COMPLETION OF MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL,
AND FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING RECREATION CENTER
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City Council has undertaken a study of the capital facility needs of the
City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based upon citizen input, the
recommendations of the City Manager, Director of Public Works, the Police Department, the
Fire Department, and other City departments, the studies of expert professionals in the fields of
engineering and other information, that the public interest and necessity demand improvements
to aging and under-capacity flood control infrastructure and for basic safety improvements to the
sixty year-old recreation center; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered and approved these
improvements as part of a comprehensive public facilities plan; and
WHEREAS, although the City expects to contribute other City moneys to these public
safety and facility improvements, the amount of available funds will be insufficient to meet the
identified capital needs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires and expects to order and conduct a special
municipal bond election within the City in order to place a proposition before the City's voters
for incurring bonded debt to pay for the work of such municipal improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1 . Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and this City Council so finds.
Section 2. Finding of Public Interest and Necessity. The public interest and necessity
demand the design, construction, and completion by the City of the following municipal
improvements: improvements to aging and under-capacity flood control infrastructure, including
acquisition and/or construction of facilities, other works, property or structures necessary or
convenient for said flood control improvements, and safety improvements to the City recreation
center. These municipal improvements constitute and are hereby approved as the City's plan of
improvements proposed to be funded from a bond issue at this time.
I OPTION #1
Section 3. Authority to Incur Indebtedness. The estimated cost of the acquisition,
construction and completion of the municipal improvements to be funded from bonds is
$37,000,000, and such cost will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and
revenue of the City, and will require an expenditure greater than the amount allowed therefor by
the annual tax levy, and the City should incur a bonded indebtedness for these municipal
improvements.
Section 4. Effective Date. Upon a two-thirds vote of all of the members of the City
Council, this resolution shall take effect immediately.
MAYOR
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
2007,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
2 OPTION #1
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION FOR APPROVAL OF
3 BONDS TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF MUNICIPAL
IMPROVEMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL,AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO
4 EXISTING RECREATION CENTER
6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as
7 follows:
8 WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Burlingame (the "City"),
9 by resolution duly passed and adopted by affirmative vote of more than two-thirds of all its
10 members at a meeting of the Council duly and regularly held on January 16, 2007, did
11 determine that the public interest and necessity demand the design, construction and completion
12 of the municipal improvements hereinafter mentioned; and did further determine that the cost
13 of the design, construction and completion of said City plan of municipal improvements will be
14 too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City and will require
15 an expenditure greater than the amount allowed therefor by the annual tax levy, and will require
16 the incurring of a bonded indebtedness therefor; and
17 WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission has heretofore approved a city plan of
18 improvements consisting of the aforementioned projects; and
19 WHEREAS, this Ordinance was introduced and first read at a meeting of the City
20 Council held and conducted on January 16, 2007; and
21 WHEREAS, a summary of this ordinance was published not less than 5 days prior to
22 this meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933;
23
24 NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as
25 follows:
26
7 Section 1. Specifications of Election Order.
28 (a)A special municipal bond election is hereby ordered to be held throughout the Cit\
1/912007 1 OPTION #1
i
I of Burlingame on June 5, 2007, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the
City a proposition of incurring bonded indebtedness of the City, summarized for purposes of
3 Section 13247 of the Elections Code of the State of California(the "Elections Code"), as
4 follows:
5
6 `BURLINGAME FLOOD PROTECTION AND SAFETY MEASURE. To safeguard
7 Burlingame residents, homes and businesses, shall the City of Burlingame be authorized
8 to issue $35,000,000 in bonds to improve aging and undercapacity flood control
9 infrastructure; and for seismic stability, disabled access, safety, security, fire protection,
10 and ventilation improvements in the existing City recreation center, shall the City be
11 authorized to issue $2,000,000 in bonds; with all expenditures monitored by a citizens'
12 oversight committee with annual independent audits?"
13
14 (b) The Registrar of Voters (the "Registrar of Voters") of the County of San Mateo
15 (the "County") is hereby requested to reprint the summary of the measure contained in
16 subdivision(a) of this Section(the "Measure")as the ballot measure in all official materials
17 pertaining to the election, including notices of election, notices inviting arguments, and other
18 notices, voter information pamphlets, and the official ballots.
19
20 Section 2. Required Recitals.
I (a) Purpose. The object and specific purpose of incurring the indebtedness is to
finance a portion of the cost of construction and completion of the municipal improvements
3 described in Section 1(a)hereof(including acquisition and/or construction of other facilities,
4 works, property, or structures necessary or convenient for the flood control improvements so
2 described), and proceeds of the bonds shall be spent only for such purposes,pursuant to
6 Government Code Section 53410. These municipal improvements constitute and are hereby
7 approved as the City's plan of improvements proposed to be funded from a bond issue at this
time.
1/9/2007 2 OPTION #1
I.
I (b) Cost of Improvements. The estimated cost of the municipal improvements
2 described in subdivision (a) to be funded from the bonds is $37,000,000. The estimated cost of
3 the municipal improvements includes legal and other fees incidental to or connected with the
4 authorization, issuance and sale of the proposed bonds, the costs of printing the bonds and other
5 costs and expenses incidental to or connected with the authorization, issuance and sale of the
6 bonds.
7 (c) Amount of Bonds. The amount of principal of the indebtedness proposed to be
8 incurred for said municipal improvements is $35,000,000 for flood control improvements and
9 $2,000,000 for the safety improvements to the existing recreation center described in Section
10 1(a).
11 (d) Maximum Interest Rate. Said bonds shall bear interest at the rate of not to
12 exceed 12% per annum, the maximum currently allowed by law, such rate or rates to be
13 determined at the time of sale of the bonds or any series thereof.
14 (e) Date of Election. The election will be held on June 5, 2007.
15 (f) Election Procedures; Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to Section 10400 and
16 following of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County and the Registrar of
17 Voters are hereby authorized and requested to canvass the returns of the election. Except as
18 otherwise provided herein, the manner of holding the election, the forms of the ballots, the
19 procedures for soliciting ballot arguments and the dates on which such arguments are due, the
20 procedures for voting for or against the Measure, the procedures for canvassing the vote, and all
21 other procedures for conducting the election, shall be as directed by the Elections Code, or as
22 determined by the Registrar of Voters in accordance with the Elections Code. The City Clerk is
23 hereby authorized and directed to cooperate with the Registrar of Voters and to follow the
24 procedures and meet all deadlines established by the Registrar of Voters. Costs charged by the
25 County for conducting the election are hereby declared to be a cost of the municipal
26 improvements to be paid from the proceeds of bonds. The Measure shall be approved by the
27 affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the qualified electors voting on the Measure.
28 (g) Maximum Maturity of Bonds. The final maturity date of any of the bonds shall
1/9/2007 3 OPTION #1
I
1 not exceed 40 years from the time of incurring the indebtedness evidenced by such bonds or the
2 series of bonds of which such bonds are a part.
3 (h) Special Bond Proceeds Account; Annual Report to Council. Upon approval of
4 the Measure and the sale of any bonds approved, the Council shall establish an improvement
5 fund or account (which may be an existing fund or account, if appropriate) in which proceeds of
6 the sale of bonds will be deposited. As long as any proceeds of the bonds remain unexpended,
7 the City Manager shall cause a report to be filed with the Council no later than December 31 of
8 each year, commencing December 31, 2007, stating (1) the amount of bond proceeds received
9 and expended in that year, and (2)the status of any project funded or to be funded from bond
10 proceeds. The report may relate to the calendar year, fiscal year, or other appropriate annual
11 period as the City Manager shall determine, and may be incorporated into the annual budget,
12 audit, or other appropriate routine report to the Council.
13
14 Section 3. Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to its resolution declaring the public
15 interest and necessity of calling the election, adopted on January 16, 2007, the Council hereby
16 requests with respect to the special municipal bond election called hereby, that the Board of
17 Supervisors of the County consolidate said election with any other election being conducted on
18 the same date in the same territory or any territory which is in part the same. The precincts,
19 polling places and officers of election shall be the same as those set forth in any order of the
20 Registrar of Voters or the Board of Supervisors of the County providing for the precincts,
21 polling places and election officers for any other election to be conducted on the date of the
22 special municipal bond election, as set forth in the notice to be published by the Registrar of
23 Voters pursuant to Sections 12105 and 10417 of the Elections Code.
24
25 Section 4. Tax Rate Statement. The Finance Director of the City is hereby
26 authorized and directed to cause to be prepared a tax rate statement as required by Elections
27 Code Section 9401 in connection with the Measure. The Finance Director shall submit the Tax
28 Rate Statement to the City Attorney and the City Clerk, in such time to permit the City Clerk to
1/9/2007 4 OPTION 41
I cause the Tax Rate Statement to be filed with the Registrar of Voters at the same time as this
Ordinance is filed, in any event no later than March 9, 2007.
4 Section 5. Primary Arguments. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
5 select an argument for and an argument against the measure to be printed and distributed to the
6 voters pursuant to Elections Code Section 9287.
7
8 Section 6. Rebuttal Arguments. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
9 enable preparation and submittal of rebuttal arguments as set forth in Elections Code Section
10 9285. The City Council hereby affirms it adoption of the provisions of Elections Code Section
11 9285(a)with regard to rebuttal arguments.
12
1 3 Section 7. Impartial Analysis. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy
1.1 of the Measure to the City Attorney of the City, who is hereby directed to prepare the impartial
1 analysis of the Measure pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280. The City Attorney shall
16 cause the Impartial Analysis to be filed with the City Clerk no later than March 26, 2007.
17
18 Section 8. Notice of Election. Notice of the election shall be given by publication
19 of this ordinance in a newspaper published at least six days per week in the City, once a day for
20 at least seven days prior to the holding of the election, and the City Clerk is hereby ordered and
21 directed to cause this ordinance to be so published. No other notice of the election need be
22 given.
23
24 Section 9. Filing with Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
25 directed to file a certified true and correct copy of this Ordinance with the Registrar of Voters as
26 soon as practicable after the adoption hereof, and in any event no later than March 9, 2007.
27
28 Section 10. Effective Date. A two-thirds vote of all of the members of the Council is
1/9/2007 5 OPTION 41
i
I required for approval of this ordinance. Being an ordinance calling and ordering an election,
2 this ordinance shall take effect from and after its final passage and approval.
3
4
Mayor
5
6 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
7 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
8 day of , 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council
9 held on the day of , 2007, by the following vote of at least four-fifths of its
10 members:
11
12 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
13 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
14 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
15
16
City Clerk
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1/9/2007 6 OPTION #1
Option Two: $35 Million
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY OF CONSTRUCTION
AND COMPLETION OF MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City Council has undertaken a study of the capital facility needs of the
City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based upon citizen input, the
recommendations of the City Manager, Director of Public Works, the Police Department, the
Fire Department, and other City departments, the studies of expert professionals in the fields of
engineering and other information, that the public interest and necessity demand improvements
to aging and under-capacity flood control infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered and approved these
improvements as part of a comprehensive public facilities plan; and
WHEREAS, although the City expects to contribute other City moneys to these public
safety and facility improvements, the amount of available funds will be insufficient to meet the
identified capital needs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires and expects to order and conduct a special
municipal bond election within the City in order to place a proposition before the City's voters
for incurring bonded debt to pay for the work of such municipal improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE:
Section 1 . Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and this City Council so finds.
Section 2. Finding of Public Interest and Necessity. The public interest and necessity
demand the design, construction, and completion by the City of the following municipal
improvements: improvements to aging and under-capacity flood control infrastructure, including
acquisition and/or construction of facilities, other works, property or structures necessary or
convenient for said flood control improvements. These municipal improvements constitute and
are hereby approved as the City's plan of improvements proposed to be funded from a bond issue
at this time.
Section 3. Authority to Incur Indebtedness. The estimated cost of the acquisition,
1 OPTION #2
construction and completion of the municipal improvements to be funded from bonds is
$35,000,000, and such cost will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and
revenue of the City, and will require an expenditure greater than the amount allowed therefor by
the annual tax levy, and the City should incur a bonded indebtedness for these municipal
improvements.
Section 4. Effective Date. Upon a two-thirds vote of all of the members of the City
Council, this resolution shall take effect immediately.
MAYOR
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
.2007,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
2 OPTION #2
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION FOR APPROVAL OF
3 BONDS TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF MUNICIPAL
IMPROVEMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL
4
5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as
6 follows:
7 WHEREAS,the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Burlingame(the "City"),
8 by resolution duly passed and adopted by affirmative vote of more than two-thirds of all its
9 members at a meeting of the Council duly and regularly held on January 16, 2007, did
10 determine that the public interest and necessity demand the design, construction and completion
11 of the municipal improvements hereinafter mentioned; and did further determine that the cost
12 of the design, construction and completion of said City plan of municipal improvements will be
13 too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City and will require
14 an expenditure greater than the amount allowed therefor by the annual tax levy, and will require
15 the incurring of a bonded indebtedness therefor; and
16 WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has heretofore approved a city plan of
17 improvements consisting of the aforementioned projects; and
18 WHEREAS, this Ordinance was introduced and first read at a meeting of the City
19 Council held and conducted on January 16, 2007; and
20 WHEREAS, a summary of this ordinance was published not less than 5 days prior to
1 this meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933;
22
23 NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as
24 follows:
,5
26 Section 1. Specifications of Election Order.
7 (a)A special municipal bond election is hereby ordered to be held throughout the City
8 o t'Burlingame on June 5, 2007, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the
1/9/2007 1 OPTION 42
i
I City a proposition of incurring bonded indebtedness of the City, summarized for purposes of
2 Section 13247 of the Elections Code of the State of California(the "Elections Code"), as
3 follows:
4
5 "BURLINGAME FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURE. To safeguard Burlingame
6 residents, homes and businesses, shall the City of Burlingame be authorized to issue
7 $35,000,000 in bonds to improve aging and undercapacity flood control infrastructure,
8 with all expenditures monitored by a citizens' oversight committee with annual
9 independent audits?"
10
11 (b) The Registrar of Voters (the "Registrar of Voters") of the County of San Mateo
12 (the "County") is hereby requested to reprint the summary of the measure contained in
13 subdivision (a) of this Section (the "Measure") as the ballot measure in all official materials
14 pertaining to the election, including notices of election, notices inviting arguments, and other
15 notices, voter information pamphlets, and the official ballots.
16
17 Section 2. Required Recitals.
18 (a) Purpose. The object and specific purpose of incurring the indebtedness is to
19 finance a portion of the cost of construction and completion of the municipal improvements
20 described in Section 1(a) hereof(including acquisition and/or construction of other facilities,
21 works, property, or structures necessary or convenient for the flood control improvements so
22 described), and proceeds of the bonds shall be spent only for such purposes, pursuant to
23 Government Code Section 53410. These municipal improvements constitute and are hereby
24 approved as the City's plan of improvements proposed to be funded from a bond issue at this
25 time.
26 (b) Cost of Improvements. The estimated cost of the municipal improvements
27 described in subdivision (a)to be funded from the bonds is $35,000,000. The estimated cost of
28 the municipal improvements includes legal and other fees incidental to or connected with the
1/9/2007 2 OPTION #2
i
i
I authorization, issuance and sale of the proposed bonds, the costs of printing the bonds and other
2 costs and expenses incidental to or connected with the authorization, issuance and sale of the
3 bonds.
4 (c) Amount of Bonds. The amount of principal of the indebtedness proposed to be
5 incurred for said municipal improvements is $35,000,000 for flood control improvements
6 described in Section 1(a).
7 (d) Maximum Interest Rate. Said bonds shall bear interest at the rate of not to
8 exceed 12%per annum, the maximum currently allowed by law, such rate or rates to be
9 determined at the time of sale of the bonds or any series thereof.
10 (e) Date of Election. The election will be held on June 5, 2007.
11 (f) Election Procedures; Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to Section 10400 and
12 following of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County and the Registrar of
l 3 Voters are hereby authorized and requested to canvass the returns of the election. Except as
14 otherwise provided herein,the manner of holding the election, the forms of the ballots, the
15 procedures for soliciting ballot arguments and the dates on which such arguments are due, the
16 procedures for voting for or against the Measure, the procedures for canvassing the vote, and all
17 other procedures for conducting the election, shall be as directed by the Elections Code, or as
18 determined by the Registrar of Voters in accordance with the Elections Code. The City Clerk is
19 hereby authorized and directed to cooperate with the Registrar of Voters and to follow the
20 procedures and meet all deadlines established by the Registrar of Voters. Costs charged by the
21 County for conducting the election are hereby declared to be a cost of the municipal
22 improvements to be paid from the proceeds of bonds. The Measure shall be approved by the
23 affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the qualified electors voting on the Measure.
24 (g) Maximum Maturity of Bonds. The final maturity date of any of the bonds shall
25 not exceed 40 years from the time of incurring the indebtedness evidenced by such bonds or the
26 series of bonds of which such bonds are a part.
27 (h) Special Bond Proceeds Account; Annual Report to Council. Upon approval of
28 the Measure and the sale of any bonds approved, the Council shall establish an improvement
1/9/2007 3 OPTION #2
I fund or account(which may be an existing fund or account, if appropriate) in which proceeds of
2 the sale of bonds will be deposited. As long as any proceeds of the bonds remain unexpended,
3 the City Manager shall cause a report to be filed with the Council no later than December 31 of
4 each year, commencing December 31, 2007, stating(1)the amount of bond proceeds received
5 and expended in that year, and(2)the status of any project funded or to be funded from bond
6 proceeds. The report may relate to the calendar year, fiscal year, or other appropriate annual
7 period as the City Manager shall determine, and may be incorporated into the annual budget,
8 audit, or other appropriate routine report to the Council.
9
10 Section 3. Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to its resolution declaring the public
11 interest and necessity of calling the election, adopted on January 16, 2007, the Council hereby
12 requests with respect to the special municipal bond election called hereby,that the Board of
13 Supervisors of the County consolidate said election with any other election being conducted on
14 the same date in the same territory or any territory which is in part the same. The precincts,
15 polling places and officers of election shall be the same as those set forth in any order of the
16 Registrar of Voters or the Board of Supervisors of the County providing for the precincts,
17 polling places and election officers for any other election to be conducted on the date of the
18 special municipal bond election, as set forth in the notice to be published by the Registrar of
1 1) Voters pursuant to Sections 12105 and 10417 of the Elections Code.
L0
1 Section 4. Tax Rate Statement. The Finance Director of the City is hereby
22 authorized and directed to cause to be prepared a tax rate statement as required by Elections
23 Code Section 9401 in connection with the Measure. The Finance Director shall submit the Tax
24 Rate Statement to the City Attorney and the City Clerk, in such time to permit the City Clerk to
25 cause the Tax Rate Statement to be filed with the Registrar of Voters at the same time as this
26 Ordinance is filed, in any event no later than March 9, 2007.
27
28 Section 5. Primary Arguments. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
1/9/2007 4 OPTION #2
I select an argument for and an argument against the measure to be printed and distributed to the
2 voters pursuant to Elections Code Section 9287.
J
4 Section 6. Rebuttal Arguments. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
5 enable preparation and submittal of rebuttal arguments as set forth in Elections Code Section
6 9285. The City Council hereby affirms it adoption of the provisions of Elections Code Section
7 9285(a) with regard to rebuttal arguments.
8
9 Section 7. Impartial Analysis. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy
10 of the Measure to the City Attorney of the City, who is hereby directed to prepare the impartial
1 1 analysis of the Measure pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280. The City Attorney shall
12 cause the Impartial Analysis to be filed with the City Clerk no later than March 26, 2007.
13
14 Section 8. Notice of Election. Notice of the election shall be given by publication
15 of this ordinance in a newspaper published at least six days per week in the City, once a day for
16 at least seven days prior to the holding of the election, and the City Clerk is hereby ordered and
17 directed to cause this ordinance to be so published. No other notice of the election need be
18 given.
19
20 Section 9. Filing with Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
21 directed to file a certified true and correct copy of this Ordinance with the Registrar of Voters as
22 soon as practicable after the adoption hereof, and in any event no later than March 9, 2007.
23
24 Section 10. Effective Date. A two-thirds vote of all of the members of the Council is
25 rcgtuired for approval of this ordinance. Being an ordinance calling and ordering an election,
26 this ordinance shall take effect from and after its final passage and approval.
27
'8 Mayor
1/9/2007 5 OPTION #2
i
1
2 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
3 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
4 day of , 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council
5 held on the_day of , 2007, by the following vote of at least four-fifths of its
6 members:
7
8 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
9 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
10 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
11
12
IJ City Clerk
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1/9/2007 6 OPTION 42
Attachment A.
Tax Levy Projections Based on Various G.O. Bond Sizes
(Per $100,000 of Assessed Value)
Revised Scenarios
$50.00
$45.00
$40Maximum Projected
'� Tax Levy
$37.62 �
$35.00 $35.56
$30.00
$25.00
$22.79
Average Projected $21'56
$20.00 Tax Levy
$15.00
—Scenario E: $35.0 Million Total Bond Size(4 Series of Bonds)
$10.00
—Scenario F: $37.0 Million Total Bond Size(4 Series of Bonds)
$5.00 $4.17
Minimum Projected
Tax Levy $3.94
$0.00
pyo do ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo ,yo do ,yo ,yo ,yo pyo ,yo do ,yo°` ,yon`
Fiscal Year Beginning July 1
® Dr;LA WxiA&C ).
N v t a.N.N. •.N
Attachment A.
CITY OF BURLINGAME 1/11/2007
General Obligation Bonds,Series 2007/2009/2011/2013
Scenario E:$35.0 Million Total Bond Size(4 Series of Bonds)
Tax Rate Statement
Debt Debt Debt Debt Tax Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual
Fiscal Service Service Service Service Proceeds Tax per Tax per Tax per Tax per Tax per Tax per
Year Total Unsecured 2007 Bonds 2009 Bonds 2011 Bonds 2013 Bonds to Repay $100,000 $350,000 $500,000 $700,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000
Ending Secured A.V. A.V. $8.75 MM $8.75 MM $8.75 MM $8.75 MM All Bonds AV AV AV AV AV AV
2006 5,218,153,445 260,734,936 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2007 5,636,447,742 307,792,552 - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2008 5,804,414,614 307,792,552 619,375 619,375 $10.67 $37.35 $53.35 $74.70 $106.71 $128.05
2009 5,977,420,493 307,792,552 587,813 587,813 $9.28 $32.50 $46.42 $64.99 $92.84 $111.41
2010 6,155,616,548 307,792,552 585,725 653,125 1,238,850 $19.66 $68.81 $98.31 $137.63 $196.61 $235.94
2011 6,339,158,484 307,792,552 588,375 616,513 1,204,888 $18.05 $63.18 $90.26 $126.37 $180.52 $216.63
2012 6,528,206,679 307,792,552 585,500 619,613 686,875 1,891,988 $28.13 $98.46 $140.65 $196.91 $281.31 $337.57
2013 6,722,926,319 307,792,552 587,363 617,138 655,313 1,859,813 $26.38 $92.32 $131.88 $184.63 $263.76 $316.51
2014 6,923,487,549 307,792,552 583,700 619,375 653,125 686,875 2,543,075 $35,56 $124.45 $177.79 $248.91 $355.59 $426.70
2015 7,130,065,615 307,792,552 584,775 621,038 650,625 655,313 2,511,750 $33.69 $117.92 $168.46 $235.85 $336.93 $404.31
2016 7,342,841,024 307,792,552 585,325 617,125 652,813 653,125 2,508,388 $32.75 $114.62 $163.74 $229.24 $327.49 $392.98
2017 7,561,999,694 307,792,552 585,350 617,925 654,375 650,625 2,508,275 $31.84 $111.43 $159.18 $222.86 $318.37 $382.04
2018 7,787,733,125 307,792,552 584,850 618,150 655,313 652,813 2,511,125 $30.99 $108.45 $154.93 $216.90 $309.86 $371.84
2019 8,020,238,559 307,792,552 583,825 617,800 650,625 654,375 2,506,625 $30.06 $105.13 $150.32 $210.45 $300.65 $360.78
2020 8,259,719,156 307,792,552 587,275 616,875 650,625 655,313 2,510,088 $29.27 $102.44 $146.35 $204.88 $292.69 $351.23
2021 8,506,384,170 307,792,552 5849938 620,375 655,000 650,625 2,510,938 $28.46 $99.61 $142.30 $199.21 $284.59 $341.51
2022 8,760,449,136 307,792,552 587,075 618,013 653,438 650,625 2,509,150 $27.64 $96.75 $138.21 $193,49 $276.42 $331.70
2023 9,022,136,050 307,792,552 583,425 620,075 651,250 655,000 2,509,7.50 $26.87 $94.06 $134.37 $188.12 $268.75 $322.50
2024 9,291,673,571 307,792,552 584,250 621,275 653,438 653,438 2,512,400 $26.15 $91.52 $130.75 $183.04 $261.49 $313.79
2025 9,569,297,218 307,792,552 584,288 616,613 654,688 651,250 2,506,838 $25,36 $88.74 $126.78 $177.49 $253.56 $304.27
2026 9,855,249,575 307,792,552 583,538 621,375 650,000 653,438 2,5089350 $24.66 $86.31 $123.30 $172.62 $246.60 $295.92
2027 10,149,780,502 307,792,552 587,000 619,988 654,688 654,688 2,516,363 $24.04 $84.16 $120.22 $168.31 $240.44 $288.53
2028 10,453,147,357 307,792,552 584,413 617,738 653,125 650,000 2,505,275 $23.26 $81.41 $116.29 $162.81 $232.59 $279.10
2029 10,765,615,218 307,792,552 586,038 619,625 650,625 654,688 2,510,975 $22.66 $79.31 $113.30 $158.61 $226.59 $271.91
2030 11,087,457,115 307,792,552 586,613 620,363 6529188 653,125 2,512,288 $22.03 $77.10 $110.15 $154.21 $220.30 $264.36
2031 11,418,954,268 307,792,552 586,138 619,950 652,500 650,625 2,509,213 $21.38 $74.83 $106.90 $149.66 $213.80 $256.56
2032 11,760,396,336 307,792,552 584,613 618,388 651,563 652,188 2,506,750 $20.76 $72.64 $103.78 $145.29 $207.56 $249.07
2033 12,112,081,666 307,792,552 587,038 620,675 654,375 652,500 2,514,588 $20.23 $70.82 $101.17 $141.63 $202.34 $242.80
2034 12,474,317,556 307,792,552 583,150 616,525 650,625 651,563 2,501,863 $19.56 $68.45 $97.78 $136.90 $195.57 $234.68
2035 12,847,420,523 307,792,552 583,213 621,225 650,625 654,375 2,509,438 $19.06 $66.72 $95.32 $133.45 $190.64 $228.77
2036 13,231,716,579 307,792,552 586,963 619,200 654,063 650,625 2,510,850 $18.53 $64.86 $92.66 $129.73 $185,33 $222.39
2037 13,627,541,516 307,792,552 584,138 620,738 650,625 650,625 2,506,125 $17.97 $62.90 $89.86 $125.80 $179.72 $215,66
2038 14,035,241,202 307,792,552 - 620,550 650,625 654,063 1,925,238 $13.32 $46.63 $66.62 $93.26 $133.23 $159.88
2039 14,455,171,878 307,792,552 618,638 653,750 650,625 1,923,013 $13.02 $4.5.57 $65.10 $91.14 $130.20 $156.24
2040 14,887,700,474 307,792,552 - 654,688 650,625 1,305,313 $8.50 $29.74 $42.49 $59,49 $84.99 $101.98
2041 15,333,204,928 307,792,552 653,438 653,750 1,307,188 $8.35 $29.24 $41.77 $58.48 $83.55 $100.26
2042 15,792,074,516 307,792,552 - 654,688 654,688 $3.98 $13,94 $19.91 $27.88 $39.83 $47.79
2043 16,264,710,192 307,792,552 653,438 1 653,438 1 $3.94 1 $13.80 1 $19.71 1 $27.60 1 $39.42 1 $47.31
TOTAL PAYMENTS(Principal&Interest) 17,596,075 18,606,000 19,615,000 19,615,000 1 75,432,075
'. II II I I I 111 III I I III II III
$21.56 $75.45 $107.79 $150.90 $215.58 $258.69
$35.56 $124.45 $177.79 $248.91 $355.59 $426.70
$3.94 $13.80 $19.71 $27.60 $39.42 $47.31
Attachment A
CITY OF BURLINGAME 1/11/2007
General Obligation Bonds,Series 2007/2009/2011/2013
Scenario F:$37.0 Million Total Bond Size(4 Series of Bonds)
Tax Rate Statement
Debt Debt Debt Debt Tax Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual
Fiscal Service Service Service Service Proceeds Tax per Tax per Tax per Tax per Tax per Tax per
Year Total Unsecured 2007 Bonds 2009 Bonds 2011 Bonds 2013 Bonds to Repay $100,000 $350,000 $500,000 $700,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000
Ending Secured A.V. A.V. $9.25 MM $9.25 MM $9.25 MM $9.25 MM All Bonds AV AV AV AV AV AV
2006 5,218,153,445 260,734,936 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2007 5,636,447,742 307,792,552 - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2008 5,804,414,614 307,792,552 655,625 655,625 $11.30 $39.53 $56.48 $79.07 $112.95 $135.54
2009 5,977,420,493 307,792,552 618,538 618,538 $9.77 $34.18 $48.83 $68.36 $97.66 $117.20
2010 6,155,616,548 307,792,552 621,188 686,875 1,308,063 $20.76 $72.67 $103.81 $145.33 $207.62 $249.14
2011 6,339,158,484 307,792,552 618,313 654,975 1,273,288 $19,08 $66.77 $95.39 $133.55 $190.78 $228.94
2012 6,528,206,679 307,792,552 620,175 652,500 728,125 2,000,800 $29.75 $104.12 $148.75 $208.24 $297.49 $356.99
2013 6,722,926,319 307,792,552 621,513 654,738 690,938 1,967,188 $27.90 $97.65 $139.49 $195.29 $278.99 $334.79
2014 6,923,487,549 307,792,552 617,325 656,400 688,438 728,125 2,690,288 $37.62 $131.66 $188.09 $263.32 $376.17 $451.41
2015 7,130,065,615 307,792,552 617,875 652,488 690,625 690,938 2,651,925 $35.57 $124.49 $177.85 $248.99 $355.70 $426.84
2016 7,342,841,024 307,792,552 617,900 653,288 692,188 688,438 2,651,813 $34.62 $121.18 $173.12 $242.36 $346.23 $415.48
2017 7,561,999,694 307,792,552 617,400 653,513 688,125 690,625 2,649,663 $33.63 $117.70 $168.15 $235.41 $336.30 $403.56
2018 7,787,733,125 307,792,552 621,375 653,163 688,750 692,188 2,655,475 $32.77 $114.69 $163.85 $229.38 $327.69 $393.23
2019 8,020,238,559 307,792,552 619,563 652,238 688,750 688,125 2,648,675 $31.77 $111.19 $158.84 $222.37 $317.67 $381.21
2020 8,259,719,156 307,792,552 617,225 655,738 688,125 688,750 2,649,838 $30.90 $108.14 $154.49 $216.28 $308.98 $370.77
2021 8,506,384,170 307,792,552 619,363 653,375 691,875 688,750 2,653,363 S30.07 $105.26 $150.37 $210.52 $300.75 $360.90
2022 8,760,449,136 307,792,552 620,713 655,438 689,688 688,125 2,653,963 $29.24 $102.33 $146.19 $204.67 $292.38 $350.86
2023 9,022,136,050 307,792,552 616,275 656,638 691,875 691,875 2,656,663 $28.45 $99.57 $142.24 $199.14 $284.49 $341.38
2024 9,291,673,571 307,792,552 616,313 651,975 688,125 689,688 2,646,100 $27.54 $96.38 $137.68 $192.75 $275.36 $330.43
2025 9,569,297,218 307,792,552 620,563 656,738 688,750 691,875 2,657,925 $26.89 $94.11 $134.45 $188.23 $268.90 $322.68
2026 9,855,249,575 307,792,552 618,763 655,350 688,438 688,125 2,650,675 $26.06 $91.20 $130.28 $182.39 $260.56 $312.68
2027 10,149,780,502 307,792,552 616,175 653,100 692,188 688,750 2,650,213 $25.32 $88,62 $126.60 $177.25 $253.21 $303.85
2028 10,453,147,357 307,792,552 617,800 654,988 689,688 688,438 2,650,913 $24.61 $86.15 $123.07 $172.30 $246.14 $295.37
2029 10,765,615,218 307,792,552 618,375 655,725 691,250 692,188 2,657,538 $23.98 $83.94 $119.91 $167.87 $239.82 $287.78
2030 11,087,457,115 307,792,552 617,900 655,313 691,563 689,688 2,654,463 $23.28 $81.46 $116.38 $162.93 $232.75 $279.30
2031 11,418,954,268 307,792,552 616,375 653,750 690,625 691,250 2,652,000 $22.60 $79.09 $112.99 $158.18 $225.97 $271.17
2032 11,760,396,336 307,792,552 618,800 656,038 688,438 691,563 2,654,838 $21.98 $76.94 $109.91 $153.88 $219.83 $263.80
2033 12,112,081,666 307,792,552 619,913 651,888 690,000 690,625 2,652,425 $21.34 $74.69 $106.70 $149.38 $213.40 $256.08
2034 12,474,317,556 307,792,552 619,713 651,588 690,000 688,438 2,649,738 $20.71 $72.50 $103.57 $145.00 $207.15 $248.58
2035 12,847,420,523 307,792,552 618,200 654,850 688,438 690,000 2,651,488 $20.14 $70.50 $100.71 $140.99 $201.42 $241.70
2036 13,231,716,579 307,792,552 620,375 656,388 690,313 690,000 2,657,075 $19,61 $68.64 $98.06 $137.29 $196.13 $235.35
2037 13,627,541,516 307,792,552 620,975 656,200 690,313 688,438 2,655,925 $19.05 $66.66 $95.23 $133.32 $190.46 $228.56
2038 14,035,241,202 307,792,552 - 654,288 688,438 690,313 2,033,038 $14.07 $49.24 $70.34 $98.47 $140.68 $168.81
2039 14,455,171,878 307,792,552 655,650 689,688 690,313 2,035,650 $13.78 $48.24 $68.91 $96.48 $137.83 $165.40
2040 14,887,700,474 307,792,552 - 688,750 688,438 1,377,188 $8.97 $31.38 $44.83 $62.76 $89.66 $107.59
2041 15,333,204,928 307,792,552 690,625 689,688 1,380,313 $8.82 $30.88 $44.11 $61.75 $88.22 $105.87
2042 15,792,074,516 307,792,552 - 688,750 688,750 $4.19 $14.66 $20.95 $29.33 $41.89 $50.27
2043 16,264,710,192 307,792,552 690,625 1 690,625 1 $4.17 1 $14.58 1 $20.83 1 $29.17 1 $41.67 1 $50.00
TOTAL PAYMENTS(Principal A Interest) 18,600,600 19,665,188 20,733,125 20,733,125 1 79,732,038
, I I I 1 1 I III I III I III
$22.79 $79.75 $113.93 $159.50 $227.86 $273.43
$37.62 $131.66 $188.09 $263.32 $376.17 $451.41
$4.17 $14.58 $20.83 $29.17 $41.67 $50.00
4it-
Scenario
Updated Summary
A B Measure 14
Total Bond Size 35 MM 37 MM 3 MM 44 MM
25 Year # of Series 3 3 �3 4
Term Term 25 Year 25 Year 2"ear ' 25'Year
$100,000 AV _ : • '
rt
$350,000 AV •. .
$500,000 AV ,, •, ; •
$700,000 A`' - •
$1,000,000 AV
$1,200,000 AV , • :. r ..
Scenario E F
30 Year Total Bond Size 35 MM 37 MM
Term # of Series 4 4
Term 30 Year 30 Year
$100,000 AV •
$350,000 AV •
$500,000 AV •
$700,000 AV
$1,000,000 AV
$1,200,000 AV : .•
_.gym, DE LA ROSA
IM V E S T M E N T B AN K E R S
City Council Agenda
Attachment B.
January 16,2007
City of Burlingame
PROJECTS FUNDED UNDER $35M BOND
1. EASTON CREEK $6,000,000
(PUMP STATION AND FORCEMAIN)
2. BURLINGAME/RALSTON CREEKS $10,000,000
3. SANCHEZ/TERRACE CREEKS $11,000,000
4. MILLS CREEK $1,000,000
5. EL PORTAL/TROUSDALE CREEKS $500,000
6. CURBS,GUTTERS,PUMPS&BRIDGES $6,500,000
TOTAL OF STORM DRAIN PROJECTS $35,000,000
STORM DRAIN PROJECTS NOT INCLUDED:
• EASTON CREEK LEVEE AND CATCH BASIN
IMPROVEMENTS $1,500,000
• BAYFRONT IMPROVEMENTS $2,500,000
TOTAL $4,000,000
NOTE 1:RECREATION CENTER,POLICE STATION,FIRE STATION,
AND PARKS CORP YARD IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT INCLUDED
NOTE:PROJECT COSTS SHOWN HERE ARE ESTIMATES ONLY,THE ACTUAL
COST WILL BE DEPEND ON CONTRACTORS BIDS AT THE TIME OF ACTUAL
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING. 1/11/07
Page 1 of 1
Attachment C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS-200712008
STORM DRAINAGE
a.STORM DRAIN UTILITY PROGRAM
1 Administrative Services(80710) $30,000
2 Continued Citywide Master Plan Update(9851) $0
3 Storm Drain and Bridge Facilities Inspect $0
4 Storm Drain Utility Development Study(9851) $0
SUBTOTAL: $30,000
b.CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS-EASTON CREEK
1 Marden Pump Station Improvements $1,100,000
2 Bayshore Blvd.Box Culvert $0
3 Outfall Pipeline,Marsten PS to SF Bay(80520) $200,000
SUBTOTAL: $1,300,000
c.CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS-MILLS CREEK
1 Mills Creek rehab from Bay to ECR $0
2 Mills Creek Box Culverts $0
SUBTOTAL: $0
d.CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS-BURLINGAME CREEK _
1 Safeway-ECR-Howard crossing area $0
2 72"pipe,Howard,Bloomfield,under Fwy 101 to bay $0
SUBTOTAL: $0
e.CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS-RALSTON CREEK
1 60"pipe,Bellevue-Douglas to Blgm.Channel $0
SUBTOTAL: $0
f.LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
1 EI Portal,Gilbreth,Trsdale Crks lining replace(9941) $0
2 Miscellaneous SO Improvements(9938) $200,000
3 Cabrillo/Broadway/Cortez SD Improvements $200,000
4 Chula Vista storm drain system(80570) $0
5 Safety 8 Maintenance Improvements - $0
SUBTOTAL: $400,000
g.CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTSSANCHEZ CREEK AREA
1 Laguna Area SO Improve(80880+80900) $0
2 Laguna Pump Station $0
SUBTOTAL: $0
h.PIPELINE REPLACEMENT
1 Replace corrugated and other pipelines $300,000
SUBTOTAL: $300,000
I.PUMP STATIONS
1 Pump Station Upgrades $30,000
2 SCADA system(9940) $40,000
SUBTOTAL: $70,000
I.CREEK CLEANING/REPAIR
I Easton Creek(9941) $200,000
2 Mills Creek(9852) $0
3 Burlingame Creek(80620) $0
SUBTOTAL: $200,000
TOTAL $2,300,000
CITY STAFF REPORT
guRi.INGAME AGENDA 8b
ITEM #
MTG.
•nD J� DATE 1.16.07
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2007
APPROVED
FROM: CITY PLANNER BY /
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING APS BY RECLASSIFYING
THE C-1/5-4 AREAS IN THE TWO BLOCKS ON THE EAST SIDE AT THE NORTH END
OF EL CAMINO REAL TO EL CAMINO NORTH (ECN), LOTS FRONTING ON
DUFFERIN AVENUE TO REMAIN R-1.
INTRODUCTION:
City Council should review the map which defines the area in which the zoning is proposed to be changed
from C-1/R-4 to El Camino North (ECN). Because this map will change the City's adopted zoning map, it
must be acted on by Ordinance. Action should be taken on this map at the same time the Council adopts the El
Camino North zoning district regulations. A public hearing will be held on the map at the same time a
hearing is held on the proposed ECN zoning district. .
Following the public hearing and any changes to the proposed ordinance, the following Council actions
should be taken to introduce the ordinance to amend the zoning map:
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.
If the proposal for the district map is clear, this item should be set for a second reading and public hearing at
the Council meeting of February 5, 2007.
General Plan Compliance:
The reclassification of the zoning map is necessary in order to implement the El Camino North (ECN) zoning
district. The El Camino North (ECN) zoning district is part of the implementation phase of the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the Burlingame General
Plan in September 2004. The provisions of the ECN zoning are also consistent with the proposed amendments
to the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor Subarea proposed in the November 15, 2006, revisions to the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The provisions in the ordinance are consistent with the plan because
they are taken from the land use element and design guidelines in that adopted plan, supplemented with
provisions from the existing C-l/R4 zoning districts which currently regulate development in this Subarea
area. The C-1/R4 zoning has been fundamental in implementing the 1969 General Plan and in establishing the
existing land use pattern for this area. The El Camino North district which will be amended to the City's
zoning map, consists of all the area between El Camino Real on the west, Murchison Drive (the northern City
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAPS BY RECLASSIFYING THE C-1/R-4 AREAS IN THE TWO
BLOCKS ON THE EAST SIDE AT THE NORTH END OF EL CAMINO REAL TO EL CAMINO NORTH (ECN), LOTS
FRONTING ON DUFFERINA VENUE TO REMAIN R-1. January 16, 2007
boundary) on the north, the CalTrain tracks on the east, and the rear of the properties with frontage on
Dufferin Avenue on the south
CEQA Compliance:
The reclassification map which provides for the implementation of the El Camino North (ECN) zoning
district regulations is an implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, because the
map makes it possible to implement the zoning requirements. Because the zoning and map changes are a part
of the specific plan implementation they are covered by ND533-P and the Addendum to ND533-P prepared
for that plan. ND533-P was approved by the City Council with the adoption of the North Burlingame Rollins
Road Specific Plan on September 20, 2004. The Addendum has been recommended to the City Council by
the Planning Commission on the basis that with the proposed changes to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan no additional impacts are anticipated, and the identified mitigation measures are still applicable
to the amended specific plan. It should be noted that it is common to adopt a Negative Declaration on a
Specific Plan. What it means under CEQA is that each future project proposed within the planning area is
subject to separate environmental evaluation based on the specifics of that project. The evaluation of potential
environmental impacts for future projects in the planning area must include the `community standards'
identified for the area in the Specific Plan. The community standards are set out in Chapter 7, Development
Framework of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. In the case of the ECN zoning district and
El Camino Corridor Gateway Subarea the community standards which each new project must meet include
hazards such as airport height restrictions, noise ( from the airport and transit corridors), geology, air quality,
hazardous materials, cultural resources, and proximity to the existing transportation network, including
maintaining appropriate levels of service at key intersections. The CEQA evaluation for each individual
future project will also include an evaluation of all the items on the mandated CEQA check list.
Planning Commission Action:
At the Planning Commission meeting on November 27, 2006, the Commissioners held a public hearing and
discussed the proposed El Camino North (ECN) zoning map amendment and reclassification of the properties
located in the proposed ECN district. . The Planning Commission voted 4- 1 -2 (C. Auran dissenting, Cers.
Cauchi and Osterling absent) to recommend the El Camino North (ECN) zoning district and reclassification to
the City Council for action and adoption.
City Council Study Session on the Commission Recommended Amendments to the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the Implementing El Camino North (ECN) Zoning
On December 13, 2006, the City Council held a Special Study Session to review the proposed amendments to
the El Camino Real Gateway Corridor Subarea of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the
proposed provisions of the El Camino North (ECN) zoning district to implement the plan, and the
reclassification of the zoning within the boundaries of the proposed ECN zoning district.
BACKGROUND
A part of adopting new zoning regulations for an area is amending the city's zoning map so that the
boundaries of the new district are shown on the map. The zoning map is a legal document, so it must be
amended by ordinance. Attached is a copy of the map for the proposed El Camino North (ECN) zoning
district. This map should be introduced so that it can be acted on in the same meeting that the Council adopts
2
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAPS BY RECLASSIFYING THE C-1/R-4 AREAS IN THE TWO
BLOC"-4 ON THE EAST SIDE AT THE NORTH END OF EL CAMINO REAL TO EL CAMINO NORTH(ECN),LOTS
FRONTING ON D UFFERIN A VENUE TO REMAIN R-1. January 16,2007
the proposed zoning for the ECN district. If the proposed zoning is not adopted, the Council should not act on
the map.
A copy of the map for the proposed ECN zoning district is attached along with a draft of the ordinance. The
map will be included in the public hearing on the zoning.
Attachments:
A. El Camino North (ECN) zoning district boundary map.
B. Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending the Zoning Maps incorporated in the Burlingame
Zoning Code by Reclassifying the Area East of El Camino Real, south of the City Line in Murchison
Drive, West of California Drive and North of the Lot Fronting on Dufferin Avenue from C-1/R-4 to El
Camino North(ECN)
3
CaminoEl Real North
(ECN) Zoning
District
88:88
. •
8888...
8888..-8888
.ffl/1,..
S BE
:88:.88 t....... .............
8888/.
Bonn.`..soon•.t. :. .............
....... '.
....•.... ..... .
a. ..
. . 8888,..,,, ...
....��... ..... ..........
.
:.......... ................8888
.................................
................/.t666666tt.f.....
.............'..f...........'........ Date:Effective
.....................................
'8888.......0...088.........:...........
8888............................ ..
.............................SEP.....
......
....................................
........6....•..........r./-6..66.6x...
...........•..........•..........•.....
........■6,'.661-ff/',1.,.666..',666.\,
'.......6t 1.•1.1..1..661':..61''1611...\
•,8888.....1..`.6610..6..0.■1....6600\.\.
,8888......6.•6116.6......•..............
.1/........//.....
..........t./ /..6...66666............
....................foss/...6.6.6...6...,
•...........•............................
•...........`...................1161/'..t►
0
•,.............................. 6 6'.-
,.........,.:............./006...0...:...
.........................661160606.66.
�1■►/6666666666.•.\. /
/.0\.006.0000x.1.\/16666.6666.//.0. 1111
:828.0066,.006600r.616�1.6006661,1..1,.\.►
� 00...,'.t1.6/../61..666tt 600.0061,61 6 t\.
�.ff6■66688'88..088--0 It..t/61,00..61,6.'/.1,f.
166.666/t.`.►/1/1%666 .6-111.116666''-II..6\_
In noon 66666.■11 3I.x.1661600.700.0000\x u�■\'"0 110, .
0661,.ft\\1.661,-666■\66.6666x.....51x.•..1,\.t..
/tt1-//...6666666-./\666661....1.:.I'16../f.:.9\.
.f..\\6666.--00.\666►/.�...1'�.ff■0880.....�
V-1,..6.\.6600-1,.6\.■►I.l.■1.'A0000/66t....�._ .
■6..■666\\66..6.666\.IfxJ►�Ix.1,/-.ft66t.1■\_6■\_ •
. 6C.00u006 V L nC.1'f400u.1,t...
0-6.....6.
.6..666tIC..a6661/...Pe.r_.■61,6.6.66..6666.6.. 6\
.1,6■/U..`u66O'A.►V■Ly.11/1,u00u..666■►..6\.
.■11■.1,6.•16 .I■...1100;.6666661..1,600../100 .1\_
V1,66661�f.'..■►•1.1/t■/Elk 0000.600.1,11.6..1:\�� .
\11■t100t-�.f.1►.1/.....600..6.6001,1001/600.1/.\.■t_
vtutuf.ra:.r1//tO6600.1.7.6001,..1.6mom 1..66...1\.
I a1,00.6/..■Jt./fO00666u00.]66t..1a6O1'/1,O..-:8888\.
v1,U66...fanuuuuumVnruu6..16.16666Oa.�.
. V.■■6666 611,61,66■■000.0 ..001,.../\..1.
.1,p\1,1,t/61,1,.1,1,66►6v6ouu1,n1,66666o.a6661,f66rarnu
661 \ 1,.►..v6n/61,-. 61 . ..,66o■6■6o■.1,6o.1,.o1, /1....:u66u.6
...
-
.
'\66666■6I'm.-ff.16■. 1, 6 .1./6\V661,16 .I .
0000..`.f.6666..1..66666.■.6■66. /
II/16\.76.616....-IA/.16.1.006.61,:./_1.:.\.
161,100-1.71,0061,1,00 6001/161,6--.•00001,1,.00■661,61.66..6\_
.t.1//166.711..666666.■./1.61,66t1.`I■.661'1.00006661
�.6.■6600.•161.1,■■11661.■61,1,161,�u./'A0066./.1'A.Ix�16-8888 16.
---1,00.X66..1/t1661%■1,006111u6r:00'�6611,.I66x.1.6xu6661..6\.
166116.66\666/.6.6616.1.11666666/./►•.00.6.6.00x.66 V.1,666600.:1u
71..6.66.\0.61,6/'d....6666..•/It■►.66.66.616661..666/661660 "
V/.66611\\■moss.111■1,61,t11//.'1.6\.66.6.1./1100.001100.0011
sons1,6.1`161.x,16..■1,1 u00I/66►00■. 11,1 1166now 6.,
X6.1,6666.\6.1,.66.6.6./.661/6666►11t\.q 11.6.11,600.66660061
��666161\\1/6..6..6.661//00\tt/\000:16611.6.100001,61,/
611.6 \\6 1,666".1,.1 100...1,u,
1.611,1►/66600.1,00 i.6u66u.u.11-■A...1,66..6666r
uuu66.1 f 6.'.uu.6666 u6
X1,66.6h`1•.1,..6 x.66/00111.1.66.u.6,lr.6666006/1, 00.1O
0000u1 ,
1666/. 006x. ..66.600.66611,11600f■■1,.■
t1..66.•.00�..■■66666.66.0061■■t■/6..661,666/
/600001.•V.006.66f0000.u1,.1,.66666666666■/, ,
6.61.1:/666-....1...1.66..66.666666666/1'
�6f.1,6.�./6■/.00666..6■■■6660000-1,.■00/
1,6666666661,./ 0.1,61,6/
X006.1,.\1,.66666666666...661■1t.f 1,/noommoommusamens '
Of1,6■\.66661,In
-00111.1,006661,661, .
\1,61■/.1 t.■1,6666.6 6 6 6 66■1,.6 x
6\11,.61,0061■■■1000011
\6001,6.1,-61,61,-..001,/.t '
661\8888-.1...6.6-00 6on
6.'
\/t/001 006.66.666006/
1..66661`1,1,66666600' �.
6.6666.`1.666.■■■6r
�t6./64700.■/1,I
8888
► I �
. I
I
♦ � I I,
I
.I
I
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE
THE ZONING MAPS INCORPORATED IN THE BURLINGAME ZONING CODE BY
3 RECLASSIFYING THE AREA EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL, SOUTH OF THE CITY
LINE IN MURCHISON, WEST OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND NORTH OF THE
4 LOTS FRONTING ON DUFFERIN AVENUE FROM C-1/R-4 TO EL CAMINO
5 NORTH(ECN)
6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
7 Section 1. The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced
8 in Section 25.12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows:
l) 1. The area bounded by Murchison Drive, California Drive, the rear of the lots
10 fronting on the north side of Dufferin Avenue, and El Camino Real are reclassified from
1 l C-1 and R-4 districts to El Camino North(ECN) District.
12 These reclassifications are generally shown on the Exhibit to this ordinance and shall be
13 effective upon the effective date of the City ordinance establishing the zoning regulations for
14 the El Camino North District or thirty days from the date of this adoption, whichever is later.
15
16 Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
17
18 Mayor
19 1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
20 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
21 day of , 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City
22 Council held on the_day of , 2007, by the following vote:
23 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
24 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
25 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
26
27 City Clerk
28
1
Camino Real Nor
(ECN) Zo
-¢# ' District Map
:MFdrIL../-..
ECN District Zoning
.............
.....a.•........."•..ONE
.............
:.......................\.
.............
:............./.IdoxamoseLINE .............
:...........slassammmossuP
smogs Effective Date:
lsm ...................
ON
.........................•..........
,..................../moos..........
....o..NEEE.oas...►..s.N...Er......
.....NEE..E......►.sm...E.s/...E....
...............•..........a SOO ....
.............•..........•..........•A
...........:.........•..........•.....
...
,..........•.. .......•.............
,................/....................
8 UPON
..........................•..............
...........•..........•.............I.....
,..........•............................
...............081/1............/....•.....
•,.........:................./....•...:...
,.....................................:...
,.......................................,.
,.........\.............................
,.........\......SE..'.•.Evans
.........'...
......................../......N.NNN...\/. .
..........................................
......................................r....
• �:::::::: :: ::::: ::::::::� :e: :::::.
..................■NSE:.NUN..../..,I./......1.. �
WHOUIUMUS
.........•..........,.•r..........................
.......nomurn■►v.rauuonuuuuuv..�.. 1
. I \■vuvouo.uuuuuuuuu■/.u.N.nu:\.ruu../uuuuonuuuouunouuuuuuuouunwuuvuvo.r:ur.u.na/u.u•uuoru.....uuukia.uu. o. . uE ,�sGummumsLINSVII:re,%.Fj MIN 6-48i
/ u
.uuuu.uv.vawAms: 'n. r . a N .
uor.uN... u. 0
..
.
...:.0
�
�/._
vuuuuNuuouunn■u►uur.■■■uuuuu.■ru.•u.
vuuo..•u uuuuuo ouuu...�u uu uuu.r o■u:v.
'.•EpN.�..E..u..u..u..u..uC.oU..•..•..wN.N.N.u.0...0.u....u....r..u/..u....uN.E..:.uE...•/.u..NN..Su...Er.N•rNu//E.n...E...NNN.E...:.�
uuruuuuuuv.uu .A::..
-
u.
mammals u•.021
I \E./..N..:.SNN.NNE.E/..N..:ON..I:ft .N:EN...N...•.E/E•..../E......
.........\/.../..•............./.■..\EE..NN.:.NE/.NN.Ess/momma/
/.NEEEE4./E.:/...N....N..//.......a...ImOL mo/.....
.moo
.....,
./.u.N.E\........NN...sNErmN■■.►....:NI..E/IImmo..Immo././
�......\.►............./.Immo.►\./.:...rI.NNNNN.NE/...r
/....................I.........\I.N..E.Nsoup.........'
MINIUM W
\.......\................SENO......,
\.ENu■.\.uu.u.uu.u.uuuv �
nuuuu•
■►..u.a u.....u u u►
vuu■.uEmoose
a SENSE......,
....../.•E.....u..u..
..NImmouuunu..,
�NNNu..•uuuunr
Nuu/vuuu./
SES/..SE.\...Immo
. .uE.Euuu.v
\...NEN/.• , �
I
411CITY
� o� STAFF REPORT
BURUNGAN,E STUDY SESSION
y
m D� +D AGENDA
T DRATED-E6 ITEM# 8C
MTG.
DATE 1.16.07
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: JANUARY 8, 2007
APPROVED
FROM: CITY PLANNER BY
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK FOR TH REPARATION OF THE
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should review the attached Scope of Work recommended by the Committee appointed to
prepare it and the Planning Commission. Please direct staff about any changes you might like. The Scope of
Work is intended to be attached to a Request for Proposals document and circulated as soon as the Council has
reviewed it.
BACKGROUND:
In September 2006 the Council appointed a committee to work with staff to prepare a Scope of Work for the
Downtown planning program. The members of the committee are Council members Keighran and Cohen and
Planning Commissioners Auran and Vistica. The group is meeting with planning consultant Elizabeth
Cullinan and Meg Monroe, City Planner.
After drafting a Work Program the committee submitted it to the Planning Commission for review. The
Commission reviewed the proposal at their December 12, 2006 meeting and made two recommendations:
• That the planning area be expanded to include the triangular area east of the railroad tracks
bounded by East Lane on the west, Burlingame Avenue on the north, Anita Road on the east
and Peninsula Avenue on the south. Washington Park would not be included in the planning
area. The commission felt that this area was in transition between the downtown and the
established single family residential area to the east. The existing land uses are a mixture, not
all of which are compatible and may be subject to pressures for change after the Downtown
Specific Plan is completed. The platform project at the train station will affect the access from
this transition area and the residential area to the east of it. The plan should also take access to
the ar f o the east into consideration.
• That the Downtown plan should address `sustainability' in its policies, proposals and design
recommendations. Sustainability includes such issues as pervious paving, adjustments to
parking based on proximity to mass transit, mixing uses and adjusting densities to support more
viable commerce and pedestrian convenience; etc.
1
REVIEW OF PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
January 16,2007
The Committee met on January 4, 2007 to discuss the recommendations made by the Planning Commission.
They endorsed the suggestions of the Planning Commission. In addition they added to the Scope of Work the
concept that the design element of the plan should include developing `connectivity' between the parts of the
commercial area as well as between the adjacent residential areas and the commercial area. These connections
should combine sidewalks and pedestrian pathways with useable open spaces designed for active use or
passive uses.
The revisions as suggested by the Planning Commission and by the Work Program Committee have been
included in italics in the attached Draft Scope of Work dated January 8, 2007. After the Council has given
staff direction on the content of the Scope of Work for the Downtown Plan, staff will distribute the program to
planning consultants for bid. Following the submittal of responses to the request for bid, the Work Program
Committee will meet with staff and assist in screening the applications and selecting a number of firms for
interviews. Staff hopes that the interviews will occur no later than March 2007.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Work Program, Specific Plan for Downtown Burlingame, January 8, 2007
2
CITY G D RAFT
BURUNGAME
ticW�. City of Burlingame
-RIA
RDraft Work Program
to Prepare a Downtown Specific Plan
for the City of Burlingame
Purpose and Background:
The City of Burlingame was incorporated as a General Law City in 1908. The City is 5.5
square miles in area, two of which are submerged in San Francisco Bay, and has a
population of 28,600 people. A five member City Council elected at large for four-year terms
governs the City. The Council members select a mayor each year, who acts as chairman for
the Council. The City Council appoints a seven member Planning Commission to assists the
Council in the study and revaluation of land use issues and proposed development projects.
The City of Burlingame is located in the northern part of the San Francisco Peninsula in San
Mateo County, located approximately 15 miles south of San Francisco and in close proximity
to the San Francisco International Airport. A number of jurisdictions, the Bay, and watershed
lands of the City of San Francisco surround Burlingame. The City of Millbrae is located to the
north, the City of San Mateo to the south, the San Francisco Bay and the southern runways
for San Francisco International Airport to the east, and Hillsborough and San Mateo County
to the west. The City of Burlingame is primarily developed.
Burlingame's downtown began in the 1900's, growing west from the railroad station until it
joined EI Camino Real. The central business street, Burlingame Avenue, has filled-in and
prospered over the intervening years to become a vibrant pedestrian—oriented, locally and
regionally attractive shopping area, supported by an active retail main street which is
enlivened by the restaurant businesses at lunch and in the evening. While the residents and
local decision-makers recognize and enjoy the current success of the downtown area, the
community also recognizes that change and new opportunities are fundamental to the
downtown's and surrounding area's continued success. Additionally, the community
recognizes the need to develop a strategic plan to sustain the existing success and stimulate
a continuation of the economic growth and community identity with the downtown and
surrounding areas which the City has enjoyed over the years
As a result of these interests and with the recognition of the importance of Burlingame's
downtown to the entire community's sense of place, City Council has authorized the City Staff
to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the preparation of a Downtown Specific Plan. The
Downtown Specific Plan study area is framed by Oak Grove Avenue on the north side, the
CalTrain tracks south to Burlingame Avenue to Anita Road on the east, Peninsula Avenue
and the City Limits on the south side, and EI Camino Real on the west side. A map of the
Study Area is attached.
Draft Work Program
Specific Plan for Downtown Burlingame January 8.2007
One of the primary reasons that the City decided to embark on a Specific Plan for
Burlingame's successful Downtown area at this time is the current absence of a community
held vision for the area. The absence of such vision has resulted in mixed messages to
interested developers whose projects could make important contributions to the future
viability of the downtown area,but have created community conflict rather than unity over the
City's identity. Finally the lack of a common'vision'has delayed improvements which could
be vital to the downtown's continued success as a focus of community activity and identity.
Over the past number of months a number of specific reasons for undertaking a Downtown
study at this time have been discussed and include:
• The need to define development densities and opportunities required to perpetuate the
current vibrancy of Burlingame's downtown while supporting a successful business
base and addressing the changing life-styles in an age integrated population over the
next 10 years and then 20 years.
• Build on the existing regional access and identity of Burlingame's downtown and
support this access with an emphasis on the pedestrian in the downtown area and
connecting to the adjacent residential areas.
• Evaluate new perspectives for expanding the city's commercial core while integrating
the"downtown"into a distinctive,pedestrian-oriented,economically viable unit which
will serve as a focus of community life and identity for years to come.
• Provide a focus for the communitys'visions'for the downtown,building on the area's
current strengths and using this palette to facilitate change which will extend the area's
community identity and sense of place.
Develop general design parameters, recognizing the historic elements within the
Planning Area,to unite the downtown and visually link the study area to surrounding
residential neighborhoods. While the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods
should be connected,the components of each area should retain their individuality.
Plan policies should acknowledge methods of respecting and preserving the
individuality of individual areas.
• Develop a Specific Plan implementation program that accommodates a gradual
transition to any new uses and provides improvement incentives to existing
businesses,and includes an integration of policies,concepts and programs to promote
sustainability.
• Evaluate the public infrastructure and the quality and effectiveness of what is presently
provided. Identify the infrastructure needs to support the community goals for the
next 10 and 20 years, including means for implementing achievement of the
-2-
Draft Work Program
Specific Plan for Downtown Burlingame January 8. 2007
infrastructure needs. Infrastructure includes parking, traffic and circulation, flood
control, street and sidewalk improvements, water and sewer facilities, and other basic
support systems needed or desired to support the community's vision for a continued,
strong commercial center, with an integrated and supporting residential area.
• Involve the broadest possible range of community interests in the process of
developing the phased plan for the downtown planning area.
Elements of the Study:
The Specific Plan should be consistent with the requirements of California State planning and
environmental law as well as with the Burlingame General Plan for implementation purposes.
The Specific Plan should include: goals and policies for the Study Area; specification of
appropriate land uses and land use diagrams; design parameters and illustrative guidelines;
analysis of needed infrastructure and capital improvement support in 10 and 20 year phases;
and financing methods for implementation. The Specific Plan should guide future
development and reuse while maintaining the history and character of the established
community. The Plan should consider the site specific conditions of the downtown and
surrounding areas and acknowledge and build upon the uniqueness of the area.
In addition to the items noted above, the Specific Plan should include the following:
1. An historic inventory including identification and documentation of the historic
significance of key buildings and historic design elements within the study area.
The historic inventory should be supported by a program outlining preservation
incentives and opportunities for the conservation of the exterior of historic
structures determined to be significant to the sense of the downtown
community.
2. The expansion of the existing pedestrian-oriented downtown commercial area
from Burlingame Avenue to the `The Avenues' including Howard and Donnelly-
Chapin Avenues, and the creation of pedestrian and open space inter-
connections to bind the Study Area into a cohesive unit.
3. Sufficient housing at a range of of prices to sustain and enhance the
commercial components of the Specific Plan and to provide opportunity for
households with a variety of ages and needs.
4. Identification of the off-street parking demand and circulation requirements for
each phase of development including the location of the needed facilities and
funding opportunities for each improvement by phase.
5. Evaluate affordable housing opportunities and identify eppertunities strategies
to facilitate such units in the Study area.
6. Goals and policies for future development of the Specific Plan area.
-3-
Draft Work Program
Specific Plan for Downtown Burlingame January 8. 2007
7. General design parameters and illustrative design guidelines for the core
downtown area, auto row and supporting residential areas and identify gateway
features to the Specific Plan Area at Peninsula Avenue and EI Camino Real
including identifying signage.
8. Develop guiding parameters for a unifying streetscape including visual
enhancements, improved and safer pedestrian movement, and provision of
public spaces within the downtown and study area
9. The identification and incorporation of infrastructure needs and environmental
constraints and parameters.
10. Implementation analysis including methods to fund programs identified in the
Specific Plan implementation program. Funding programs should be practical
and include incentives for Plan implementation.
11. Public Outreach Program for Developing the Plan. The bid should include a
summary of the proposed work program, the timeline, and specific budget for
the participation/outreach program which should include a project schedule and
the timing of presentations to the community at key points in the study. Each
consulting team should propose a public outreach program. Each submittal
shall be evaluated on how comprehensive, well suited to Burlingame, and
potentially successful the selection panel feels that the public input/outreach
program will be. The program should include public education, involvement,
and out reach. The final specific plan document should reflect a realistic plan
which would include balance of public input and professional planning and
development experience. The Planning page of the City's Website
(www.burlingame.org) and the city's list serve which includes about 3, 500
residents are tools which will be available. All documents and presentations are
expected to be provided in a format and computer program language which can
be easily posted on the City's website and modified by the City in the future as
maybe necessary.
It should be noted that some work on the Downtown plan has already been undertaken by
the city, and it should be incorporated into the planning program as should the consultants
who prepared the initial documents. William Lee of Economic Research Associates prepared
a Downtown Economic Study, June 2006; and William Hurrell of Wilbur Smith and Associates
who coordinated the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study and
Implementation Program including periodic longitudinal study. Finally it should be noted that
the environmental evaluation and document of the Downtown Specific Plan shall be prepared
under a separate contract by a different firm from the firm preparing the Specific Plan. The
environmental review of the proposed specific plan shall be prepared by an independent
contractor selected by the City. Contact information for William Lee and William Hurrell are
provided below.
-4-
Draft Work Program
Specific Plan for Downtown Burlingame January 8. 2007
Resource documents for planning background available follow. Those with an asterisk (*)
next to them are available on line at www.burlingame.ong.
a) South of Burlingame Avenue (SOBA) Charrette Results, display boards are
located in the Main Library, written report is currently being prepared
b) Burlingame Downtown Economics Study— Economics Research Associates,
June 2006 *
c) North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, September 2004*
d) Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study, Wilbur Smith and
Associates, longitudinal, 2000, 2002, includes pricing study.*
e) Community Retail Survey, 2006 summarized in the ERA economic study.
f) Burlingame General Plan, including certified housing element 2001*
g) Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan, April 2004*
h) EI Camino Real — Grand Boulevard etc
www.samceda.org/grand boulevard.htm
i) Transit Oriented Development Programs (MTC, C/CAG)
j) Burlingame Avenue Area Streetscape Beautification Master Plan, 1998*
k) City of Burlingame Commercial Design Guidebook Dated March 31, 2001.*
Work Product:
Provide fifty (50) printed copies of all summary documents, including power point
presentations, and final reports to the Planning Department for public distribution and staff
reports. A copy of each report, document, and workshop handout shall be provided in a PDF
format acceptable to the city's website. Additionally, 10 digital video disks (dvds) shall be
provided. One copy ready master shall be provided to the city of all work products. All
graphs, illustrations and tables shall be prepared in black and white so that copies made will
be readable. Please indicate what word processing and graphic and illustration programs
you will use in the preparation of all the documents for the proposed project. . The city has
the right to request the use of different programs if those proposed are inaccessible to the
city or beyond the city's means to purchase at the time the planning program is being
prepared. The final planning document shall be prepared in a format and form, including text
and illustrations that the city can revise and amend over time as required.
Timing:
The Downtown Specific Plan (including adoption) should be completed within a maximum of
eighteen (18) months.
-5-
Draft Work Program
Specific Plan for Downtown Burlingame January 8.2007
Contact Information:
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame CA 94010
(650)558-7255
Elizabeth Cullinan
Neal Martin and Associates
751 Laurel Street, Suite 622
San Carlos CA 94070
(650)333-1529
William Hurrell, P.E.
Wilbur Smith Associates
1145 Market Street
Tenth Floor
San Francisco CA 94103—1545
(415)436-9030
William Lee
Economics Research Associates
388 market Street,Suite 1580
San Francisco CA 94111
(415)956-8152
-6-
Agenda
Item # 8d
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: January 16, 2007
SUBMITTED BY
l
APPROVED BY
TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE : January 8 , 2007
FROM : PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: ON-STREET PARKING LIMIT, STOP SIGN AND PARKING LOT
CHANGES
RECOMMENDATION : It is recommended that Council take the following actions:
A. Introduce the attached ordinance to implement a change from 2-hour parking to
24-minute metered parking at five spaces in front of 135- 139 Primrose Road and
modify the No Parking time limits on Rhinette Avenue; and introduce the attached
ordinance to change the Occidental Avenue/Howard Avenue intersection from a 2-
way stop to a 3-way stop , by:
1 . Requesting City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance.
2 . Waiving further reading of the ordinance.
3 . Introducing the proposed ordinance.
4 . Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five
days before proposed adoption .
B . Adopt the attached resolution revising the time limits for Lot A and Lot A-3 from
9-hour parking to 10-hour parking .
DISCUSSION : Staff determined that the proposed changes and modifications are
needed in order to bring non-standard traffic control installations into compliance
with the Municipal Code ; and , to update parking limits and restrictions to better
reflect current parking needs within and around the business districts.
Primrose Road 24-Minute Time Limit:
Currently, there are five on-street parking spaces along the west side of Primrose
Road , south of Howard Avenue (see Attachment A). These spaces are designated
2-hour, unmetered parking . After evaluation by the Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission , it was determined that 24-minute, metered parking was more
appropriate to accommodate the short-term needs of the businesses and non-profit
organizations in the neighborhood . Public notices were sent to the neighborhood for
three Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission meetings. The Commission received
public input which resulted in the recommendation to install five 24-minute parking
meters in front of 135-139 Primrose Road (see minutes attached) .
Rhinette Avenue No Parking Restriction:
There are existing parking restrictions along the south side of Rhinette Avenue(see
Attachment B).Some of the signs currently read"No Parking—9AM to 6PM",while
others read"No Parking—9AM to 6PM—Sundays& Holidays Excepted". The
Municipal Code stipulates a No Parking restriction on Rhinette Avenue from 8AM to
6PM without any exceptions. Based on public input and Police Department requests
for a more consistent enforcement policy,staff determined that the existing 9AM to
6PM parking signage works better than the time limits specked in the Municipal
Code. Furthermore, the exception on Sundays and holidays also facilitate the
parking situation, especially for the rest home on the street. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Municipal Codes be modified to indicate No Parking from
9AM to 6PM with the exception of Sundays and holidays.
Occidental/Howard Avenue Intersection Stop Signs:
The 3-way intersection at Occidental Avenue and Howard Avenue is controlled by
two stop signs (see Attachment C). One stop sign is posted for northbound
Occidental Avenue,while a second is posted for westbound Howard. No stop sign
exists for southbound Occidental Avenue creating a non-standard configuration
which causes significant confusion for drivers. The installation of a third stop sign for
this uncontrolled direction will remedy the deficiency. The Traffic, Safety and
Parking Commission also heard this issue and received public input supporting the
recommendation to install the third stop sign(see attached minutes).
Parking Lots A&A-3 Time Limits:
The parking time limits for Lots A and A-3 currently specify a combination of 2-hour
and 9-hour parking(see Attachment D). While the 2-hour limit is working well,staff
has received requests to extend the 9-hour limit to 10-hours. This change would
make the long-term time limits in all the parking lots in the Burlingame Avenue
Business District consistent.
The Traffic,Safety and Parking Commission supports the proposed changes to the
parking limit on Primrose Road as well as the addition of a stop sign at the
Occidental/Howard Avenue intersection. Staff recommends time limit changes on
Rhinette Avenue to facilitate parking and at Lots A and A-3 to make the long-term
limits consistent.
BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in the Public Works Department
operating budget to implement and maintain the changes proposed.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance—Primrose 24-Minute Meters&Rhinette Parking Limits
Attachment A-Aerial Map of Primrose Road
Traffic,Safety and Parking Minutes Excerpts for Primrose Meters
Attachment B-Aerial Map of Rhinette Avenue
Ordinance—Occidental/Howard Stop Signs
Attachment C-Aerial Map of Occidental/Howard Intersection
Traffic,Safety and Parking Minutes Excerpts for Occidental/Howard
Resolution—Parking Lots A&A-3
Attachment D-Location Map of Lot A and Lot A-3
Exhibit A—City of Burlingame Public Parking Lots Time Limits&Rates
I ORDINANCE No.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING PARKING METERS ON THE WEST SIDE OF PRIMROSE ROAD
3 SOUTH OF HOWARD AVENUE, FIXING PARKING METER TIMES AND RATES
FOR 24-MINUTE METERS ON PRIMROSE ROAD, AND TO MODIFY THE
4 NO PARKING TIMES ON RHINETTE AVENUE
5
6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
7 Section 1 . The City Council has established parking zones with parking meters in certain
8 areas of the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Business Districts in order to encourage turnover
9 of parking spaces while ensuring convenient access to visitors and customers of the Districts. This
10 ordinance is intended to revise the metering program to encourage employees to specify the rate
1 I for parking meters in 24-minute meters on Primrose Road, to add parking meters on the west side
12 of Primrose Road south of Howard Avenue, to clarify and affirm parking meter locations, rates,
13 and time zones, and to clearly incorporate Ordinance No. 1771 in the Municipal Code. This
14 ordinance also establishes no parking periods on Rhinette Avenue, south side, during the day on
15 weekdays and Saturdays.
16
17 Section 2. Section 13.40.010 is amended to read as follows:
18 13 .40.010 Parking meter zones.
19 (a) The streets hereinafter described are defined and established as parking meter zones.
20 The parking of vehicles along such portions of these streets, and at such times as may be designated
21 by the city council, shall be controlled, regulated, and inspected with the aid of parking meters:
22 (1 ) Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive;
23 (2) Burlingame Avenue from El Camino Avenue to California Drive;
24 (3) California Drive, west side, from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue and Bellevue
25 Avenue to Howard Avenue; and east side from North Lane to 270 feet south of Howard Avenue;
26 (4) Capuchino Avenue from 140 feet north of the centerline of Broadway to 233 feet
27 south of the centerline of Broadway;
28 (5) Carolan Avenue from South Lane to North Lane;
1/2/2007 1
1 (6) Chapin Avenue, from Primrose Road to El Camino Real.
2 (7) Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to 282 feet south of the centerline of Broadway;
3 (8) City Hall Lane from Primrose Road to Park Road;
4 (9) Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue;
5 (10) East Lane from Burlingame Avenue to North Lane;
6 (11) Highland Avenue from Howard Avenue to California Drive and one parking space
7 on the southwest corner of Highland at Howard;
8 (12) Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Highland Avenue;
9 (13) Laguna Avenue from Broadway to 136 feet south of the centerline of Broadway;
10 (14) Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue,and the east side of Lorton
11 Avenue from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue;
12 (15) North Lane from Carolan Avenue to East Lane;
13 (16) Paloma Avenue from 100 feet north of the centerline of Broadway to 120 feet south
14 of the centerline of Broadway;
15 (17) Park Road, from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue, and the west side of Park
16 Road from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue;
17 (18) Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; and the east side of
18 Primrose Road from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; and the west side of Primrose Road
19 from Howard Avenue to 200 feet south of the centerline of Howard Avenue; and
20 (19) South Lane from Carolan Avenue/East Lane to California Drive.
21 (b) The following parking meter rates are hereby established in the city:
22 (1) 24-minute Parking Limit
23 On the following streets:
24 Broadway from El Camino Real to Rollins Road;
25 Capuchino Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue; and
26 Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue:
27 20 cents for 24 minutes
28 On the following streets:
11212007 2
I Burlingame Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive:
2 California Drive, from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue;
3 Chapin Avenue, from Primrose Road to El Camino Real;
4 Highland Avenue from California Drive to Howard Avenue;
5 Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Highland Avenue;
6 Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Bayswater Avenue;
7 Park Road, from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue; and
8 Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Bayswater Avenue Howard Avenue:
9 30 cents for 24 minutes
10 All other areas:
11 5 cents for each 12 minutes
12 (2) 1-Hour Parking Limit
13 Broadway:
14 50 cents for one hour
15 On the following streets:
16 Burlingame Avenue;
17 Highland Avenue from California Drive to Howard Avenue;
18 Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue;
19 Park Road from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue; and
20 Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue:
21 75 cents for one hour
22 All other areas:
23 5 cents for each 30 minutes
24 (3) 2-Hour Parking Limit
25 On the following streets:
26 California Drive, from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue;
27 Chapin Avenue, from Primrose Road to El Camino Real;
28 Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue;
11212007 3
I Highland Avenue from California Drive to Howard Avenue;
2 Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive;
3 Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue;
4 Park Road, from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue;
5 Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; and
6 South Lane from Carolan Avenue to California Drive:
7 $1.50 for two hours
8 On the following streets:
9 Capuchino Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue;
10 Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue;
11 Laguna Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue; and
12 Paloma Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue:
13 $1.00 for two hours
14 All other areas:
15 75 cents for two hours
16 (4) 4-Hour Parking Limit
17 On the following street:
18 Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Highland Avenue:
19 75 cents for each hour
20 (5) 10-Hour Parking Limit
21 On the following streets:
22 California Drive, from Howard Avenue to Bellevue Avenue;
23 Chapin Avenue, from Primrose Road to El Camino Real;
24 City Hall Lane from Primrose Road to Park Road;
25 Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue;
26 Highland Avenue from Howard Avenue to California Drive;
27 Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive;
28 Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue;
11212007 4
1 Park Road, from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue; and
2 Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue:
3 $2.50 for ten hours
4 On the following streets:
5 Lorton Avenue, from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue;
6 Park Road from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; and
7 Primrose Road from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue:
8 $1.25 for ten hours
9 All other areas:
10 25 cents for each 2-1/2 hours
11
12 Section 3. Subsection 13.36.020(12) is amended to read as follows:
13 (12) Rhinette Avenue, south side, between 9:00 $:96 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and
14 holidays excepted; and
15
16 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
17
18
19 Mayor
20
21 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
22 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
,2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
23 day of , 2007, by the following vote:
24
25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
26 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
27
28
City Clerk
U:\FILES\ORDINANC\parkingmeters-2007-l.pwd.wpd
1/2/2007 5
` ell
�
R
N or
ol
a .�
�,y til►, � • �Qi � +�,��..,, �Ak c'�
VI
It
4 � �
t
a
r ' �`
r �
a
t pp
d n
q a
+� y u
24-MINUTE PRIMROSE TIME LIMIT PARKING
TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes Excerpts—February 9,2006
4.2 DISCUSION ITEM
4.2.3 Primrose Road/Howard Avenue - Designation of 24 minute Green
Zones
Mr.Chou stated in October 2005,the Council received a request from Ms.
Ragsdale to consider designating several parking spaces in City Lot G for
short-term/24-minute parking to accommodate the parents of the United
Methodist Nursery School,at the Burlingame United Methodist Church. He
said the request was submitted shortly before the Council was to vote on
specific short-term issues identified in the long running downtown Burlingame
Parking Study.Due to the short notice of the request,data to the Council for
immediate action could not be provided.As a result, Council referred the
request to staff for review along with a directive to work with Ms.Ragsdale in
establishing the parent's parking needs and a possible solution. Mr.Chou
reported that staff met with Ms.Ragsdale on November 22,2005 to discuss
possibilities and limitations.On-street parking is permitted on both sides of
Primrose,south of Howard,and there is 10-hr.meters posted on the east side
and no meters on the west side.There is meter parking on the south side of
Howard along the Church's frontage(10 hr.parking).Mr.Chou stated that
short-term parking was needed along Primrose,due to the daycare center.
Currently,on-street parking spaces did get occupied quickly along the west
portion of Primrose.Parents with children used Lot G and crossed the street
mid block. He said this was a concern of the City. Mr.Chou stated that the
church also had a private lot which could be used for daycare parking.
Another option was possibly using Howard Avenue,which are 10-hr.meters.
Mr.Chou cautioned that the meter rates could change from 25 cents to 75
cents.
Ms.Ragsdale said that parents need to park anywhere from five minutes to
two hours,usually with two or more children to walk to the facility or church.
The daycare's hours of operation vary from day-to-day,opening and closing
anywhere from 8:50 to 3:00 or 3:30.Other parents also drop their children for
church activities,and it would be helpful to stop Lot G enforcement at 5:30.
She said this way,parents wouldn't have to pay$1.00 to drop off their kids.
She encourages the Commission to visit the site when it is busier to get a true
picture of the situation.
Chair Condon believes 24-minute parking will lead to a faster turnover,and
note City businesses currently have long-term parking available to them for
their employees.
Mr.Chou informed the Commission that with green zone parking,the police
department wouldn't know which cars arrived at what time.
Commissioner Warden stated that the church lot was under utilized. He also
said he had no problem with 24-minute parking at the proposed area. He
suggested the Commission considers limiting this area to five minute parking,
Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM. He added that this would eliminate
the need to cross streets. He concluded by saying that a determination
needed to be made regarding the existing white zone on Howard, and what
could be done in the church parking lot.
Tabled to next meeting. (Condon/James)
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes Excerpts— March 9, 2006
4.2 DISCUSION ITEM
4.2.1 Primrose Road/Howard Avenue — Designation of 24-minute Green
Zones.
Traffic Engineer Chou informed the public that during the February 9, 2006
meeting the Commission requested that staff conduct area-wide notification
for the surrounding businesses inviting them to participate in discussion
regarding the green zone on Primrose and Howard. A sub-committee was
established to investigate the green zone in detail. Mr. Chou reported that
sub-committee members conducted field meetings to determine the feasibility
of the requested green zones and/or the utilization of parking spaces within
the church lot.
Kennon States, 1305 Grove Avenue, said that she was a member of the
United Methodist Church and a sixty-year resident of Burlingame. She
explained that the parking lot was small and that church members arriving
during the week for services must park on the street once the lot was full. Ms.
States indicated that a 24-minute parking zone would be difficult since 24
minutes was not enough time to take care of church business during the
week. She added that the church has a very active membership, and also
has a Taiwanese congregation that uses the church for worship. Ms. States
concluded by saying that she opposed the proposed 24-minute green zone.
Commissioner Warden informed the Commission of a recent meeting with
Ms. Ragsdale to discuss the possibility of changing non-metered 2-hour
parking spaces to 24-minute parking, and/or the addition of five more space
to 24-minute parking. He recognized the need to provide off-street parking as
drop-off spaces. He added that the sub-committee was looking at creating
four 24-minute spaces, along with the possibility of removing two sections of a
fence to create a driveway onto Howard Avenue.
Chair Condon explained that long-term parking was available; however, short-
term parking such as for drop-off and pick-up was limited. He also said that
there was a problem for parking enforcement at un-metered green zones
because the officers could not know when a vehicle began parking in the
zone, making enforcement difficult. Chair Condon felt that four or five spaces
could be designated for 24-minute parking meters, which would allow for
better enforcement and provide the short-term parking needed. Sergeant
Shepley explained that parking on Sundays was not enforced.
Commissioner Conway asked for clarification on the staffs recommendation.
Mr. Chou explained that short-term parking could be considered along
Primrose, but that staff was waiting for additional input from church
representatives before making a final recommendation. He said that staff
was working with the sub-committee to bring viable options to the
Commission.
Commissioner Warden said that he believed creating an exit onto Howard
Avenue would allow the child-care parents to drive into the church lot from
Primrose and exit onto Howard.
Motion: To accept staff recommendation.
M/S/C: James, Warden; 5/0/0
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes Excerpts -April 13, 2006
4.2 DISCUSSION ITEM
4.2.1 Primrose Road/Howard Avenue — Designation of 24-minute green
zones
Commissioner Conway excused himself from this discussion due to a
possible conflict of interest regarding the day-care.
Traffic Engineer Chou updated the Commission of the needs of the United
Methodist Church Nursery School, and the resulting request for short-term
on-street parking. He explained that at the March 9 TSPC meeting, the
Commission and Leslie Ragsdale had discussed some options for short-term
parking. He also explained that the surrounding businesses were notified of
the public meeting, but that there was little to no turnout from the businesses
at that time. Mr. Chou concluded by saying that it recommended designating
five spaces along Primrose, beginning at Howard, as 24-minute green zones.
He also stated that due to enforcement issues, the new green zone should
have meters.
Leslie Ragsdale requested the City consider variable enforcement times for
Saturdays and Sundays due to church activity on these days.
Commissioner Warden stated that he would still like to see the church
consider reserving spaces in their parking lot for picking up and dropping off
of children. He would like to see the church allocate some of their space (by
way of signage) as the City is being asked to allocate space that will
specifically be used by the church. He asked that staff send a letter to the
church offering such a recommendation to them for future consideration.
Commissioner James asked for confirmation that the church would be willing
to include signage in their parking lot.
Chair Condon commented that businesses in the area have provided no
feedback. He said he supported a 24-minute enforcement zone, and believed
that this would provide a greater turn-over in parking for of vehicles.
Commissioner Bohnert commented his approval of 24-minute parking with no
restrictions on weekends.
Sergeant Shipley said that an ordinance may need to be passed to
accommodate this change.
Traffic Engineer Augustine Chou informed the Commission it would not be
difficult to amend the ordinance, but cautioned that the City should be
consistent regarding enforcements on Saturdays. He said that currently
parking was enforced on Saturdays, and this action would exclude
enforcement specifically at this location.
Motion: To move to Action Item.
M/S/C: Warden, Bohnert; 4/0/1 (Commissioner Conway abstained.)
Commissioner Warden felt that a non-binding letter could be sent to the
church administration asking that they consider reconfiguring the parking lot
for a new driveway to accommodate daycare traffic.
Chair Cohdon said he did not think that a letter would be necessary. He also
stated that he would rather support Saturday enforcements if the 24-minute
meters where to be approved
Motion: To accept staff recommendation to install five metered 24-minute
green zones along Primrose Road, south of Howard Avenue; and, also to
send a letter to the church recommending that they investigate the use of the
church parking lot for daycare pick-up and drop-off parking. The Commission
also reiterated that Saturdays would be enforced.
M/S/C: Warden, Bohnert; 3/1/1 (Commissioner Conway abstained.)
,r
a .
ootTel,- air le
AL
40%
q f
p
r
q
� ^ 4"
a
h x �
4f
Co
r
F f J
r
a *4j .00 ^ ,
� f
41 ,
IK
'T-AC E
a
�'� ♦ ,rte � � ! r' .. � o
r
I ORDINANCE No.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING SECTION 13.20.010 FOR
3 INSTALLATION OF A STOP SIGNS AT OCCIDENTAL APPROACHING HOWARD
AVENUE
4
5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
6 Section 1. The intersection of Occidental and Howard Avenues does not have a
7 conforming traffic control situation. City staff has recommended and the Traffic Safety and
8 Parking Commission has concurred in installing a stop sign on the approach of Occidental Avenue
9 to Howard Avenue to make the traffic control clear.
10
11 Section 2. Subsection 13.20.010(h) is amended to read as follows:
12 (h) Hale Drive approaching Columbus Avenue;
13 Highway Road approaching Oxford Road/Cambridge Road;
14 Hillside Circle approaching Hillside Drive;
15 Hillside Drive approaching Vancouver Avenue;
16 Hillside Drive approaching Alvarado Avenue;
17 Hillside Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard;
18 Hillside Lane approaching Skyline Boulevard;
19 Hinckley Road approaching Gilbreth Road;
20 Howard Avenue approaching Anita Road;
21 Howard Avenue approaching Arundel Avenue;
22 Howard Avenue approaching Dwight Road;
23 Howard Avenue approaching Humboldt Street;
24 Howard Avenue approaching Lorton Avenue;
25 Howard Avenue approaching Occidental Avenue;
26 Howard Avenue approaching Primrose Road;
27 Humboldt Street approaching Howard Avenue;
28 Hunt Drive approaching Frontera Way;
1 Hunt Drive approaching Rivera Drive;
2 Hunt Drive approaching Trousdale Drive;
3
4 Section 3. Subsection 13.20.010(o) is amended to read as follows:
5 (o) Oak Grove both directions approaching Winchester.
6 Occidental Avenue approaching Howard Avenue from the sou ;
7 Ogden Drive approaching Murchison Drive;
8 Ogden Drive approaching Trousdale Drive;
9
10 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
11
12
Mayor
13
14 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
15 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day
of ,2007,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
16 day of May, 2007, by the following vote:
17
18 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
19 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
20
21 City Clerk
22 UAFILES\ORDINANOstopsign20071.pwd.wpd
23
24
25
26
27
28
a..
OINIa meq.
-S,
V ; #
«
O
1
f�
m
t
R �*
^ v
• s
e
49,
od
4�"d6
• w
r .s
4 .e
T a�
F
F
wt+ �
* r
,
N
a
ti ,
OCCIDENTAL/HOWARD STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes Excerpt—August 10,2006
4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS.
4.2.1 Additional stop sign at Occidental Avenue&Howard Avenue—3 Way
Stop
Mr.Chou stated that the current stop sign configuration of Occidental Avenue
and Howard Avenue was a non-standard installation. He presented the
options of making this intersection a standard 3-way stop,or removing the
northbound sign to stop only Howard Avenue traffic. He said staff
recommended making this location a standard 3-way controlled stop.
Mr. Gilbride, stated that he observed speeding vehicles along Occidental
Avenue and favored the 3-way stop. Mr Bojack said he walks this area
frequently and that shrubbery partially obstructed the view of pedestrians. He
felt that a 3-way stop would be effective. Ms. Canon stated that she had
difficulty pulling out of her driveway due to vehicles speeding along the curve
of Howard Avenue and was in favor of a 3r°stop sign at this intersection.Ms.
Smolinski stated that when attempting to cross with children,they were nearly
hit by vehicles, and expressed the need for an additional stop sign. Mr.
Kershner said he just moved here last March,and stated that crossing the
street was dangerous due to vehicles speeding along Occidental. He also
favored an additional stop sign.Ms.Giorni stated that riding a bicycle at this
intersection was also dangerous and was pleased to hear that it is
acknowledged as a non-conforming installation. She was in favor of a 3-way
stop.
Motion: To move this to an Action Item.
M/S/C: Warden,James;5/0/0
Motion: To accept the staff recommendation to install an additional stop
sign at the Occidental Avenue/Howard Avenue intersection in order to make
this location a standard 3-way controlled stop.
M/S/C: James,Warden;5/0/0
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
REVISING THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING
CITY PARKING LOT TIME LIMITS AND CHARGES
FOR PARKING LOTS A and A-3
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME, California, that:
WHEREAS, Municipal Code title 13 provides the framework for regulating the City's
parking lots; and
WHEREAS, this Council has from time to time established regulations for time limitations
and charges for various City parking lots; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted extensive parking studies of the Burlingame Avenue
and Broadway areas to determine what might be the best balance of parking availability in public
off-street parking lots that will provide the greatest benefit to motorists, pedestrians, merchants, and
property owners; and
WHEREAS, to provide consistency in parking times and enforcement for Burlingame
Avenue Area customers and employees, Parking Lots A and A-3 should be changed from 9-hour
limits to 10-hour limits as exist at other City parking facilities in the area; and
WHEREAS, the other time limits and parking rate charges established and affirmed in
Resolution No. 69-2005 shall remain unchanged,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, ORDERED and DETERMINED as
follows:
1. No person shall park any vehicle on any City parking lot for longer than the
designated period and, in those lots having parking meters or coin boxes, after the meter has expired
or without placing required amounts in the coin box.
1/2/2007 1
2. The time limitations,meter or coin box rates, and hours of enforcement set forth on
Exhibit A attached hereto are hereby adopted and shall supersede any and all such limitations and
hours adopted by prior resolutions of this Council.
3. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to procure and install
parking meters or coin boxes and appropriate signs giving notice of the provisions of this resolution.
4. The Director of Public Works is specifically authorized to adjust the balance of
differently timed spaces within the lots as set authorized and set forth in Exhibit A as the Director
determines will best achieve the goals of providing parking to customers,employees,and residents.
5. Limitations and charges set forth in this resolution shall be operative upon the
installation of such signs, meters and coin boxes; existing limitations and charges shall continue in
effect until changed.
6. Resolution No. 69-2005 is repealed.
MAYOR
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of , 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
1/2/2007 2
7
G
ON-STREET PARKING
�Z
7 One Hour or Less Metered
0 O 2 Hour Metered
BELLEV(jEgV� S' 4 Hour Metered
no 10 Hour Metered
IEEE Free Parking(time limits may apply)
LOT LOT LOT
A A-3 O
CHAPIN AVE
ti v '
LOT c LOT DONNELLY AVE "
B g_1 _
� LOT®�
LOT r
i C
NORTH LN
LOT
LOT V
K-I
BURLINGAME AVE
LOT
K SOUTH LN
LOT
LOT M
LOT LOT E
L
LOT
` LOT1
i
HOWARD AVE
r C) 7�
3 LOT D LOT LOT
PARKING LOTS O G F Z N Z 2
m D D 7
_ Free Parking p M > O?�
M
® Metered Parking
,QSP
_ Pay-and-Display Parking 'IV
ti
(Long-Term Parking) �o1-rosry
c,
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF BURLINGAME PUBLIC PARKING LOTS
TIME LIMITS AND RATES
PARKING LOCATION TIME LIMITS METER OR COIN BOX RATE
LOT
A Donnelly Avenue, North 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
10 hours $2.50 for 10 hours
A-3 Bellevue Avenue 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
ad acent to Main Library 10 hours $2.50 for 10 hours
B Chapin Avenue, West 10 hours Flat rate of $2.00 for up to 10 hours
B-1 Chapin Avenue, East 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
10 hours $2.50 for 10 hours
C Donnelly Avenue, South 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
10 hours $2.50 for 10 hours
D Donnelly Avenue at Lorton Avenue 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
4 hours $3.00 for 4 hours
E Lorton Avenue to Park Road, 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
South of Burlingame Avenue 4 hours $3.00 for 4 hours
F Lorton Avenue to Park Road, South of 12 hours' Flat rate of $1 .00 for up to 10 hours
Howard Avenue
Park Road to Primrose Road, South of
G 10 hours Flat rate of $1 .00 for up to 10 hours
Howard Avenue
West Side of EI Camino Real at
H 12 hours Free up to 12-hour limit
Ralston Avenue
Primrose Road to Park Road, 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
South of Burlingame Avenue 4 hours $3.00 for 4 hours
K EI Camino Real, between Howard 10 hours $2.00 for 10 hours
Avenue and Burlingame Avenue
K-1 Burlingame Avenue at EI Camino Real 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
L Off Fox Plaza Lane 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
California Drive, South of Burlingame
M 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
Avenue
N Lorton Avenue to Highland Avenue, 10 hours Flat rate of $1 .00 for up to 10 hours
South of Howard Avenue
O North Lane to Oak Grove 2 hours $1 .50 for 2 hours
10 hours Flat rate of $2.00 for up to 10 hours
2 hours $1 .00 for 2 hours
P Paloma Avenue, North of Broadway 10 hours $2.00 for 10 hours
To allow but control overnight parking.
1/2/2007 Exhibit A - I
PARKING
LOCATION TIME LIMITS METER OR COIN BOX RATE
LOT
Q Capuchino Avenue to Paloma Avenue, 2 hours $1 .00 for 2 hours
North of Broadway 10 hours $2.00 for 10 hours
R Capuchino Avenue, South of 2 hours $1 .00 for 2 hours
Broadway
S Rhinette Avenue at California Drive 2 hours $0.20 for 2 hours
9 hours $1 .00 for 9 hours
T California Drive, North of Broadway 10 hours $1 .00 for 10 hours
U California Drive, South of Broadway 10 hours $1 .00 for 10 hours
V California Drive, adjacent to 4 hours $0.75 per hour
Burlingame Avenue Train Station
W Howard Avenue, between Park and 10 hours $2.00 for 10 hours
Primrose Roads
X Tennis Court lot, Burlingame Avenue 4 hours Free up to 4-hour limit
Y Chula Vista Avenue to Laguna 2 hours $1 .00 for 2 hours
Avenue South of Broadway 10 hours $2.00 for 10 hours
NOTES:
(1) For complete description of Lots A through N, see Map entitled PARKING LOTS BURLINGAME
AVENUE OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT, as revised, which map is numbered C-1988, is dated February
1965, and is on file in the office of the City Engineer of the City of Burlingame.
(2) All parking limitations established by this resolution shall be in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Sundays and holidays excepted. Specific parking lots may be subject to other City ordinance, resolution, or
regulation provisions.
1/2/2007 Exhibit A - 2
A�� CITiob
STAFF REPORT
BURUNGAME AGENDA
ITEM# 9a
ticoq 900
MTG.
DATE January 16,2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: January 16,2007
APPROV
FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY
SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Conditions for the Approval of a Transfer of a Cable TV Franchise
from RCN Telecom Services Inc. to Astound Broadband L.L.C.
Recommendation
That the Council adopt the attached resolution which establishes the conditions for the approval of a transfer
of a Cable Television Franchise from RCN Telecom Services Inc. to Astound Broadband LLC.
Background
In August 2000, the Council approved a cable TV franchise agreement with RCN Telecom Services (RCN) to
provide cable TV services to the residents of Burlingame. The term of the original franchise is eleven (11)
years. The franchise is currently in its sixth year.
Franchise Amendments to RCN Franchise
The Council has approved three amendments to the existing franchise agreement.
Amendment No. 1 was approved on January 5, 2003. It suspended RCN's construction build-out
requirements for a period of three years and then reinstated them. RCN is still required to complete the build-
out of the entire city by August 7, 2011.
Amendment No. 2 was approved on October 4, 2004. It required RCN to fund a $50,000 construction
incentive fund that the city could draw down if no significant construction occurred. It also reduces the
franchise term if no significant construction occurs. The annual withdrawals are $10,000 for each year that
RCN fails to complete significant construction. In addition, RCN constructed a multi jurisdictional fiber optic
network along El Camino Real to be used and shared by the cities of Burlingame, Belmont, Millbrae,
Redwood City and San Carlos. RCN leased the optical fiber to the cities for a the sum of$1 per year for 25
years.
Amendment No. 3 was approved on January 3, 2005. It allowed RCN to include on subscribers' bills (as a
separate line-item) the PEG access charges paid to the city.
Proposed Transfer of RCN Cable TV Franchise to Astound Broadband
In September, the City of Burlingame, along with the other eight agencies in San Mateo County and the City
and County of San Francisco received notice that the assets and franchises of RCN were being sold to Astound
Broadband LLC (Astound). Astound is a competitive video provider that has been active in the Contra Costa
County area (Concord, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County unincorporated areas) as well as in the Pacific
Northwest. They are based in Kirkland, Washington with an office in the East Bay.
Under Federal law and the terms of the City's non-exclusive cable TV franchise with RCN, cities have the
right to review the proposed transfer to Astound. The 9 agencies in San Mateo County worked through the
San Mateo County Telecommunications Authority (SAMCAT) to review the transfer. Michael Friedman of
Telecommunications Management Corp. (TMC) was retained by SAMCAT to perform the review.
The review by TMC resulted in a 35-page analysis of the proposed transfer. In summary, TMC notes that any
transfer of the cable TV franchise from RCN to Astound should include an agreement between Astound and
the City which continues the terms of the franchise as well as any amendments. TMC also recommends that
Astound cover the cost of the transfer review process and that it activate a third PEG channel.
Staff concurs with the TMC report and has worked with TMC to prepare the attached agreement and
resolution that embodies these conditions. Staff feels that it is in the City's interest to continue the
relationship with RCN and its successor company as it may ultimately result in another choice for Cable TV
services for all Burlingame residents. Finally, Staff notes that city officials in Contra Costa County give
Astound high marks for their customer service and marketing and indicate that the company's presence in the
San Mateo County market would be of benefit.
Third PEG Channel (Public, Educational and Governmental Access)
The current franchise requires RCN to make two (2) PEG channels available. It also requires that if the
incumbent cable system operator (Comcast) makes available more than two (2) PEG channels to the city, then
RCN is required to provide two (2) additional PEG channels for a total of four. Comcast is currently required
to provide two (2) PEG channels under their franchise, which expires in 2008. As part of the on-going
franchise negotiations with other SAMCAT cities, Comcast has tentatively agreed to third PEG channel.
As part of the transfer, Astound will accelerate their activation of a third PEG channel even though Comcast is
currently required to provide only two channels. Astound will activate and provide the third PEG channel no
later than April 20, 2007.
Fiscal Implications
Transfer of the franchise to Astound will have no significant budget impact on the City. The amendments to
the franchise will continue to be in effect. If Astound does not make significant progress on their construction
obligations, the city will continue to withdraw $10,000 per year (as penalty) until the $50,000 are depleted.
To date the city has drawn down $30,000. If Astound meets the construction obligations, then City will no
longer have this funding but will instead receive franchise fees and Public, Education and Government Access
Channel (PEG) funding instead. The latter has the potential to provide more funding to the City in the long
run.
Attachments
• Resolution of the City Council Establishing Conditions for the Approval of a Transfer of a Cable TV
Franchise from RCN Telecom Services Inc. to Astound Broadband LLC
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
CONDITIONS FOR THE APPROVAL OF A TRANSFER OF
A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE FROM RCN
TELECOM SERVICES, INC.TO ASTOUND BROADBAND,
LLC.
WHEREAS, RCN Telecom Services, Inc. ("Franchisee") owns and has a
franchise to maintain a cable system("System")in the City of Burlingame("City");and
WHEREAS, Franchisee has a franchise to provide cable service in the City
pursuant to the terms of a cable system franchise ("Franchise")granted to Franchisee
on August 7,2000,and effective August 18,2000;and
WHEREAS, City actions on January 5, 2003 (1s`Amendment), October 4, 2004
(2nd Amendment)and January 3, 2005(3rd Amendment)amended certain terms of the
Franchise;and
WHEREAS, Franchisee and Astound Broadband, LLC ("Astound" or
"Transferee") are parties to an asset purchase agreement ("Purchase Agreement")
pursuant to which the System and the Franchise are to be transferred to Astound;and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2006, the City received an F.C.C. Form 394
requesting a transfer of the Franchise from Franchisee to Transferee;and
WHEREAS, the City has one hundred twenty (120) days from the receipt of a
complete F.C.C. Form 394 to act upon the transfer request or the request automatically
is deemed to have been approved;and
WHEREAS,the one hundred twenty(120)day review period expires on January
19, 2007, since the FCC Form 394 was received by the City on September 21, 2006;
and
WHEREAS, the Franchise cannot be transferred or assigned without the City
Council's consent;and
WHEREAS, federal regulations permit the City to evaluate the legal, technical
and financial qualifications of Transferee to operate the Franchise;and
WHEREAS, the legislative history of the Federal Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act") further indicates that
Congress intended that local franchising authorities consider such information as the
effect of the transfer or sale on rates and subscriber services and the Transferee's plans
for expanding or eliminating services to subscribers when assessing an application for
transfer of a cable system franchise; and
WHEREAS, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a case
involving the County of Santa Cruz, California and Charter Communications, found that
local cable franchising authorities should be afforded broad deference in legislative acts
in their role as stewards of the public good; and
WHEREAS, the City, as steward of the public good, believes that the transfer will
be in the best interest of its residents and potential System subscribers provided the
transfer is conditioned in order to safeguard the interests of its residents and potential
System subscribers; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to proceed with the proposed transfer on the terms
and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby
resolve, determine and order as follows:
Section 1. The City hereby consents to the transfer, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Astound Broadband, LLC, the Transferee, is owned and controlled as indicated
in Exhibit A attached hereto. To the extent required by Section 2.6 of the Cable
Television Franchise between the City and RCN, any change of ownership or
control of Transferee from the ownership and control indicated in Exhibit A shall
be subject to prior City review and consent.
2. The City expressly reserves any and all rights that it may possess under the
Franchise and applicable law with respect to any non-compliance issues on the
part of Franchisee, whether known or unknown, which exist prior to the effective
date of this transfer and Transferee reserves any and all rights and defenses with
respect to any such non-compliance issues.
-2 -
In reserving such rights, the City confirms that the Franchisee is materially in
compliance with the provisions of the Franchise and there exists no fact or
circumstance known to the City which constitutes, or which, with the passage of
time or the giving of notice or both, would constitute a material default or breach
under the Franchise or would allow the City to cancel or terminate the rights
hereunder, except upon the expiration of the full term of the Franchise.
3. The transfer is expressly contingent upon Transferee reimbursing the City for the
consultant's costs incurred in the processing of the request for transfer, not to
exceed the maximum amount of $20,000 indicated in the "Change of Ownership
Consent Agreement" attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Said
reimbursement shall be provided within thirty (30) calendar days of Franchisee's
receipt of an itemized invoice detailing the consultant's costs.
4. All terms of the Franchise agreement remain in full force and effect, including all
terms contained in City of Burlingame actions dated January 5, 2003 (1st
Amendment), October 4, 2004 (2nd Amendment) and January 3, 2005 (3rd
Amendment) amending and clarifying certain terms of the Franchise.
5. The Franchise agreement allows the City to require Franchisee to provide up to
two (2) additional Public, Educational and Governmental ("PEG") access
channels. These two (2) PEG access channels will be in addition to the two (2)
PEG access channels currently provided. Transferee agrees to activate and
provide one additional PEG access channel by not later than April 20, 2007. This
access channel may be located on Transferee's digital service tier. No sooner
than twenty four months after the incumbent cable operator implements a third
PEG channel and following receipt of one hundred twenty (120) days advance
written notice, the Transferee shall provide a fourth PEG channel. This channel
may be located on Transferee's digital tier of service. Transferee shall not be
required to carry the third and fourth PEG Channels on the Basic Service tier
until Transferee converts its entire System to a digital format.
6. Transferee shall evidence acceptance of these conditions by signing a copy of
the "Change of Ownership Consent Agreement," in substantially the same form
as attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, containing the conditions provided to
Transferee and submitting the same to the City Clerk within sixty (60) calendar
days of this approval.
If Transferee fails to submit a signed copy of the "Change of Ownership Consent
Agreement" to the City Clerk within said sixty (60) day period, or otherwise
refuses to accept the conditions placed on the proposed transfer set forth herein,
consent to the transfer shall be automatically withdrawn, effective the date of
adoption of this Resolution, and the request to transfer shall be deemed denied.
- 3-
Section 2. Other than with respect to the condition made in Section 1.2 above,
if any sentence, clause, phrase or portion of any condition imposed in Section 1 hereof
if for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining conditions placed on this
transfer.
The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares that it would have
adopted this Resolution and each and every condition set forth in Section 1 hereof
separately, irrespective of the fact that one or more of these conditions may be declared
invalid or unenforceable.
Section 3. This Resolution shall be deemed effective for the purposes of the
transfer upon adoption by the City Council.
Section 4. Subject to the reservation of rights of Section 1(2) above, the City
hereby releases Franchisee, effective upon the consummation of the transaction
contemplated in the Purchase Agreement (the "Closing Date") from all obligations and
liabilities under the Franchise that accrue on or after the Closing Date. Franchisee shall
remain responsible for all obligations and liabilities under the Franchise that accrue up
to the Closing Date. Transferee shall be responsible for any obligations and liabilities
under the Franchise that accrue on or after the Closing Date.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law, and shall transmit
a certified copy of this Resolution and Exhibit A hereto to Franchisee, Transferee and
Guarantor.
Mayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the day of 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
-4-
CITY OF BURLINGAME
EXHIBIT A: CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP CONSENT AGREEMENT
Section 1
Terms used in this Change of Ownership Consent Agreement shall be as defined in
Resolution No. 2007-
Section 2
The City hereby consents to the transfer described in City Resolution No. 2007-
subject to the following conditions:
1. Astound Broadband LLC, the Transferee, is owned and controlled as indicated in
Figure 1 attached hereto. To the extent required by Section 2.6 of the Cable
Television Franchise between the City and RCN, any change of ownership or
control of Transferee from the ownership and control indicated in Figure 1 shall
be subject to prior City review and consent.
2. The City expressly reserves any and all rights that it may possess under the
Franchise and applicable law with respect to any non-compliance issues on the
part of Franchisee, whether known or unknown, which exist prior to the effective
date of this transfer and Transferee reserves any and all rights and defenses with
respect to any such non-compliance issues.
In reserving such rights, the City confirms that the Franchisee is materially in
compliance with the provisions of the Franchise and there exists no fact or
circumstance known to the City which constitutes, or which, with the passage of
time or the giving of notice or both, would constitute a material default or breach
under the Franchise or would allow the City to cancel or terminate the rights
hereunder, except upon the expiration of the full term of the Franchise.
3. The transfer is expressly contingent upon Franchisee reimbursing the City for the
consultant's costs incurred in the processing of the request for transfer, not to
exceed the maximum amount of $20,000 indicated in this Change of Ownership
Consent Agreement. Said reimbursement shall be provided within thirty (30)
calendar days of Transferee's receipt of an itemized invoice detailing the
consultant's costs.
4. The Franchise agreement allows the City to require Transferee to provide up to
two (2) additional Public, Educational and Governmental ("PEG") access
- B-1 -
channels. These two (2) PEG access channels will be in addition to the two (2)
PEG access channels currently provided. Transferee agrees to activate and
provide one additional PEG access channel by not later than April 20, 2007. This
access channel may be located on Transferee's digital service tier. No sooner
than twenty four months after the incumbent cable operator implements a third
PEG channel and following receipt of one hundred twenty (120) days advance
written notice, the Transferee shall provide a fourth PEG channel. This channel
may be located on Transferee's digital tier of service. Transferee shall not be
required to carry the third and fourth PEG Channels on the Basic Service tier
until Transferee converts its entire System to a digital format.
5. Transferee shall evidence acceptance of these conditions by signing a copy of
this "Change of Ownership Consent Agreement," and submitting the same to the
City Clerk within sixty (60) calendar days of the Closing Date. If Transferee fails
to submit a signed copy of this "Change of Ownership Consent Agreement" to
the City Clerk within said sixty (60) day period, or otherwise refuses to accept the
conditions placed on the proposed transfer set forth herein, consent to the
transfer shall be automatically withdrawn, effective the date of adoption of City of
Burlingame Resolution No. 2007-_1 and the request to transfer shall be
deemed denied.
Section 3
Other than with respect to the promise made in Section 2(3) above, if any sentence,
clause, phrase or portion of any condition imposed in Section 2 hereof if for any reason
held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining conditions placed on this transfer. The City
Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares that it would have entered into this
"Change of Ownership Consent Agreement" and each and every condition set forth in
Section 2 hereof separately, irrespective of the fact that one or more of these conditions
may be declared invalid or unenforceable.
Section 4
Subject to the reservation of rights of Section 2(2) above, the City hereby releases
Franchisee, effective upon the consummation of the transaction contemplated in the
Purchase Agreement (the "Closing Date") from all obligations and liabilities under the
Franchise that accrue on or after the Closing Date. Franchisee shall remain responsible
for all obligations and liabilities under the Franchise that accrue up to the Closing Date.
Transferee shall be responsible for any obligations and liabilities under the Franchise
that accrue on or after the Closing Date.
- B-2 -
Section 5
This Agreement shall be effective upon the Closing Date at which time Franchise and
System ownership shall have transferred from Franchisee to Transferee.
"City" "Transferee"
City of Burlingame, CA Astound Broadband, LLC
By:
Terry Nagel, Mayor Its:
Date:
Attest:
Doris Mortensen, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Larry Anderson, City Attorney
- B-3 -
Exhibit A — Figure 1
ii+M.l��t� Rss".6RiU
mmoaftv
Ls4R mo
14 1'�Lilf9 Ur
`k
414►�i1' Mi�`- li�I49r0►d�
N^41t(1IIII A
Dillsinm I aidings Li +[` _-
s�d
Wa*tDiwitimf, LLC �' iart'+ti[ ir4r�its 16 LI
�{. ,t aragr,CrtJ.r 4J4ri s
�:"�Mk^1ii�r EFaq.
WanOttislan IL LLC WM—eDir iia IV,LLC
x
LADo r.'Jvmhk*w l art olclu,4 Wat*WM
ism.®..
)M%
M LLC'��.R. _
Wff tjDh � IIL LLC H.y, Y{ i�yy��
jai k,ti
}� �3�.:4it:�. �f�u►. 1461. �.�.k
t',ttstl4iiSf`x
1-1-**h 0 K.7'torw fm
— B-4 —
AM'n- $
AGENDA 9b
ITEM# _
STAFF REPORT
MTG.
DATE 1/16/2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED
BY
r
DATE: Januaa 5, 2007 APPROVE /
BY U
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
APPROVE REDUCTION IN ASSESSMENT BASIS FOR BEST WESTERN EL RANCHO INN
AND SUITES FOR NON-USE OF MEETING SPACE UNDER THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve reduction in assessment basis for Best Western El Rancho Inn & Suites due to non-use of meeting
space in connection with motel.
DISCUSSION:
At the December 4, 2006, meeting, the Council adopted the assessments for the 2007 year for the San Mateo
County Tourism Business Assessment District.
However, the Best Western El Rancho Inn& Suites in Millbrae found that their billing was based on having
over 1,000 square feet of meeting space. According to a December 20, 2006, letter to the San Mateo County
Convention and Visitors Bureau, the motel does not have any meeting space for public use; instead an adjacent
restaurant separately has banquet rooms, and the meeting room at the motel is only used by staff.
The basis had been established because the motel was advertising meeting facilities on various websites. The
motel manager has promised to have this advertising removed.
Therefore, the Convention and Visitors Bureau has requested the City to change the assessment basis for the
motel to the category having no meeting space.
Attachment
December 20, 2006, letter from Arthur Schwass, Best Western El Rancho Inn & Suites
Distribution
Best Western El Rancho Inn & Suites
Finance Director, City of Millbrae
Gina Allhands, SMCCVB
r
El Rancho
Inn & Suites
1100 EI CWnM R"
Minoru,CA 94030.2015
P"no(650)588-8500
Fax(650)871-7150
December 2 2006 For Poservations Call
1-800-M-6500
www.elrancnolnn.com
Ms. Gina All ands
San Mateo C unty
CVB
111 Anza BI d.
Suite 410
Burlingame, �A 94010
Dear Ms. All ands,
I am writing o clarify how we operate our property, specifically the working
relationship ith the adjacent restaurant,
The restaurargr operation, Terrace Cafe, is leased to an outside operator. It is
operated indendently from our hotel. The operator has complete control
of the restaur t operation, including his banquet room. The restaurant has
one main ba uet room, called the Palm Room, and a smaller dining room
called the 'Ve anda .Room. Theses rooms are booked exclusively by the
restaurant op razor.
Our hotel ha one small boardroom that is used for in house training and our
human resou e department.
Sincerely,
Arthur Schw ss
ce„WavN wnma�Ara inriananHpntW owned and oottr5ted
Z00/Z00'6 9985# SNoiIVAd2s�ti NNi OHONrd 72 EOGGFbLO99 L9:VI 900Z,OZ'020
AGENDA
Crrr o� ITEM# 9C
STAFF REPORT MTG.
DATE:January 16,2007
Honorable Mayor and Cit
TO: Ho y y Council SUBMITTED
BY: Jack Van Et n, Police Chie
DATE: January 5, 2007
APPROVED ����'��"
FROM: Commander Michael Matteucci 'WA-3 BY: Jim Nan ity Manager
SUBJECT: Adopt the resolution awarding a contract for Red Light Photo nforcement Traffic System at EI
Camino Real and Broadway
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the resolution awarding a contract with Redflex
Traffic Systems to install a Red Light Photo Enforcement Traffic Camera System at the intersection of
EI Camino Real and Broadway. Staff believes this traffic calming measure will reduce both vehicular
accidents and injuries, as well as increase public safety through the enforcement of traffic laws
associated with red light traffic signal violations.
BACKGROUND
Police departments across the country are struggling with issues including budgetary concerns and
the human resources available to accomplish the increased demands from citizens (especially in
dealing with traffic related issues). Increased amounts of traffic on city roadways require increased
traffic enforcement; however, city budgets and police staffing levels are shrinking. Because of this, it
is prudent for cities to investigate the use of existing and emerging technologies. There has been
some debate on the use of these technologies; however, photo traffic enforcement is seen by law
enforcement as a viable solution as we move into the 21St century.
According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), each year red light violations
cause as many as 200,000 crashes and 1,000 fatalities. Burlingame is not immune to these
problems. Many of our intersection collisions are directly attributable to red light violations. Red light
violations directly affect the quality of life in our community and create a serious danger to the
motoring public and law enforcement officers.
One of the proven and most cost-effective methods to address traffic calming and red light violations
is through the use of automated red light traffic photo enforcement. Red light cameras started out as
a railroad crossing program. They have operated in Europe and Asia for decades. The first program
in California was implemented in 1997 in Oxnard. In 2003, state legislation was enacted which
codified red light camera programs. There are currently over 70 law enforcement agencies in
California utilizing red light cameras. The Department of Transportation has reported that red light
running violations decreased by as much as 30% to 60% at intersections in jurisdictions where
cameras automatically identified violators. In addition, there are studies that indicate that
implementation of red light camera systems has a secondary effect of reducing all types of violations
and collisions in areas where they are installed.
While the Burlingame Police Department diligently strives to make the streets safe, a red light traffic
camera program would provide 24-hour, 7-day per week enforcement at intersections where
violations and crashes occur most frequently. Collisions involving red light running are most likely to
result in injuries and significant property damage. When there is no collision involved,it is often more
dangerous for police officers to apprehend and cite a red light runner because the officer must often
also run the red light to stop the violator. After careful study, it is recommended that Burlingame
move forward and adopt a red light traffic camera enforcement program. The goal of this program is
to reduce the number of red light violations in our city, reduce the number of traffic accidents related
to red light violations, provide added traffic calming, and increase the safety and quality of life in our
community.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES
California Vehicle Code Section 21455 and its subsections authorize automated red light enforcement
under the following conditions:
The agency must identify the system by signs.
There must be a minimum yellow light change interval(Caltrans specifications).
The agency must issue warning notices for the first 30 days.
The agency must make a public announcement 30 days prior to commencement.
The agency must perform administrative day-to-day functions and maintain control.
The agency must develop uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations.
The agency must allow the violators to view the photos and/or videos.
Citations must be issued by a certified employee of the agency.
There must be a public hearing prior to adopting a red light camera program.
TECHNOLOGY AND VENDORS
The Burlingame Police Department staff has evaluated several vendors who provide red light
camera programs. During this evaluation, staff reviewed various technologies available for
photo enforcement programs, spoke with representatives from different vendors, and met with
personnel from local law enforcement agencies that operate such programs.As a result of this
evaluation, it is the recommendation of staff to select Redflex Traffic Systems. The selection
was based on the technical aspects of its program, positive customer references, familiarity
with San Mateo County judicatory processes, and the overall success of its programs.
Additionally, Redflex is presently the only vendor which offers the following capabilities
deemed necessary for an effective red light photo enforcement program:
Full color still camera and full motion video camera combination system. Other companies
utilize only stills or only video. "Video only" has poor image quality and "still only" provides
less conclusive evidence.
Inclusive"live"real-time intersection monitoring solution.
Multiple trigger option solution (i.e. video, loop, radar). Other companies utilize only one
trigger option. The"one-size fits all"approach diminishes performance.
Only provider which is financially viable and financially solvent. Other vendors have had a
financial loss quarter after quarter; with questionable long-term viability.
Most proven digital system capabilities with over 200 "live" systems in the State of California.
Only vertically integrated provider. Other companies outsource critical functions, such as
camera unit development and back-office development, which has proven to negatively impact
program success.
Proven ability to cover all violation movements, including left-turn, straight through and right-
on-red. Other vendors have limited system capabilities to include only left or straight through
violations.
LOCAL IMPACTS
In May of 2006, Police Department staff and Engineering Department staff suggested several
intersections to be examined for feasibility of red light traffic camera systems. This list was
based on many factors including traffic flow, intersections with high violation potential, and
intersections high in total collisions due to red light violations. On May 18, 2006 (a Thursday),
from 6am -10am and 2pm -10pm, Redflex performed their study. The following chart lists the
intersections surveyed and the results:
Intersection Left Turn Straight Thru Right Turn Total
Violations Violations Violations
ECR @ Trousdale Dr. 0 2 0 2
(Northbound)
Rollins Rd. @ Broadway 0 1 4 5
(Southbound)
ECR @ Broadway 0 10 5 15
(Northbound)
ECR @ Chapin Ave. 0 3 0 3
(Southbound)
Based on their study, Redflex concluded that the intersection of El Camino Real and
Broadway (northbound) is the only viable location (at this time) for implementation of a red light
camera system. Coupled with the recent complaints brought forth to our Traffic, Safety, and
Parking Commission regarding various other traffic related violations taking place in the
Broadway area, Police Department staff believe that not only will a red light camera system
reduce red light violations and actual or potential accidents at the intersection of EI Camino
Real and Broadway, but it will also have a traffic calming effect in portions of the Broadway
business and residential areas, as well.
Caltrans was contacted regarding the intersection of EI Camino Real and Broadway. The
Burlingame Police Department requested a study of the traffic signals at the intersection to
ascertain whether or not a longer duration yellow light time or a longer ` all red" duration time
could be used to further increase safety at that intersection. Caltrans conducted a study in
August of 2006. They advised that the yellow light time for northbound EI Camino Real traffic is
3.6 seconds,and the"all red"for the entire intersection is 0.5 seconds. Caltrans felt that both
those times were sufficient for that intersection given the speed limit in that area and the lack
of any special conditions present (e.g. high speed approaches, blind intersections, unusual
geometrics, etc.). This study did not take into account any additional specific studies that
Caltrans may conduct if the red light camera project is approved for that intersection.
Our city does not have a traffic count for ECR @ Broadway as this is a state highway.
However,Caltrans was able to obtain the most recent traffic count they conducted at that
intersection(2003).The count showed approx. 12,000 vehicles passing through that
intersection over a 24-hour period on a week day.The City of San Mateo and Millbrae do not
have traffic counts for the intersections where they implemented their red light cameras,so
staff was not able to compare our numbers to their numbers.
It should be noted that gross vehicle counts at an intersection is not a reliable way to justify the
installation of a red light camera.The number of violations and accident counts at an
intersection is a better indicator. For example,if an intersection had 100,000 vehicles go
through it daily but had no violations or accidents noted,this would not justify placement of a
red light camera at that intersection.However,if an intersection only had 20 vehicles go
through it daily but all 20 of the vehicles either violated a vehicle code section or caused an
accident,these numbers would justify placement of a red light camera system.This is why
cities use accident statistics and the Redflex violation studies to decide feasibility of a red light
camera as opposed to gross traffic counts.
Based on the Redflex study of the ECR @ Broadway intersection(northbound),that
intersection produced 15 violations in 12 hours(please note that the above intersection
actually cycles for 18 hours per day,6 hours more than the test time period).Using 15
violations a day at a 75%citation issue percentage of 12(which would be a low estimate
considering those figures were compiled in only 12 hours),and estimating approx.$140.00
paid to the city per citation,this would translate into approx.$47,040.00 a month in gross
revenue to the city,and approx.$564,400.00 a year in gross revenue to the city.Subtracting
the monthly lease fee of$5,870.00 a month to Redflex from those numbers,this would
translate into approx.$41,170.00 a month in net revenue to the city,and approx.$494,040.00
per year in net revenue to the city.
In comparison,the City of San Mateo currently pays$6,030.00 for each of its four(4)red light
camera systems.The latest figures for these four systems(July-Sept.2006)showed approx.
2,500 red light citations issued.The gross revenue to San Mateo for this 3 month time period
was approx.$250,000.00.A representative from the City of San Mateo advised that they have
never even come close to not covering the$6,030.00 a month lease per system.
FISCAL IMPACT
The equipment for the red light traffic camera enforcement system is on a 5 year lease basis
agreement from the proposed vendor, Redflex Traffic Systems. The monthly lease is
$5,870.00 and this would equate to approximately $352,200.00 over the life of the 5 year
agreement. The city would be obligated to pay the monthly lease costs whether or not there
were any red light violations at the location of the system. However,to maintain the proposed
Red Light Photo Enforcement Traffic Camera System without any cost to the city, less than
two citations at the location would need to be generated per day. Therefore, it appears that
there would be sufficient funds to meet the monthly lease agreement payments.
CONCLUSION
Since this system is intended for traffic calming, accident and injury reduction, staff is
recommending that the City of Burlingame approve the resolution and contract with the vendor
as reflected in the proposed lease agreement. Staff feels that the revenues generated from this
system will adequately support the monthly lease costs. Due to legal concerns, staff will not
support any "cost neutrality" clause, and that is why our recommendation is for a standard
monthly lease (irrespective of any generated revenues), as reflected in this contract.
Prior to this time, there was a public hearing on this matter at a regularly scheduled Traffic,
Safety and Parking Commission. Additionally, the Red Light Photo Enforcement Traffic
Camera System has previously been presented to council and public.
Burlingame continues to experience problems and issues related to traffic flow and volume
throughout our city. The implementation of red light traffic camera enforcement programs and
systems has proven to decrease the number of red light violations in the actual intersections
and nearby vicinities where they have been put into operation. The Police Department staff
feels that such a program in Burlingame will reduce the number of red light violations in our
city, reduce the number of traffic accidents related to red light violations, provide an added
measure of traffic calming in an area of concern in our community, and increase safety and
quality of life in the City of Burlingame.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Contract Lease Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC. TO
PROVIDE PHOTO RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City is ready to go forward with a photo red light enforcement program;
and
WHEREAS, the City has possible vendors and determined that Redflex Traffic Systems,
Inc. (Redflex) provided the program that best matched the size and capabilities of the City; and
WHEREAS, Redflex has offered a fair price for the City's desired installation,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A between the City and Redflex Traffic
Systems, Inc. is approved.
2. The City Manager is directed to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City and the City
Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager.
3. The Chief of Police and the Director of Public Works are authorized to proceed with
installation of photo red light enforcement facilities in the City.
MAYOR
15 DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
EXCLUSIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC. FOR
PHOTO RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
This Agreement (this "Agreement") is made as of this _ day of December, 2006 by and
between Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. with offices at 6047 Bristol Parkway 1" Floor,
Culver City, California 90230 ("Redflex"), and The City of Burlingame a municipal
corporation, with offices at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 (the
"Customer").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Redflex has exclusive knowledge, possession and ownership of certain
equipment, licenses, applications, and citation processes related to digital photo red light
enforcement systems; and
WHEREAS, the Customer desires to engage the services of Redflex to provide certain
equipment, processes and back office services so that sworn peace officers of the
Customer are able to monitor, identify and enforce red light running violations; and
WHEREAS, it is a mutual objective of both Redflex and the Customer to reduce the
incidence of vehicle collisions at the traffic intersections and city streets that will be
monitored pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for
other valuable consideration received, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS. In this Agreement, the words and phrases below shall have the
following meanings:
1.1. "Authorized Officer" means the Police Project Manager or such other
individual(s) as the Customer shall designate to review Potential Violations and
to authorize the Issuance of Citations in respect thereto, and in any event, a
sworn peace officer or a qualified employee of the Police Department.
1.2. "Authorized Violation" means each Potential Violation in the Violation Data for
which authorization to issue a citation in the form of an Electronic Signature is
given by the Authorized Officer by using the Redflex System.
1.3. "Citation" means the notice of a Violation, which is mailed or otherwise
delivered by Redflex to the violator on the appropriate Enforcement
Documentation in respect of each Authorized Violation.
1.4. "Confidential or Private Information" means, with respect to any Person, any
information, matter or thing of a secret, confidential or private nature, whether or
not so labeled, which is connected with such Person's business or methods of
operation or concerning any of such Person's suppliers, licensors, licensees,
customers or others with whom such Person has a business relationship, and
which has current or potential value to such Person or the unauthorized
1
disclosure of which could be detrimental to such Person, including but not
limited to:
1.4.1. Matters of a business nature, including but not limited to information
relating to development plans, costs, finances, marketing plans, data,
procedures, business opportunities, marketing methods, plans and strategies,
the costs of construction, installation, materials or components, the prices
such Person obtains or has obtained from its clients or customers, or at
which such Person sells or has sold its services; and
1.4.2. Matters of a technical nature, including but not limited to product
information, trade secrets, know-how, formulae, innovations, inventions,
devices, discoveries, techniques, formats, processes, methods, specifications,
designs, patterns, schematics, data, access or security codes, compilations of
information, test results and research and development projects. For
purposes of this Agreement, the term "trade secrets" shall mean the broadest
and most inclusive interpretation of trade secrets.
1.4.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Confidential Information will not include
information that: (i)was generally available to the public or otherwise part
of the public domain at the time of its disclosure, (ii)became generally
available to the public or otherwise part of the public domain after its
disclosure and other than through any act or omission by any party hereto in
breach of this Agreement, (iii)was subsequently lawfully disclosed to the
disclosing party by a person other than a party hereto, (iv) was required by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be described, or (v) was required by
applicable state law to be described.
1.5. "Designated Intersection Approaches" means the Intersection Approaches set
forth on Exhibit A attached hereto, and such additional Intersection Approaches
as Redflex and the Customer shall mutually agree from time to time.
1.6. "Electronic Signature" means the method through which the Authorized Officer
indicates his or her approval of the issuance of a Citation in respect of a Potential
Violation using the Redflex System.
1.7. "Enforcement Documentation" means the necessary and appropriate
documentation related to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program, including
but not limited to warning letters, citation notices (using the specifications of the
Judicial Council and the City, a numbering sequence for use on all citation
notices (in accordance with applicable court rules), instructions to accompany
each issued Citation (including in such instructions a description of basic court
procedures, payment options and information regarding the viewing of images
and data collected by the Redflex System), chain of custody records, criteria
regarding operational policies for processing Citations (including with respect to
coordinating with the Department of Motor Vehicles), and technical support
documentation for applicable court and judicial officers .
1.8. "Equipment" means any and all cameras, sensors, equipment, components,
products, software and other tangible and intangible property relating to the
Redflex Photo Red Light System(s), including but not limited to all camera
systems, housings, radar units, severs and poles.
2
S
1.9. "`Fine" means a monetary sum assessed for Citation, including but not limited to
bail forfeitures, but excluding suspended fines.
1.10. "Governmental Authority" means any domestic or foreign government,
governmental authority, court, tribunal, agency or other regulatory,
administrative or judicial agency, commission or organization, and any
subdivision, branch or department of any of the foregoing.
1.11. "Installation Date of the Photo Red Light Program" means the date on
which Redflex completes the construction and installation of at least one (1)
Intersection Approach in accordance with the terms of this Agreement so that
such Intersection Approach is operational for the purposes of functioning with
the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program.
1.12. "Intellectual Property" means, with respect to any Person, any and all
now known or hereafter known tangible and intangible (a) rights associated with
works of authorship throughout the world, including but not limited to
copyrights, moral rights and mask-works, (b) trademark and trade name rights
and similar rights, (c) trade secrets rights, (d) patents, designs, algorithms and
other industrial property rights, (e) all other intellectual and industrial property
rights (of every kind and nature throughout the universe and however
designated), whether arising by operation of law, contract, license, or otherwise,
and (f) all registrations, initial applications, renewals, extensions, continuations,
divisions or reissues hereof now or hereafter in force (including any rights in any
of the foregoing), of such Person.
1.13. "Intersection Approach" means a conduit of travel with up to four (4)
contiguous lanes from the curb (e.g., northbound, southbound, eastbound or
westbound) on which at least one (1) system has been installed by Redflex for
the purposes of facilitating Redlight Photo Enforcement by the Customer.
1.14. "Operational Period" means the period of time during the Term,
commencing on the Installation Date, during which the Photo Red Light
Enforcement Program is functional in order to permit the identification and
prosecution of Violations at the Designated Intersection Approaches by a sworn
peace officer of the Customer and the issuance of Citations for such approved
Violations using the Redflex System.
1.15. "Person" means a natural individual, company, Governmental Authority,
partnership, firm, corporation, legal entity or other business association.
1.16. "Police Project Manager" means the project manager appointed by the
Customer in accordance with this Agreement, which shall be a sworn peace
officer and shall be responsible for overseeing the installation of the Intersection
Approaches and the implementation of the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program,
and which manager shall have the power and authority to make management
decisions relating to the Customer's obligations pursuant to this Agreement,
including but not limited to change order authorizations, subject to any
limitations set forth in the Customer's charter or other organizational documents
of the Customer or by the city counsel or other governing body of the Customer.
1.17. "Potential Violation" means, with respect to any motor vehicle passing
through a Designated Intersection Approach, the data collected by the Redflex
System with respect to such motor vehicle, which data shall be processed by the
3
Redflex System for the purposes of allowing the Authorized Officer to review
such data and determine whether a Red Light Violation has occurred.
1.18. "Proprietary Property" means, with respect to any Person, any written or
tangible property owned or used by such Person in connection with such
Person's business, whether or not such property is copyrightable or also qualifies
as Confidential Information, including without limitation products, samples,
equipment, files, lists, books, notebooks, records, documents, memoranda,
reports, patterns, schematics, compilations, designs, drawings, data, test results,
contracts, agreements, literature, correspondence, spread sheets, computer
programs and software, computer print outs, other written and graphic records
and the like, whether originals, copies, duplicates or summaries thereof, affecting
or relating to the business of such Person, financial statements, budgets,
projections and invoices.
1.19. "Redflex Marks" means all trademarks registered in the name of Redflex
or any of its affiliates, such other trademarks as are used by Redflex or any of its
affiliates on or in relation to Photo Red Light Enforcement at any time during the
Term this Agreement, service marks, trade names, logos, brands and other marks
owned by Redflex, and all modifications or adaptations of any of the foregoing.
1.20. "Redflex Project Manager" means the project manager appointed by
Redflex in accordance with this Agreement, which project manager shall initially
be Joe Bernard or such person as Redflex shall designate by providing written
notice thereof to the Customer from time to time, who shall be responsible for
overseeing the construction and installation of the Designated Intersection
Approaches and the implementation the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program,
and who shall have the power and authority to make management decisions
relating to Redflex's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, including but not
limited to change-order authorizations.
1.21. "Redflex Photo Red Light System" means, collectively, the SmartCamTM
System, the SmartOpsTM System, the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, and
all of the other equipment, applications, back office processes and digital red
light traffic enforcement cameras, sensors, components, products, software and
other tangible and intangible property relating thereto.
1.22. "Photo Red Light Enforcement Program" means the process by which the
monitoring, identification and enforcement of Violations is facilitated by the use
of certain equipment, applications and back office processes of Redflex,
including but not limited to cameras, flashes, central processing units, signal
controller interfaces and detectors (whether loop, radar or video loop) which,
collectively, are capable of measuring Violations and recording such Violation
data in the form of photographic images of motor vehicles.
1.23. "Photo Redlight Violation Criteria" means the standards and criteria by
which Potential Violations will be evaluated by sworn peace officers of the
Customer, which standards and criteria shall include, but are not limited to, the
duration of time that a traffic light must remain red prior to a Violation being
deemed to have occurred, and the location(s) in an intersection which a motor
vehicle must pass during a red light signal prior to being deemed to have
4
committed a Violation, all of which shall be in compliance with all applicable
laws, rules and regulations of Governmental Authorities.
1.24. "SmartCamTM S stem" means the proprietary digital redlight photo
enforcement system of Redflex relating to the Photo Red Light Enforcement
Program.
1.25. "SmartOpsTM System" means the proprietary back-office processes of
Redflex relating to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program.
1.26. "SmartSceneTM System" means the proprietary digital video camera unit,
hardware and software required for providing supplemental violation data.
1.27. "Traffic Signal Controller Boxes" means the signal controller interface
and detector, including but not limited to the radar or video loop, as the case may
be.
1.28. "Violation" means any traffic violation contrary to the terms of the
Vehicle Code or any applicable rule, regulation or law of any other
Governmental Authority, including but not limited to operating a motor vehicle
contrary to traffic signals, and operating a motor vehicle without displaying a
valid license plate or registration.
1.29. "Violations Data" means the images and other Violations data gathered by
the Redflex System at the Designated Intersection Approaches.
1.30. "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the
Installation Date of the first intersection approach.
2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date hereof and shall
continue for a period of five (5) years after the Installation Date (the "Initial Term").
The Customer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to extend the term of this
Agreement for up to two (2) additional consecutive and automatic two (2) year
periods following the expiration of the Initial Term (each, a "Renewal Term" and
collectively with the Initial Term, the "Term"). The Customer may exercise the right
to extend the term of this Agreement for a Renewal Term by providing written notice
to Redflex not less than thirty (30) days prior to the last day of the Initial Term or the
Renewal Term, as the case may be.
3. SERVICES. Redflex shall provide the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program to the
Customer, in each case in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in this
Agreement.
3.1. INSTALLATION. With respect to the construction and installation of (1) the
Designated Intersection Approaches and the installation of the Redflex System at
such Designated Intersection Approaches, the Customer and Redflex shall have
the respective rights and obligations set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto.
3.2. MAINTENANCE. With respect to the maintenance of the Redflex System at the
Designated Intersection Approaches the Customer and Redflex shall have the
respective rights and obligations set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto.
3.3. VIOLATION PROCESSING. During the Operational Period, Violations shall
be processed as follows:
3.3.1. All Violations Data shall be stored on the Redflex System;
5
3.3.2. The Redflex System shall process Violations Data gathered from the
Designated Intersection Approaches into a format capable of review by the
Authorized Officer via the Redflex System;
3.3.3. The Redflex System shall be accessible by the Authorized Officer through
a virtual private network in encrypted format by use of a confidential
password on any computer equipped with a high-speed internet connection
and a web browser;
3.3.4. Redflex shall provide the Authorized Officer with access to the Redflex
System for the purposes of reviewing the pre-processed Violations Data
within seven (7) days of the gathering of the Violation Data from the
applicable Designated Intersection Approaches
3.3.5. The Customer shall cause the Authorized Officer to review the Violations
Data and to determine whether a citation shall be issued with respect to each
Potential Violation captured within such Violation Data, and transmit each
such determination in the form of an Electronic Signature to Redflex using
the software or other applications or procedures provided by Redflex on the
Redflex System for such purpose, and REDFLEX HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE DECISION TO ISSUE A
CITATION SHALL BE THE SOLE, UNILATERAL AND EXCLUSIVE
DECISION OF THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND SHALL BE MADE
IN SUCH AUTHORIZED OFFICER'S SOLE DISCRETION (A
"CITATION DECISION"), AND IN NO EVENT SHALL REDFLEX
HAVE THE ABILITY OR AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE A CITATION
DECISION;
3.3.6. With respect to each Authorized Violation, Redflex shall print and mail a
Citation within six (6) days after Redflex's receipt of such authorization;
provided, however, during the Warning Period, warning violation notices
shall be issued in respect of all Authorized Violations;
3.3.7. Redflex shall provide a toll-free telephone number for the purposes of
answering citizen inquiries
3.3.8. Redflex shall permit the Authorized Officer to generate monthly reports
using the Redflex Standard Report System.
3.3.9. Upon Redflex's receipt of a written request from the Customer and in
addition to the Standard Reports, Redflex shall provide, without cost to the
Customer, reports regarding the processing and issuance of Citations, the
maintenance and downtime records of the Designated Intersection
Approaches and the functionality of the Redflex System with respect thereto
to the Customer in such format and for such periods as the Customer may
reasonably request; provided, however, Redflex shall not be obligated to
provide in excess of six (6) such reports in any given twelve (12) month
period without cost to the Customer;
3.3.10. Upon the Customer's receipt of a written request from Redflex, the
Customer shall provide, without cost to Redflex, reports regarding the
prosecution of Citations and the collection of fines, fees and other monies in
respect thereof in such format and for such periods as Redflex may
reasonably request; provided, however, the Customer shall not be obligated
6
to provide in excess of six (6) such reports in any given twelve (12) month
period without cost to Redflex;
3.3.11. During the six (6) month period following the Installation Date and/or
upon Redflex's receipt of a written request from the Customer at least
fourteen (14) calendar days in advance of court proceeding, Redflex shall
provide expert witnesses for use by the Customer in prosecuting Violations;
provided, however, the Customer shall use reasonable best efforts to seek
judicial notice in lieu of requiring Redflex to provide such expert witnesses;
and
3.3.12. During the three (3) month period following the Installation Date, Redflex
shall provide such training to law enforcement personnel as shall be
reasonably necessary in order to allow such personnel to act as expert
witnesses on behalf of the Customer with respect to the Redlight
Enforcement Program.
3.4. PROSECUTION AND COLLECTION; COMPENSATION. The Customer shall
diligently prosecute Citations and the collection of all Fines in respect thereof,
and Redflex shall have the right to receive, and the Customer shall be obligated
to pay, the compensation set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto.
3.5. OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. During the Term, in addition to all of
the other rights and obligations set forth in this Agreement, Redflex and the
Customer shall have the respective rights and obligations set forth on Exhibit E
attached hereto.
3.6. CHANGE ORDERS. The Customer may from time to time request changes to
the work required to be performed or the addition of products or services to those
required pursuant to the terms of this Agreement by providing written notice
thereof to Redflex, setting forth in reasonable detail the proposed changes (a
"Change Order Notice"). Upon Redflex's receipt of a Change Order Notice,
Redflex shall deliver a written statement describing the effect, if any, the
proposed changes would have on the pricing terms set forth in Exhibit D (the
"Change Order Proposal"), which Change Order Proposal shall include (i) a
detailed breakdown of the charge and schedule effects, (ii) a description of any
resulting changes to the specifications and obligations of the parties, (iii) a
schedule for the delivery and other performance obligations, and (iv) any other
information relating to the proposed changes reasonably requested by the
Customer. Following the Customer's receipt of the Change Order Proposal, the
parties shall negotiate in good faith and agree to a plan and schedule for
implementation of the proposed changes, the time, manner and amount of
payment or price increases or decreases, as the case may be, and any other
matters relating to the proposed changes; provided, however, in the event that
any proposed change involves only the addition of equipment or services to the
existing Designated Intersection Approaches, or the addition of Intersection
Approaches to be covered by the terms of this Agreement, to the maximum
extent applicable, the pricing terms set forth in Exhibit D shall govern. Any
failure of the parties to reach agreement with respect to any of the foregoing as a
result of any proposed changes shall not be deemed to be a breach of this
7
Agreement, and any disagreement shall be resolved in accordance with Section
10.
4. License; Reservation of Riehts.
4.1. License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Redflex hereby
grants the Customer, and the Customer hereby accepts from Redflex upon the
terms and conditions herein specified, a non-exclusive, non-transferable license
during the Term of this Agreement to: (a) solely within the City of Burlingame,
access and use the Redflex System for the sole purpose of reviewing Potential
Violations and authorizing the issuance of Citations pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement, and to print copies of any content posted on the Redflex System in
connection therewith, (b) disclose to the public (including outside of the City of
Burlingame that Redflex is providing services to the Customer in connection
with Photo Red Light Enforcement Program pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement, and (c) use and display the Redflex Marks on or in marketing, public
awareness or education, or other publications or materials relating to the Photo
Red Light Enforcement Program, so long as any and all such publications or
materials are approved in advance by Redflex.
4.2. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. The Customer hereby acknowledges and agrees
that: (a) Redflex is the sole and exclusive owner of the Redflex System, the
Redflex Marks, all Intellectual Property arising from or relating to the Redflex
System, and any and all related Equipment, (b) the Customer neither has nor
makes any claim to any right, title or interest in any of the foregoing, except as
specifically granted or authorized under this Agreement, and (c) by reason of the
exercise of any such rights or interests of Customer pursuant to this Agreement,
the Customer shall gain no additional right, title or interest therein.
4.3. RESTRICTED USE. The Customer hereby covenants and agrees that it shall not
(a) make any modifications to the Redflex System, including but not limited to
any Equipment, (b) alter, remove or tamper with any Redflex Marks, (c) use any
of the Redflex Marks in any way which might prejudice their distinctiveness,
validity or the goodwill of Redflex therein, (d) use any trademarks or other marks
other than the Redflex Marks in connection with the Customer's use of the
Redflex System pursuant to the terms of this Agreement without first obtaining
the prior consent of Redflex, or(e) disassemble, de-compile or otherwise perform
any type of reverse engineering to the Redflex System, the Redflex System,
including but not limited to any Equipment, or to any, Intellectual Property or
Proprietary Property of Redflex, or cause any other Person to do any of the
foregoing.
4.4. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS. Redflex shall have the right to take whatever
action it deems necessary or desirable to remedy or prevent the infringement of
any Intellectual Property of Redflex, including without limitation the filing of
applications to register as trademarks in any jurisdiction any of the Redflex
Marks, the filing of patent application for any of the Intellectual Property of
Redflex, and making any other applications or filings with appropriate
Governmental Authorities. The Customer shall not take any action to remedy or
prevent such infringing activities, and shall not in its own name make any
8
registrations or filings with respect to any of the Redflex Marks or the
Intellectual Property of Redflex without the prior written consent of Redflex.
4.5. INFRINGEMENT. The Customer shall use its reasonable best efforts to give
Redflex prompt notice of any activities or threatened activities of any Person of
which it becomes aware that infringes or violates the Redflex Marks or any of
Redflex's Intellectual Property or that constitute a misappropriation of trade
secrets or act of unfair competition that might dilute, damage or destroy any of
the Redflex Marks or any other Intellectual Property of Redflex. Redflex shall
have the exclusive right, but not the obligation, to take action to enforce such
rights and to make settlements with respect thereto. In the event that Redflex
commences any enforcement action under this Section 4.5, then the Customer
shall render to Redflex such reasonable cooperation and assistance as is
reasonably requested by Redflex, and Redflex shall be entitled to any damages or
other monetary amount that might be awarded after deduction of actual costs;
provided, that Redflex shall reimburse the Customer for any reasonable costs
incurred in providing such cooperation and assistance.
4.6. INFRINGING USE. The Customer shall give Redflex prompt written notice of
any action or claim action or claim, whether threatened or pending, against the
Customer alleging that the Redflex Marks, or any other Intellectual Property of
Redflex, infringes or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or
other Intellectual Property of any other Person, and the Customer shall render to
Redflex such reasonable cooperation and assistance as is reasonably requested by
Redflex in the defense thereof; provided, that Redflex shall reimburse the
Customer for any reasonable costs incurred in providing such cooperation and
assistance. If such a claim is made and Redflex determines, in the exercise of its
sole discretion, that an infringement may exist, Redflex shall have the right, but
not the obligation, to procure for the Customer the right to keep using the
allegedly infringing items, modify them to avoid the alleged infringement or
replace them with non-infringing items.
5. Representations and Warranties.
5.1. Redflex Representations and Warranties.
5.1.1. Authority. Redflex hereby warrants and represents that it has all right,
power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and perform its
obligations hereunder.
5.1.2. Professional Services. Redflex hereby warrants and represents that any
and all services provided by Redflex pursuant to this Agreement shall be
performed in a professional and workmanlike manner and, with respect to
the installation of the Redflex System, subject to applicable law, in
compliance with all specifications provided to Redflex by the Customer.
5.2. Customer Representations and Warranties.
5.2.1. Authority. The Customer hereby warrants and represents that it has all
right, power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and
perform its obligations hereunder.
5.2.2. Professional Services. The Customer hereby warrants and represents that
any and all services provided by the Customer pursuant to this Agreement
shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner.
9
5.3. LIMITED WARRANTIES. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS
AGREEMENT, REDFLEX MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE,WITH RESPECT TO THE REDFLEX SYSTEM OR
ANY RELATED EQUIPMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO THE RESULTS OF
THE CUSTOMER'S USE OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING
NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY SET FORTH
HEREIN, REDFLEX DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ANY OF THE
DESIGNATED INTERSECTION APPROACHES OR THE REDFLEX
SYSTEM WILL OPERATE IN THE WAY THE CUSTOMER SELECTS FOR
USE, OR THAT THE OPERATION OR USE THEREOF WILL BE
UNINTERRUPTED. THE CUSTOMER HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
THE REDFLEX SYSTEM MAY MALFUNCTION FROM TIME TO TIME,
AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, REDFLEX SHALL
DILIGENTLY ENDEAVOR TO CORRECT ANY SUCH MALFUNCTION IN
A TIMELY MANNER.
6. Termination.
6.1. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: Either party shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement immediately by written notice to the other if(i) state statutes are
amended to prohibit or substantially change the operation of photo red light
enforcement systems; (ii) any court having jurisdiction over City rules, or state or
federal statute declares, that results from the Redflex System of photo red light
enforcement are inadmissible in evidence; or (iii) the other party commits any
material breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement. In the event of a
termination due to Section 6.1(i) or 6.1(ii) above, Customer shall be relieved of
any further obligations for payment to Redflex other than as specified in Exhibit
"D". Either party shall have the right to remedy the cause for termination (Sec
6.1) within forty-five (45) calendar days (or within such other time period as the
Customer and Redflex shall mutually agree, which agreement shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed) after written notice from the non-causing
party setting forth in reasonable detail the events of the cause for termination.
6.2. The rights to terminate this Agreement given in this Section 6.1 shall be without
prejudice to any other right or remedy of either party in respect of the breach
concerned(if any) or any other breach of this Agreement.
6.3. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: The Customer may terminate this
Agreement without cause ("Termination for Convenience") at any time during
the one year period following the Installation Date by giving thirty (30) days'
written notice thereof to Redflex. In the event the Customer exercises its right to
Termination for Convenience, the Customer shall reimburse Redflex an amount
equal to the Unamortized Value, as hereinafter defined, of the direct labor costs
and direct material costs (not including Equipment costs and salvageable material
costs) solely associated with the installation of the Redflex Photo Red Light
System at all Intersection Approaches where such system(s) have been installed
10
prior to the effective date of Termination for Convenience (the "Reimbursable
Costs"). Redflex shall provide an itemization of the Reimbursable Costs, with
supporting invoices and labor expense documentation, to the Customer within
thirty (30) days of the completion of installation of the Redflex Photo Red Light
System at each designated Intersection Approach. Said Reimbursable Costs are
currently estimated to equal approximately $50,000 to $80,000 per Intersection
Approach but, in no event, shall said amount exceed $80,000 per Intersection
Approach. For the purpose of this section, the Unamortized Value for each
Intersection Approach shall be derived as follows: first, by multiplying the
Reimbursable Costs by the number of complete months remaining between the
effective Termination for Convenience date and the date that is five years after
the execution of the Agreement, and, then, by dividing said product by the
number of complete months between the date of the completion of installation of
the Redflex Photo Red Light System at said Intersection Approach and the date
that is five years after the execution of the Agreement.
6.4. PROCEDURES UPON TERMINATION. The termination of this Agreement
shall not relieve either party of any liability that accrued prior to such
termination. Except as set forth in Section 6.3, upon the termination of this
Agreement, all of the provisions of this Agreement shall terminate and:
6.4.1. Redflex shall (i) immediately cease to provide services, including but not
limited to work in connection with the construction or installation activities
and services in connection with the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program,
(ii) promptly deliver to the Customer any and all Proprietary Property of the
Customer provided to Redflex pursuant to this Agreement, (iii) promptly
deliver to the Customer a final report to the Customer regarding the
collection of data and the issuance of Citations in such format and for such
periods as the Customer may reasonably request, and which final report
Redflex shall update or supplement from time to time when and if additional
data or information becomes available, (iv) promptly deliver to Customer a
final invoice stating all fees and charges properly owed by Customer to
Redflex for work performed and Citations issued by Redflex prior to the
termination, and (v)provide such assistance as the Customer may reasonably
request from time to time in connection with prosecuting and enforcing
Citations issued prior to the termination of this Agreement.
6.4.2. The Customer shall (i) immediately cease using the Photo Red Light
Enforcement Program, accessing the Redflex System and using any other
Intellectual Property of Redflex, (ii) promptly deliver to Redflex any and all
Proprietary Property of Redflex provided to the Customer pursuant to this
Agreement, and (iii) promptly pay any and all fees, charges and amounts
properly owed by Customer to Redflex for work performed and Citations
issued by Redflex prior to the termination.
6.4.3. Unless the Customer and Redflex have agreed to enter into a new
agreement relating to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program or have
agreed to extend the Term of this Agreement, Redflex shall remove any and
all Equipment or other materials of Redflex installed in connection with
11
Redflex's performance of its obligations under this Agreement, including but
not limited to housings, poles and camera systems, and Redflex shall restore
the Designated Intersection Approaches to substantially the same condition
such Designated Intersection Approaches were in immediately prior to this
Agreement.
6.5. SURVIVAL. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the definitions and each of the
following shall survive the termination of this Agreement: (x) Sections 4.2
(Reservation of Rights), 5.1 (Redflex Representations and Warranties), 5.2
(Customer Representations and Warranties), 5.3 (Limited Warranty), 7
(Confidentiality), 8 (Indemnification and Liability), 9 (Notices), 10 (Dispute
Resolution), 11.1 (Assignment), 11.17 (Applicable Law), 11.16 (Injunctive
Relief; Specific Performance) and 11.18 (Jurisdiction and Venue), and (y) those
provisions, and the rights and obligations therein, set forth in this Agreement
which either by their terms state, or evidence the intent of the parties, that the
provisions survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement, or must
survive to give effect to the provisions of this Agreement.
7. Equipment Relocation. The Customer may request that equipment be relocated at
any time following the first year anniversary of the "go live" date for the system in
question. If the decision to relocate the system is not mutually agreed to by Redflex,
the Customer will be solely responsible for all associated relocation costs (i.e.
construction, post-mortem conditions, equipment remedies, etc.). Payment for
relocation of each system will be paid in one of two ways: 1) Costs to be paid in full
at the time of relocation; 2) Costs to be amortized over the remaining length of the
contract term and applied to the monthly fee for the system being relocated.
8. Confidentiality During the term of this Agreement and for a period of three (3)
years thereafter, neither party shall disclose to any third person, or use for itself in any
way for pecuniary gain, any Confidential Information learned from the other party
during the course of the negotiations for this Agreement or during the Term of this
Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall return to the other
all tangible Confidential Information of such party. Each party shall retain in
confidence and not disclose to any third party any Confidential Information without
the other party's express written consent, except (a) to its employees who are
reasonably required to have the Confidential Information, (b) to its agents,
representatives, attorneys and other professional advisors that have a need to know
such Confidential Information, provided that such parties undertake in writing (or are
otherwise bound by rules of professional conduct) to keep such information strictly
confidential, and (c) pursuant to, and to the extent of, a request or order by any
Governmental Authority, including laws relating to public records.
9. Indemnification and Liability.
9.1. Indemnification by Redflex. Subject to Section 8.3, Redflex hereby agrees to
defend and indemnify the Customer and its affiliates, shareholders or other
interest holders, managers, officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives
and successors, permitted assignees and each of their affiliates, and all persons
acting by, through, under or in concert with them, or any of them (individually a
12
"Customer Party" and collectively, the "Customer Parties") against, and to
protect, save and keep harmless the Customer Parties from, and to pay on behalf
of or reimburse the Customer Parties as and when incurred for, any and all
liabilities, obligations, losses, damages,penalties, demands, claims, actions, suits,
judgments, settlements, costs, expenses and disbursements (including reasonable
attorneys', accountants' and expert witnesses' fees) of whatever kind and nature
(collectively, "Losses"), which may be imposed on or incurred by any Customer
Party arising out of or related to (a) any material misrepresentation, inaccuracy or
breach of any covenant, warranty or representation of Redflex contained in this
Agreement, or (b) the willful misconduct of Redflex, its employees or agents
which result in death or bodily injury to any natural person (including third
parties) or any damage to any real or tangible personal property (including the
personal property of third parties), except to the extent caused by the willful
misconduct of any Customer Party.
9.2. Indemnification by Customer. Subject to Section 8.3, the Customer hereby agrees
to defend and indemnify Redflex and its affiliates, shareholders or other interest
holders, managers, officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives and
successors, permitted assignees and all persons acting by, through, under or in
concert with them, or any of them (individually a "Redflex Party" and
collectively, the "Redflex Parties") against, and to protect, save and keep
harmless the Redflex Parties from, and to pay on behalf of or reimburse the
Redflex Parties as and when incurred for, any and all Losses which may be
imposed on or incurred by any Redflex Party arising out of or in any way related
to (a) any material misrepresentation, inaccuracy or breach of any covenant,
warranty or representation of the Customer contained in this Agreement, (b) the
willful misconduct of the Customer, its employees, contractors or agents which
result in death or bodily injury to any natural person (including third parties) or
any damage to any real or tangible personal property (including the personal
property of third parties), except to the extent caused by the willful misconduct
of any Redflex Party, (c) any claim, action or demand not caused by Redflex's
failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement, or (d) any claim, action
or demand challenging the Customer's use of the Redflex System or any portion
thereof, the validity of the results of the Customer's use of the Redflex System or
any portion thereof, or the validity of the Citations issued, prosecuted and
collected as a result of the Customer's use of the Redflex System or any portion
thereof.
9.3. Indemnification Procedures. In the event any claim, action or demand (a
"Claim") in respect of which any party hereto seeks indemnification from the
other, the party seeking indemnification (the "Indemnified Party") shall give the
party from whom indemnification is sought (the "Indemnifying Party") written
notice of such Claim promptly after the Indemnified Party first becomes aware
thereof, provided, however, that failure so to give such notice shall not preclude
indemnification with respect to such Claim except to the extent of any additional
or increased Losses or other actual prejudice directly caused by such failure. The
Indemnifying Party shall have the right to choose counsel to defend such Claim
(subject to the approval of such counsel by the Indemnified Party, which
13
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed), and to
control, compromise and settle such Claim, and the Indemnified Party shall have
the right to participate in the defense at its sole expense; provided, however, the
Indemnified Party shall have the right to take over the control of the defense or
settlement of such Claim at any time if the Indemnified Party irrevocably waives
all rights to indemnification from and by the Indemnifying Party. The
Indemnifying Party and the Indemnified Party shall cooperate in the defense or
settlement of any Claim, and no party shall have the right enter into any
settlement agreement that materially affects the other party's material rights or
material interests without such party's prior written consent, which consent will
not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
9.4. LIMITED LIABILITY. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, neither party shall be liable to the other, by reason of any
representation or express or implied warranty, condition or other term or any duty
at common or civil law, for any indirect, incidental, special, lost profits or
consequential damages, however caused and on any theory of liability arising out
of or relating to this Agreement.
10. NOTICES. Any notices to be given hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be
deemed to have been given (a) upon delivery, if delivered by hand, (b) three (3) days
after being mailed first class, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage and
registry fees prepaid, or (c) one Business Day after being delivered to a reputable
overnight courier service, excluding the U.S. Postal Service, prepaid, marked for next
day delivery, if the courier service obtains a signature acknowledging receipt, in each
case addressed or sent to such party as follows:
10.1. Notices to Redflex:
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.
15020 North 74th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Attention: Ms. Karen Finley
Facsimile: (480) 607-5552
10.2. Notices to the Customer:
City of Burlingame
Attention:
Facsimile:
14
11. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Upon the occurrence of any dispute or disagreement
between the parties hereto arising out of or in connection with any term or provision
of this Agreement, the subject matter hereof, or the interpretation or enforcement
hereof (the "Dispute"), the parties shall engage in informal, good faith discussions
and attempt to resolve the Dispute. In connection therewith, upon written notice of
either party, each of the parties will appoint a designated officer whose task it shall be
to meet for the purpose of attempting to resolve such Dispute. The designated
officers shall meet as often as the parties shall deem to be reasonably necessary. Such
officers will discuss the Dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve the Dispute in
accordance with this Section 10, and in the event that either of the parties concludes
in good faith that amicable resolution through continued negotiation with respect to
the Dispute is not reasonably likely, then the parties may mutually agree to submit to
binding or nonbinding arbitration or mediation.
12. Miscellaneous.
12.1. Assignment. Neither party may assign all or any portion of this
Agreement without the prior written consent of the other, which consent shall not
be unreasonably withheld or delayed; provided, however, The Customer hereby
acknowledges and agrees that the execution (as outlined in Exhibit F), delivery
and performance of Redflex's rights pursuant to this Agreement shall require a
significant investment by Redflex, and that in order to finance such investment,
Redflex may be required to enter into certain agreements or arrangements
("Financing Transactions") with equipment lessors, banks, financial institutions
or other similar persons or entities (each, a "Financial Institution" and
collectively, "Financial Institutions"). The Customer hereby agrees that Redflex
shall have the right to assign, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise transfer
("Transfer") its rights, or any of them, under this Agreement to any Financial
Institution in connection with any Financing Transaction between Redflex and
any such Financial Institution, subject to the Customer's prior written approval,
which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The Customer
further acknowledges and agrees that in the event that Redflex provides written
notice to the Customer that it intends to Transfer all or any of Redflex's rights
pursuant to this Agreement, and in the event that the Customer fails to provide
such approval or fails to object to such Transfer within forty-five (45) business
days after its receipt of such notice from Redflex, for the purposes of this
Agreement, the Customer shall be deemed to have consented to and approved
such Transfer by Redflex. Notwithstanding the above, this Agreement shall inure
to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties hereto, and their respective
successors or assigns.
12.2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REDFLEX AND THE CUSTOMER.
Nothing in this Agreement shall create, or be deemed to create, a partnership,
joint venture or the relationship of principal and agent or employer and employee
between the parties. The relationship between the parties shall be that of
independent contractors, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall create the
relationship of principal and agent or otherwise permit either party to incur any
15
debts or liabilities or obligations on behalf of the other party(except as specifically
provided herein).
12.3. AUDIT RIGHTS. Each of parties hereto shall have the right to audit to
audit the books and records of the other party hereto (the "Audited Party") solely
for the purpose of verifying the payments, if any, payable pursuant to this
Agreement. Any such audit shall be conducted upon not less than forty-eight
(48) hours' prior notice to the Audited Party, at mutually convenient times and
during the Audited Party's normal business hours. Except as otherwise provided
in this Agreement, the cost of any such audit shall be borne by the non-Audited
Party. In the event any such audit establishes any underpayment of any payment
payable by the Audited Party to the non-Audited Party pursuant to this
Agreement, the Audited Party shall promptly pay the amount of the shortfall, and
in the event that any such audit establishes that the Audited Party has underpaid
any payment by more than twenty five percent (25%) of the amount of actually
owing, the cost of such audit shall be borne by the Audited Party. In the event
any such audit establishes any overpayment by the Audited Party of any payment
made pursuant to this Agreement, non-Audited Party shall promptly refund to the
Audited Party the amount of the excess.
12.4. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party will be liable to the other or be
deemed to be in breach of this Agreement for any failure or delay in rendering
performance arising out of causes beyond its reasonable control and without its
fault or negligence. Such causes may include but are not limited to, acts of God
or the public enemy, terrorism, significant fires, floods, earthquakes, epidemics,
quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, or Governmental Authorities
approval delays which are not caused by any act or omission by Redflex, and
unusually severe weather. The party whose performance is affected agrees to
notify the other promptly of the existence and nature of any delay.
12.5. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire
Agreement between the parties, and there are no other agreements (other than
invoices and purchase orders), whether written or oral, which affect its terms.
This Agreement may be amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed
by both parties.
12.6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held by any court
or other competent authority to be void or unenforceable in whole or part, this
Agreement shall continue to be valid as to the other provisions thereof and the
remainder of the affected provision.
12.7. WAIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this
Agreement shall not be considered as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the
same or any other provision thereof.
12.8. CONSTRUCTION Except as expressly otherwise provided in this
Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as having been fully and
completely negotiated and neither the Agreement nor any provision thereof shall
be construed more strictly against either party.
12.9. HEADINGS. The headings of the sections contained in this Agreement
are included herein for reference purposes only, solely for the convenience of the
parties hereto, and shall not in any way be deemed to affect the meaning,
16
interpretation or applicability of this Agreement or any term, condition or
provision hereof.
12.10. EXECUTION AND COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and
delivered shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall
constitute only one instrument. Any one of such counterparts shall be sufficient
for the purpose of proving the existence and terms of this Agreement, and no
party shall be required to produce an original or all of such counterparts in
making such proof.
12.11. COVENANT OF FURTHER ASSURANCES. All parties to this
Agreement shall, upon request, perform any and all acts and execute and deliver
any and all certificates, instruments and other documents that may be necessary
or appropriate to carry out any of the terms, conditions and provisions hereof or
to carry out the intent of this Agreement.
12.12. REMEDIES CUMULATIVE. Each and all of the several rights and
remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be construed as being cumulative
and no one of them shall be deemed to be exclusive of the others or of any right
or remedy allowed by law or equity, and pursuit of any one remedy shall not be
deemed to be an election of such remedy, or a waiver of any other remedy.
12.13. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon all of the parties hereto and their respective executors,
administrators, successors and permitted assigns.
12.14. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. Nothing contained in this Agreement
shall be construed to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and
whenever there is a conflict between any term, condition or provision of this
Agreement and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation
contrary to which the parties have no legal right to contract, the latter shall
prevail, but in such event the term, condition or provision of this Agreement
affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary to bring it
within the requirement of the law, provided that such construction is consistent
with the intent of the Parties as expressed in this Agreement.
12.15. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFIT. Nothing contained in this Agreement
shall be deemed to confer any right or benefit on any Person who is not a party to
this Agreement.
12.16. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. The parties
hereby agree and acknowledge that a breach of Sections 4.1 (License), 4.3
(Restricted Use) or 7 (Confidentiality) of this Agreement would result in severe
and irreparable injury to the other party, which injury could not be adequately
compensated by an award of money damages, and the parties therefore agree and
acknowledge that they shall be entitled to injunctive relief in the event of any
breach of any material term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or to
enjoin or prevent such a breach, including without limitation an action for
specific performance hereof.
12.17. APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in all respects solely in accordance with the laws of the State of
California, United States.
17
12.18. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Any dispute arising out of or in
connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction
and venue of the courts located in the County of San Mateo and both parties
specifically agree to be bound by the jurisdiction and venue thereof.
(The remainder of this page is left intentionally blank)
18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first set forth above.
"Customer" "Redflex"
CITY OF BURLINGAME REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.,
By: By:
Name: Name:
Title: Title:
19
EXHIBIT"A"
Designated Intersection Approaches
The contract is for the implementation of up to ten (10) intersections. Identification of
enforced intersection will be based on mutual agreement between Redflex and the City as
warranted by community safety and traffic needs.
20
EXHIBIT "B"
Construction and Installation Obligations
Timeframe for Installation: Fixed Photo Red Light System
Redflex will have each specified intersection installed and activated in phases in
accordance with an implementation plan to be mutually agreed to by Redflex Traffic
Systems and the Municipality.
Redflex will use reasonable commercial efforts to install the system in accordance with
the schedule set forth in the implementation plan that will be formalized upon project
commencement.
Redflex will use reasonable commercial efforts to install and activate the first specified
intersection within forty-five (45) to sixty (60) days subsequent to formal project kick-
off. The Municipality agrees that the estimated timeframe for installation and activation
are subject to conditions beyond the control of Redflex and are not guaranteed.
In order to provide the client with timely completion of the photo enforcement project
Redflex Traffic Systems requires that the City assist with providing timely approval of
City permit requests. The City acknowledges the importance of the safety program and
undertakes that in order to keep the project on schedule the customer is to provide city
engineers review of Redflex permit requests and all documentation in a timely manner.
1. Redflex Obligations. Redflex shall do or cause to be done each of the following (in
each case, unless otherwise stated below, at Redflex's sole expense):
I.I. Appoint the Redflex Project Manager and a project implementation team
consisting of between one (1) and four (4) people to assist the Redflex Project
Manager;
1.2. Request current "as-built" electronic engineering drawings for the Designated
Intersection Approaches (the "Drawings") from the city traffic engineer;
1.3. Develop and submit to the Customer for approval construction and installation
specifications in reasonable detail for the Designated Intersection Approaches,
including but not limited to specifications for all radar sensors, pavement loops,
electrical connections and traffic controller connections, as required; and
1.4. Seek approval from the relevant Governmental Authorities having authority or
jurisdiction over the construction and installation specifications for the
Designated Intersection Approaches (collectively, the "Approvals"), which will
include compliance with City permit applications.
1.5. Finalize the acquisition of the Approvals;
1.6. Submit to the Customer a public awareness strategy for the Customer's
consideration and approval, which strategy shall include media and educational
materials for the Customer's approval or amendment(the "Awareness Strategy");
1.7. Develop the Redlight Violation Criteria in consultation with the Customer;
1.8. Develop the Enforcement Documentation for approval by the Customer, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld;
21
1.9. Complete the installation and testing of all necessary Equipment, including
hardware and software, at the Designated Intersection Approaches (under the
supervision of the Customer);
1.10. Cause an electrical sub-contractor to complete all reasonably necessary
electrical work at the Designated Intersection Approaches, including but not
limited to the installation of all related Equipment and other detection sensors,
poles, cabling, telecommunications equipment and wiring,which work shall be
performed in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws and
regulations;
1.11. Install and test the functionality of the Designated Intersection Approaches
with the Redflex System and establish fully operational Violation processing
capability with the Redflex System;
1.12. Implement the use of the Redflex System at each of the Designated
Intersection Approaches;
1.13. Deliver the Materials to the Customer; and
1.14. Issue citation notices for Authorized Violations;
1.15. Redflex shall provide training (i) for up to fifteen (15) personnel of the
Customer, including but not limited to the persons who Customer shall appoint as
Authorized Officers and other persons involved in the administration of the
Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, (ii) for at least sixteen (16) hours in the
aggregate, (iii) regarding the operation of the Redflex System and the Redlight
Photo Enforcement Program, which training shall include training with respect to
the Redflex System and its operations, strategies for presenting Violations Data
in court and judicial proceedings and a review of the Enforcement
Documentation;
1.16. Interact with court and judicial personnel to address issues regarding the
implementation of the Redflex System, the development of a subpoena
processing timeline that will permit the offering of Violations Data in court and
judicial proceedings, and coordination between Redflex, the Customer and
juvenile court personnel; and
1.17. Provide reasonable public relations resources and media materials to the
Customer in the event that the Customer elects to conduct a public launch of the
Redlight Photo Enforcement Program.
1.18. Citation processing and citation re-issuance
2. CUSTOMER OBLIGATIONS. The Customer shall do or cause to be done each of
the following (in each case, unless otherwise stated below, at Customer's sole
expense):
2.1.1. Appoint the Project Manager;
2.1.2. Assist Redflex in obtaining the Drawings from the relevant Governmental
Authorities;
2.1.3. Notify Redflex of any specific requirements relating to the construction
and installation of any Intersection Approaches or the implementation of the
Redlight Photo Enforcement Program;
2.1.4. Provide assistance to Redflex in obtaining access to the records data of the
Department of Motor Vehicles in Redflex's capacity as an independent
contractor to the Customer; and
22
2.1.5. Assist Redflex in seeking the Approvals
2.1.6. Provide reasonable access to the Customer's properties and facilities in
order to permit Redflex to install and test the functionality of the Designated
Intersection Approaches and the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program;
2.1.7. Provide reasonable access to the personnel of the Customer and reasonable
information about the specific operational requirements of such personnel
for the purposes of performing training;
2.1.8. Seek approval or amendment of Awareness Strategy and provide written
notice to Redflex with respect to the quantity of media and program
materials (the "Materials") that the Customer will require in order to
implement the Awareness Strategy during the period commencing on the
date on which Redflex begins the installation of any of the Designated
Intersection Approaches and ending one (1) month after the Installation
Date;
2.1.9. Assist Redflex in developing the Redlight Violation Criteria; and
2.1.10. Seek approval of the Enforcement Documentation.
23
EXHIBIT"C"
Maintenance
1. All repair and maintenance of Photo Red Light Enforcement systems and related
equipment will be the sole responsibility of Redflex, including but not limited to
maintaining the casings of the cameras included in the Redflex System and all other
Equipment in reasonably clean and graffiti-free condition.
2. Redflex shall not open the Traffic Signal Controller Boxes without a representative of
city Traffic Engineering present.
3. The provision of all necessary communication, broadband and telephone services to
the Designated Intersection Approaches will be the sole responsibility of the Redflex
4. The provision of all necessary electrical services to the Designated Intersection
Approaches will be the sole responsibility of the Customer
5. In the event that images of a quality suitable for the Authorized Officer to identify
Violations cannot be reasonably obtained without the use of flash units, Redflex shall
provide and install such flash units.
6. The Redflex Project Manager (or a reasonable alternate) shall be available to the
Police Project Manager each day, on a reasonable best efforts basis.
24
EXHIBIT"D"
COMPENSATION &PRICING
Commencing on the expiration of the Warning Period for each Designated Intersection
Approach, Customer shall be obligated to pay Redflex a fixed fee of$5,870 per month
for each Designated Intersection Approach ("Fixed Fee") as full remuneration for
performing all of the services contemplated in this Agreement.
BUSINESS ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL PRICING OPTIONS:
1. Redflex construction will be able to utilize existing conduit for installation where
space is available.
2. Each year the pricing will increase by the CPI. CPI will be derived from the
publication of the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index for U.S. City
average.
3. Except where a balance remains unpaid due to a deficit in the gross cash received as
described herein, Customer agrees to pay Redflex within thirty (30) days after the
invoice is received. A monthly late fee of 1.5% is payable for amounts remaining
unpaid 60 days from date of invoice.
25
Exhibit`B"
Additional Rights and Obligations
Redflex and the Customer shall respectively have the additional rights and obligations set
forth below:
1. Redflex shall assist the Customer in public information and education efforts,
including but not limited to the development of artwork for utility bill inserts, press
releases and schedules for any public launch of the Redlight Photo Enforcement
Program (actual print and production costs are the sole responsibility of the
Customer).
2. Redflex shall be solely responsible for installing such Signage. The Redflex shall be
solely responsible for the fabrication of any signage, notices or other postings
required pursuant to any law, rule or regulation of any Governmental Authority
("Signage"), including but not limited to the Vehicle Code, and shall assist in
determining the placement of such Signage.
3. The Redflex Project Manager and the Police Project Manager shall meet on a weekly
basis during the period commencing as of the date of execution hereof and ending on
the Installation Date, and on a monthly basis for the remainder of the Term, at such
times and places as the Redflex Manager and the Customer Manager shall mutually
agree.
4. The Customer shall not access the Redflex System or use the Redlight Photo
Enforcement Program in any manner other than prescribe by law and which restricts
or inhibits any other Person from using the Redflex System or the Redflex Photo
Enforcement Program with respect to any Intersection Approaches constructed or
maintained by Redflex for such Person, or which could damage, disable, impair or
overburden the Redflex System or the Redflex Photo Enforcement Program, and the
Customer shall not attempt to gain unauthorized access to (i) any account of any other
Person, (ii) any computer systems or networks connected to the Redflex System, or
(iii) any materials or information not intentionally made available by Redflex to the
Customer by means of hacking, password mining or any other method whatsoever,
nor shall the Customer cause any other Person to do any of the foregoing.
5. The Customer shall maintain the confidentiality of any username, password or other
process or device for accessing the Redflex System or using the Redlight Photo
Enforcement Program.
6. Each of Redflex and the Customer shall advise each other in writing with respect to
any applicable rules or regulations governing the conduct of the other on or with
respect to the property of such other party, including but not limited to rules and
regulations relating to the safeguarding of confidential or proprietary information, and
when so advised, each of Redflex and the Customer shall obey any and all such rules
and regulations.
7. The Customer shall promptly reimburse Redflex for the cost of repairing or replacing
any portion of the Redflex System, or any property or equipment related thereto,
damaged directly or indirectly by the Customer, or any of its employees, contractors
or agents.
26
Insurance
1. During the Term, Redflex shall procure and maintain and Redflex's sole cost and
expense the following insurance coverage with respect to claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of work or services pursuant to this Agreement by Redflex, and each
of Redflex's subcontractors, agents, representatives and employees:
2. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability
Insurance with coverage of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage;
3. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability
Insurance with coverage of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury or property damage,
including but not limited to coverage for all automobiles owned by Redflex, hired
by Redflex, and owned by third parties;
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance. Redflex will use its
commercial best efforts to procure and maintain Professional Liability(Errors and
Omissions) Insurance with coverage of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000)per occurrence and in the aggregate.
5. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance. Workers'
Compensation Insurance with coverage of not less than the limits required by the
Labor Code of the State of California, Employer's Liability Insurance with
coverage of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)per occurrence.
6. With respect to the insurance described in the foregoing Section of this Exhibit E,
any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the
Customer, and any changes to such deductibles or self-insured retentions during
the Term must be approved in advance in writing by the Customer.
7. With respect to the Commercial General Liability Insurance the following
additional provisions shall apply:
a. The Customer Parties shall be covered as additional insureds with respect
to any liability arising from any act or omission of any Redflex Parties on
the premises upon which any such Redflex Parties may perform services
pursuant to this Agreement, and such coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to such additional insureds.
b. The insurance coverage procured by Redflex and described above shall be
the primary insurance with respect to the Customer Parties in connection
with this Agreement, and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by
any of the Customer Parties shall be in excess, and not in contribution to,
such insurance.
c. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the various
insurance policies described above shall not affect the coverage provided
to the Customer Parties, and such insurance policies shall state the such
insurance coverage shall apply separately with respect to each additional
insured against whom any claim is made or suit is brought, except with
respect to the limits set forth in such insurance policies.
27
8. With respect to the insurance described in the foregoing Section of this Exhibit E,
each such insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that the coverage provided
thereby shall not be cancelled except after thirty (30) calendar days' prior written
notice to the Customer. If any of the Redflex Parties are notified by any insurer
that any insurance coverage will be cancelled, Redflex shall immediately provide
written notice thereof to the Customer and shall take all necessary actions to
correct such cancellation in coverage limits, and shall provide written notice to
the Customer of the date and nature of such correction. If Redflex, for any
reason, fails to maintain the insurance coverage required pursuant to this
Agreement, such failure shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement, and
the Customer shall have the right, but not the obligation and exercisable in its sole
discretion, to either (i) terminate this Agreement and seek damages from Redflex
for such breach, or (ii) purchase such required insurance, and without further
notice to Redflex, deduct from any amounts due to Redflex pursuant to this
Agreement, any premium costs advance by the Customer for such insurance. If
the premium costs advanced by the Customer for such insurance exceed any
amounts due to Redflex pursuant to this Agreement, Redflex shall promptly remit
such excess amount to the Customer upon receipt of written notice thereof.
9. Redflex shall provide certificates of insurance evidencing the insurance required
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, which certificates shall be executed by
an authorized representative of the applicable insurer, and which certificates shall
be delivered to the Customer prior to Redflex commencing any work pursuant to
the terms of this Agreement.
28
Exhibit F
FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT
This Acknowledgement and Consent, dated as of , 2006, is entered into by and
between the City of Burlingame (the "City") and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.,
("Redflex"), with reference to the Agreement between the City of Burlingame and
Redflex Traffic Systems, inc. for Photo red light enforcement program, dated as of
, by and between the City and Redflex (the "Agreement").
I. Redflex has entered into a Credit Agreement, dated as of August 3, 2003
(the "Harris-Redflex Credit Agreement"), with Harris Trust and Savings Bank(the
"Bank"),pursuant to which the Bank has provided certain working capital credit facilities
to Redflex. Such credit facilities will provide Redflex the working capital that it needs to
perform its obligations to the City under the Agreement.
2. Pursuant to the Harris-Redflex Credit Agreement, Redflex has granted
Harris a security interest in all of Redflex's personal property as collateral for the
payment and performance of Redflex's obligations to the Bank under the Hams-Redflex
Credit Agreement. Such security interest applies to and covers all of Redflex's contract
rights, including, without limitation, all of Redflex's rights and interests under the
Agreement.
3. Redflex will not, by virtue of the Harris-Redflex Credit Agreement,be
relieved of any liability or obligation under the Agreement, and the Bank has not
assumed any liability or obligation of Redflex under the Agreement.
4. The City hereby acknowledges notice of, and consents to, Redflex's grant
of such security interest in favor of the Bank in all of Redflex's rights and interests under
the Agreement pursuant to the Harris-Redflex Credit Agreement.
5. The City further acknowledges and agrees that this Acknowledgement and
Consent shall be binding upon the City and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and
assigns of the Bank and to any replacement lender which refinances Redflex's obligations
to the Bank under the Harris-Redflex Credit Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Redflex have caused this
Acknowledgement and Consent to be executed by their respective duly authorized and
elected officers as of the date first above written.
............................_....................._.._...................................................._............................------.._........._..........__.............................,.........................................-----.............................................._....__..........._........................._............_.........................................
_
The City: Redflex:
CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.,
Corporation a Delaware Corporation
i
By:
By: Name:
Name: i Title:
Title:
i
...._.........................................._........_.........................................................._...._.......................
29
CITY 0 STAFF REPORT
BURLINGAME AGENDA 9d
ITEM#
,Q 9 MTG.
°q•*m ,�wE°_ DATE January 16,2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITT D
BY
DATE: January 16,2007
APPR ED
FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Reimbursement of Capital Proje s/Expenses from the Proceeds of
the 2007 Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds
Recommendation
That the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the reimbursement of eligible capital project
expenses from the proceeds of the 2007 Water and Wastewater Revenue Bonds.
Background
The city will issue water and wastewater revenue bonds in early-March to finance the next phase of capital
improvements for the water and sewer systems. This is the third and final issuance of debt related to the
rehabilitation and renovation of the City of Burlingame's water and sewer systems. Revenue bonds were
issued in 2003 and 2004. A separate resolution will be presented to the Council in February authorizing the
issuance of the bonds. This action allows the city to reimburse itself for eligible expenses that may occur prior
to the issuance of the bonds.
Fiscal Implications
Water and sewer capital improvements are financed using revenue bonds. The city will issue $26 million in
revenue bonds in March to fund the next set of improvements. This amount may be reduced prior to the
issuance. Certain projects approved in the FY06-07 Capital Improvement Budget include the use of 2007
bond revenue. The resolution allows the city to pay for those expenses from other sources and then reimburse
itself once the bonds are sold. All expenses to be reimbursed are reviewed for eligibility and compliance with
federal and state requirements.
Attachments
Resolution of Official Intent of the City Council of the City of Burlingame To Reimburse Certain
Expenditures from Proceeds of Indebtedness of Burlingame Finance Authority Water and Wastewater
Revenue Bonds Series 2007
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM
PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS OF BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY
WATER AND WASTEWATER REVENUE BOND
SERIES 2007
RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (the "City") intends to construct certain
improvements to its water system and sewer system described in Exhibit A hereto (collectively,
the "Project"); and
WHEREAS,the City expects to pay certain expenditures (the "Reimbursement
Expenditures") in connection with the Project prior to the issuance of indebtedness for the
purpose of financing costs associated with the Project on a long-term basis;
WHEREAS,the City reasonably expects that debt obligations in an amount not expected
to exceed $26,000,000 will be issued and that certain of the proceeds of such debt obligations
will be used to reimburse the Reimbursement Expenditures; and
WHEREAS, Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations requires the City to declare its
reasonable official intent to reimburse prior expenditures for the Project with proceeds of a
subsequent borrowing;
NOW. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve as
follows:
Section 1. The City finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and
correct.
Section 2. This resolution is made for purposes of establishing compliance with the
requirements of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations. This resolution does not bind the
City to make any expenditure, incur any indebtedness, or proceed with the Project.
Section 3. The City hereby declares its official intent to use proceeds of indebtedness
to reimburse itself for Reimbursement Expenditures.
Section 4. This resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption.
MAYOR
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day
of ,2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
WATER SYSTEM PROJECT
The water system project consists of City-wide water system improvements including
replacement of water distribution/transmission mains,valves,pumpstation improvements,storage tanks
and reservoirs,SCADA improvements,water quality studies,chloramination conversion plan and related
improvements.
SEWER SYSTEM PROJECT
The sanitary sewer system project consists of City-wide sewer system improvements,including
replacement/rehabilitation of sewer pipelines, manholes, cleanouts and laterals. The program also
includes pumpstation improvements and SCADA improvements.
CITY 0 STAFF REPORT
BURUMQ ME AGENDA
ITEM# 9e
°� 00
MTG.
°Anc°�ure°' DATE January 16,2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT E
BY
DATE: January 16, 2007
APP VED � r
FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY
650-558-7222
SUBJECT: Investment Policy for 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the City of Burlingame's investment policy for 2007.
BACKGROUND:
State law requires that the City Council annually review and approve the policy for investment of City funds.
There are no changes to the policy.
ATTACHMENTS: 2007 Statement of Investment Policy
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
January 2007
PURPOSE
This statement contains guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's temporarily
idle cash in accordance with Government Code sections 53600, et. seq. The ultimate
goal is to protect the City's pooled cash while producing a reasonable return on
investments.
OBJECTIVES
1. Accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues to insure investment
of moneys to the fullest extent.
2. Invest in a range of instruments to insure diversification of the City's
portfolio.
3. As a primary objective, safeguard the principal of funds. The secondary
objective will be to meet the liquidity needs of the City. The third objective is to
achieve a return on the investment of funds.
4. Investments will be in compliance with governing provisions of the law.
ACCEPTABLE INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS
Acceptable investments authorized for purchase by the finance director/treasurer are:
1. U.S. Government and Agency Securities (notes, bills or bonds of the U.S.
Government and its agencies.)
2. Certificates of Deposit(deposits placed with commercial banks,savings and loan
companies and/or thrift and loan companies, which meet the financial criteria
established by the City.)
3. Bankers'Acceptances
4. Commercial Paper
5. Demand Deposits
6. Money Market Funds/Mutual Funds
7. Repurchase Agreements
8. Passbook Savings Accounts
9. Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (deposits with commercial banks and/or
savings and loan companies which meet the financial criteria established by the
City.)
10.Local Agency Investment Funds(State Pool)
11.County Investment Fund(San Mateo County Pool)
12.Guaranteed Investment Contracts (collateralized with Government Securities,
physically delivered to an acceptable safekeeping account.)
Page 1 of 3
The State pool and San Mateo County Pool invests in additonal Government Code
authorized investments that are not approved for direct purchase by the finance
director/treasurer. These pools shall provide a current investment policy and monthly
reports for review by the finance director/treasurer. The finance director/treasurer is
authorized to invest in these pools provided they reasonably appear to be in
conformance with their investment policies, which are attached for reference to this
policy.
REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS - TERM LIMIT AND SAFEKEEPING
The City will require physical delivery of the securities backing the repurchase
agreements to an acceptable safekeeping account of a third party in the City's name as
stated in Code Section 53601(i). Repurchase agreements will be used solely as short
term investments not to exceed 30 days.
MATURITY LIMIT
State law requires that the maturity of any given instrument should not exceed five
years unless specifically approved by City Council. Those over two years will be
confined to U.S. Government and Agency securities.
RESTRICTION ON INVESTMENT POLICIES AND CITY CONSTRAINTS
Section 53600 et. seq. of the State of California Government Code outlines the
collateral requirements for certain types of investments and also limits the percentage
of total investments which can be placed in certain classifications. Investments must
meet the time schedules as indicated by the cash flow projections of the City.
Investments will ordinarily be held until maturity unless an advantageous exchange or
profit can be made. In such cases, a documented analysis will be prepared and
approved by the Finance Director/Treasurer. Investment decisions will not be
influenced by forecasts or speculation regarding interest rates. The actual level of
interest rates at any given time weighed with the soundness of the institution or
investment instrument will be the primary basis of consideration.
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: INSTITUTION FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
All institutions must have a minimum of $100 million in assets. Institutions have a
demonstrated history of positive earnings and must carry a minimum 3.5% equity ratio
and must hold that ratio for at least one year prior to the City's investment. All
institutions must be located within the State of California. For collateralized or
negotiable certificates of deposit, the institution must have a minimum $1 billion in
assets, in addition to meeting the above criteria.
The City requires physical delivery of all negotiable securities to an acceptable
safekeeping account at a designated depository.
Page 2 of 3
DELEGATION OF INVESTMENT AUTHORITY
Pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Section 3.13.040 and Government Code
Section 53607, the Finance Director/Treasurer is authorized to invest and reinvest
money of the City, to sell or exchange securities so purchased, and to deposit such
securities for safekeeping in accordance with and subject to this investment policy.
Approved by City Council on January 16, 2007.
Jim Nantell
City Manager
Jesus Nava
Finance Director/Treasurer
ATTEST:
Doris Mortensen
City Clerk
Page 3 of 3
t
141 CITY o� STAFF REPORT
BUMJNGAME AGENDA
ITEM # 9f
aF 0 MTG. 1/16/07
v�
AYTEO.wwE 8 DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY �J(
DATE: January 16, 2007
APPROVED //VFROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY '
SUBJECT: Approve Revised Joint Powers Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with CSAC
Excess Insurance Authority
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the attached resolution approving the revised Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) creating the California State Association of Counties Excess Insurance Authority (CSAC-
EIA) and the amended Excess Workers' Compensation Program Memorandum of Understanding.
BACKGROUND:
The City's workers' compensation program is self-insured, and the City has routinely obtained excess
insurance coverage to limit claims liability. The City has obtained excess insurance coverage through CSAC
California Public Entity Liability Insurance Authority (CPEIA) since October 1, 2003. CSAC is now allowing
public entity members to join the Excess Insurance Authority (EIA) directly, thereby combining the California
Public Entity Insurance Authority (CPEIA) and the County EIA into one entity. The new Joint Powers
Agreement (Exhibit A) creates the Excess Insurance Authority that includes both County and Public Entity
members. The Excess Workers' Compensation (EWC) Program Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit B)
has been amended to incorporate the consolidation of the EIA.
The City must execute the EIA Joint Powers Agreement and the amended MOU by June 30, 2007 to maintain
participation in EIA's program. There are no associated changes to the current excess insurance program as a
result of these changes in the EIA organizational structure and MOU.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no new costs associated with the revised agreement. The City pays $31,217 a year for excess
insurance coverage through CSAC-EIA.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
JPA Agreement
EWC Program MOU
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING EXECUTION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY(CSAC-EIA)
AND AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame has obtained excess workers compensation insurance
coverage through California State Association of Counties California Public Entity Liability
Insurance Authority(CSAC-CPEIA) since October 1, 2003; and
WHEREAS,the California State Association of Counties has restructured the membership and
governance of its Excess Insurance Program to now include CPEIA members; and
WHEREAS,the California State Association of Counties Excess Insurance Program is
transitioning CPEIA members into its revised CSAC Excess Insurance joint powers authority,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Joint Powers Agreement creating
the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority on behalf of the City of Burlingame as contained in Exhibit
A hereto and to further execute the Memorandum of Understanding for the CSAC Excess Workers
Compensation Program on behalf of the City as contained in Exhibit B hereto.
2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager.
MAYOR
1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16`h day of
January,2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Adopted: October 5, 1979
Amended: May 12, 1980
Amended: January 23, 1987
Amended: October 7, 1988
Amended: March 1993
Amended: November 18, 1996
Amended: October 4, 2005
Amended: February 28, 2006
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
CREATING THE CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
This Agreement is executed in the State of California by and among those counties and public
entities organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California which are parties signatory
to this Agreement. The CSAC Excess Insurance Authority was formed under the sponsorship of CSAC.
All such counties, hereinafter called member counties, and public entities, hereinafter called member
public entities, [collectively "members"] shall be listed in Appendix A, which shall be attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the California Government Code (Section
6500 et seq.) permits two or more public agencies by agreement to exercise jointly powers common to
the contracting parties; and
WHEREAS, Article 16, Section 6 of the California Constitution provides that insurance pooling
arrangements under joint exercise of power agreements shall not be considered the giving or lending of
credit as prohibited therein; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 990.4 provides that a local public entity may
self-insure, purchase insurance through an authorized carrier, or purchase insurance through a surplus
line broker, or any combination of these; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 990.6, the cost of insurance
provided by a local public entity is a proper charge against the local public entity; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 990.8 provides that two or more local entities
may, by a joint powers agreement, provide insurance for any purpose by any one or more of the methods
specified in Government Code Section 990.4 and such pooling of self-insured claims or losses is not
considered insurance nor subject to regulation under the Insurance Code; and
WHEREAS, the counties and public entities executing this Agreement desire to join together for
the purpose of jointly funding and/or establishing excess and other insurance programs as determined;
NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
Page 1 of 22
JPA,CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28,2006
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
"CSAC" shall mean the County Supervisors Association of California, dba California State
Association of Counties.
"Authority"shall mean the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority created by this Agreement.
"Board of Directors"or"Board"shall mean the governing body of the Authority.
"Claim" shall mean a claim made against a member arising out of an occurrence which is
covered by an excess or primary insurance program of the Authority in which the member is a participant.
"Executive Committee"shall mean the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Authority.
"Fiscal year"shall mean that period of twelve months which is established by the Board of
Directors as the fiscal year of the Authority.
"Government Code"shall mean the California Government Code.
"Insurance program" or "program" shall mean a program of the Authority under which
participating members are protected against designated losses,either through joint purchase of primary
or excess insurance, pooling of self-insured claims or losses, purchased insurance or any other
combination as determined by the Board. The Board of Directors or the Executive Committee may
determine applicable criteria for determining eligibility in any insurance program,as well as establishing
program policies and procedures.
"Joint powers law"shall mean Article 1,Chapter 5,Division 7,Title 1(commencing with Section
6500)of the Government Code.
"Loss" shall mean a liability or potential liability of a member, including litigation expenses,
attorneys'fees and other costs,which is covered by an insurance program of the Authority in which the
member is a participant.
"Member county"shall mean any county which,through the membership of its supervisors in
CSAC, has executed this Agreement and become a member of the Authority. "Member county"shall
also include those entities or other bodies set forth in Article 3(c).
"Member Public Entity" shall mean any California public entity which does not maintain a
membership in CSAC,has executed this Agreement and become a member of the Authority,"Member
Public Entity"shall also include those entities or other bodies set forth in Article 3(c).
"Occurrence"shall mean an event which is more fully defined in the memorandums of coverage
and/or policies of an insurance program in which the participating county or participating public entity is a
member.
"Participating county" shall mean any member county which has entered into a program
offered by the Authority pursuant to Article 14 of this Agreement and has not withdrawn or been canceled
therefrom pursuant to Articles 20 or 21.
Page 2 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28,2006
"Participating public entity" shall mean any member public entity which has entered into a
program offered by the Authority pursuant to Article 14 of this Agreement and has not withdrawn or been
canceled therefrom pursuant to Articles 20 or 21.
"Self-insured retention" shall mean that portion of a loss resulting from an occurrence
experienced by a member which is retained as a liability or potential liability of the member and is not
subject to payment by the Authority.
"Reinsurance" shall mean insurance purchased by the Authority as part of an insurance
program to cover that portion of any loss which exceeds the joint funding capacity of that program.
ARTICLE 2
PURPOSES
This Agreement is entered into by the member counties and member public entities in order to
jointly develop and fund insurance programs as determined. Such programs may include, but are not
limited to, the creation of joint insurance funds, including primary and excess insurance funds,the pooling
of self-insured claims and losses, purchased insurance, including reinsurance, and the provision of
necessary administrative services. Such administrative services may include, but shall not be limited to,
risk management consulting, loss prevention and control, centralized loss reporting, actuarial consulting,
claims adjusting, and legal defense services.
ARTICLE 3
PARTIES TO AGREEMENT
(a) There shall be two classes of membership of the parties pursuant to this Agreement
consisting of one class designated as Member Counties and another class designated as Member Public
Entities.
(b) Each member county and member public entity, as a party to this Agreement, certifies
that it intends to and does contract with all other members as parties to this Agreement and, with such
other members as may later be added as parties to this Agreement pursuant to Article 19 as to all
programs of which it is a participating member. Each member also certifies that the removal of any parry
from this Agreement, pursuant to Articles 20 or 21, shall not affect this Agreement or the member's
obligations hereunder.
(c) A member for purposes of providing insurance coverage under any program of the
Authority, may contract on behalf of, and shall be deemed to include:
Any public entity as defined in Government Code § 811.2 which the member requests to
be added and from the time that such request is approved by the Executive Committee of the Authority.
Page 3 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
Any nonprofit entity, including a nonprofit public benefit corporation formed pursuant to
Corporations Code §§ 5111, 5120 and, 5065, which the member requests to be added and from the time
that such request is approved by the Executive Committee.
(d) Any public entity or nonprofit so added shall be subject to and included under the
member's SIR or deductible, and when so added, may be subject to such other terms and conditions as
determined by the Executive Committee.
(e) Such public entity or nonprofit shall not be considered a separate party to this
Agreement. Any public entity or nonprofit so added, shall not affect the member's representation on the
Board of Directors and shall be considered part of and represented by the member for all purposes under
this Agreement.
(f) The Executive Committee shall establish guidelines for approval of any public entity or
nonprofit so added in accordance with Article 3(c) and (d).
(g) Should any conflict arise between the provisions of this Article and any applicable
Memorandum of Coverage or other document evidencing coverage, such Memorandum of Coverage or
other document evidencing coverage shall prevail.
ARTICLE 4
TERM
This Agreement shall continue in effect until terminated as provided herein.
ARTICLE 5
CREATION OF THE AUTHORITY
Pursuant to the joint powers law, there is hereby created a public entity separate and apart from
the parties hereto, to be known as the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority, with such powers as are
hereinafter set forth.
ARTICLE 6
POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY
The Authority shall have all of the powers common to General Law counties in California, such as
Alpine County and all additional powers set forth in the joint powers law, and is hereby authorized to do
all acts necessary for the exercise of said powers. Such powers include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) To make and enter into contracts.
Page 4 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
(b) To incur debts, liabilities,and obligations.
(c) To acquire, hold, or dispose of property, contributions and donations of property, funds,
services, and other forms of assistance from persons,firms, corporations, and government entities.
(d) To sue and be sued in its own name,and to settle any claim against it.
(e) To receive and use contributions and advances from members as provided in
Government Code Section 6504, including contributions or advances of personnel, equipment, or
property.
(f) To invest any money in its treasury that is not required for its immediate necessities,
pursuant to Government Code Section 6509.5.
(g) To carry out all provisions of this Agreement.
Said powers shall be exercised pursuant to the terms hereof and in the manner provided by law.
ARTICLE 7
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Authority shall be governed by the Board of Directors, which shall be composed as follows:
a) One director from each member county, appointed by the member county board
of supervisors and serving at the pleasure of that body. Each member county board of supervisors shall
also appoint an alternate director who shall have the authority to attend, participate in and vote at any
meeting of the Board when the director is absent. A director or alternate director shall be a county
supervisor, other county official, or staff person of the member county, and upon termination of office or
employment with the county, shall automatically terminate membership or alternate membership on the
Board.
b) Ten directors consisting of seven directors and three alternate directors chosen
in the manner specified in the Bylaws from those participating as public entity members. A director or
alternate public entity director shall be an official, or staff person of the public entity member, and upon
termination of office or employment with the public entity, shall automatically terminate membership or
alternate membership on the Board.
C) Member county directors shall consist of a minimum of 80% of the eligible voting
members on the Board. The public entity member directors shall be reduced accordingly to ensure at
least 80% of the Board consists of county director members (By way of example, if the number of county
members is reduced from the current 54 by member withdrawals to a level of 28, then county members
would be at the 80% level, 28/35. If the county members go to 27, then the public entity members would
lose one seat and would only have 6 votes).
Any vacancy in a county director or alternate director position shall be filled by the appointing
county's board of supervisors, subject to the Provisions of this Article. Any vacancy in a public entity
director position shall be filled by vote of the public entity members.
Page 5 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
A majority of the membership of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business. Each member of the Board shall have one vote. Except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement or any other duly executed agreement of the members, all actions of the Board shall require
the affirmative vote of a majority of the members; provided, that any action which is restricted in effect to
one of the Authority's insurance programs, shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of those Board
members who represent counties and public entities participating in that program. For purposes of an
insurance program vote, to the extent there are public entity members participating in a program, the
public entity Board members as a whole shall have a minimum of one vote. The public entity Board
members may in no event cast more votes than would constitute 20% of the number of total county
members in that program (subject to the one vote minimum). Should the number of public entity Board
votes authorized herein be less than the number of public entity Board members at a duly noticed
meeting, the public entity Board members shall decide among themselves which Board member shall
vote. Should they be unable to decide, the President of the Authority shall determine which director(s)
shall vote.
ARTICLE 8
POWERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Board of Directors shall have the following powers and functions:
(a) The Board shall exercise all powers and conduct all business of the Authority, either
directly or by delegation to other bodies or persons unless otherwise prohibited by this Agreement, or any
other duly executed agreement of the members or by law.
(b) The Board of Directors may adopt such resolutions as deemed necessary in the exercise
of those powers and duties set forth herein.
(c) The Board shall form an Executive Committee, as provided in Article 11. The Board may
delegate to the Executive Committee and the Executive Committee may discharge any powers or duties
of the Board except adoption of the Authority's annual budget. The powers and duties so delegated shall
be specified in resolutions adopted by the Board.
(d) The Board may form, as provided in Article 12, such other committees as it deems
appropriate to conduct the business of the Authority. The membership of any such other committee may
consist in whole or in part of persons who are not members of the Board; provided that the Board may
delegate its powers and duties only to a committee of the Board composed of a majority of Board
members and/or alternate members. Any committee which is not composed of a majority of Board
members and/or alternate members may function only in an advisory capacity.
(e) The Board shall elect the officers of the Authority and shall appoint or employ necessary
staff in accordance with Article 13.
(f) The Board shall cause to be prepared, and shall review, modify as necessary, and adopt
the annual operating budget of the Authority. Adoption of the budget may not be delegated.
Page 6 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
(g) The Board shall develop, or cause to be developed, and shall review, modify as
necessary, and adopt each insurance program of the Authority, including all provisions for reinsurance
and administrative services necessary to carry out such program.
(h) The Board, directly or through the Executive Committee, shall provide for necessary
services to the Authority and to members, by contract or otherwise, which may include, but shall not be
limited to, risk management consulting, loss prevention and control, centralized loss reporting, actuarial
consulting, claims adjusting, and legal services.
(i) The Board shall provide general supervision and policy direction to the Chief Executive
Officer.
Q) The Board shall receive and act upon reports of the committees and the Chief Executive
Officer.
(k) The Board shall act upon each claim involving liability of the Authority, directly or by
delegation of authority to the Executive Committee or other committee, body or person, provided, that the
Board shall establish monetary limits upon any delegation of claims settlement authority, beyond which a
proposed settlement must be referred to the Board for approval.
(1) The Board may require that the Authority review, audit, report upon, and make
recommendations with regard to the safety or claims administration functions of any member, insofar as
those functions affect the liability or potential liability of the Authority. The Board may forward any or all
such recommendations to the member with a request for compliance and a statement of potential
consequences for noncompliance.
(m) The Board shall receive, review and act upon periodic reports and audits of the funds of
the Authority, as required under Articles 15 and 16 of this Agreement.
(n) The Board may, upon consultation with a casualty actuary, declare that any funds
established for any program has a surplus of funds and determine a formula to return such surplus to the
participating counties and participating public entities which have contributed to such fund.
(o) The Board shall have such other powers and duties as are reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes of the Authority.
ARTICLE 9
MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(a) The Board shall hold at least one regular meeting each year and shall provide for such
other regular meetings and for such special meetings as it deems necessary.
(b) The Chief Executive Officer of the Authority shall provide for the keeping of minutes of
regular and special meetings of the Board, and shall provide a copy of the minutes to each member of the
Board at the next scheduled meeting.
Page 7 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28,2006
(c) All meetings of the Board, the Executive Committee and such committees as established
by the Board pursuant to Article 12 herein, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance
with the provisions of Government Code Section 54950 et seq.
ARTICLE 10
OFFICERS
The Board of Directors shall elect from its membership a President and Vice President of the
Board,to serve for one-year terms.
The President, or in his or her absence, the Vice President, shall preside at and conduct all
meetings of the Board and shall chair the Executive Committee.
ARTICLE 11
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The Board of Directors shall establish an Executive Committee of the Board which shall consist
of eleven members: the President and Vice President of the Board, and nine members elected by the
Board from its membership.
The terms of office of the nine non-officer members shall be as provided in the Bylaws of the
Authority.
The Executive Committee shall conduct the business of the Authority between meetings of the
Board, exercising all those powers as provided for in Article 8, or as otherwise delegated to it by the
Board.
ARTICLE 12
COMMITTEES
The Board of Directors may establish committees, as it deems appropriate to conduct the
business of the Authority. Members of the committees shall be appointed by the Board,to serve two year
terms, subject to reappointment by the Board. The members of each committee shall annually select one
of their members to chair the Committee.
Each committee shall be composed of at least five members and shall have those duties as
determined by the Board, or as otherwise set forth in the Bylaws.
Each committee shall meet on the call of its chair, and shall report to the Executive Committee
and the Board as directed by the Board.
Page 8 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
ARTICLE 13
STAFF
(a) Principal Staff. The following staff members shall be appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the Board of Directors:
(1) Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer shall administer the
business and activities of the Authority, subject to the general supervision and policy direction of the
Board of Directors and Executive Committee; shall be responsible for all minutes, notices and records of
the Authority and shall perform such other duties as are assigned by the Board and Executive
Committee.
(2) Treasurer. The duties of the Treasurer are set forth in Article 16 of this
Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.5, the Treasurer shall be the county treasurer
of a member county of the Authority, or, pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.6, the Board may
appoint one of its officers or employees to the position of Treasurer, who shall comply with the provisions
of Government Code Section 6505.5 (a-d).
(3) Auditor. The Auditor shall draw warrants to pay demands against the Authority
when approved by the Treasurer. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.5, the Auditor shall be the
Auditor of the county from which the Treasurer is appointed by the Board under(2) above, or, pursuant to
Government Code Section 6505.6, the Board may appoint one of its officers or employees to the position
of Auditor, who shall comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 6505.5 (a-d).
(b) Charges for Treasurer and Auditor Services. Pursuant to Government Code Section
6505, the charges to the Authority for the services of Treasurer and Auditor shall be determined by the
board of supervisors of the member county from which such staff members are appointed.
(c) Other Staff. The Board, Executive Committee or Chief Executive Officer shall provide
for the appointment of such other staff as may be necessary for the administration of the Authority.
ARTICLE 14
DEVELOPMENT, FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF INSURANCE PROGRAMS
(a) Program Coverage. Insurance programs of the Authority may provide coverage,
including excess insurance coverage for:
(1) Workers'compensation;
(2) Comprehensive liability, including but not limited to general, personal injury,
contractual, public officials errors and omissions, and incidental malpractice liability;
(3) Comprehensive automobile liability;
(4) Hospital malpractice liability;
(5) Property and related programs;
Page 9 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
and may provide any other coverages authorized by the Board of Directors. The Board shall determine,
for each such program, a minimum number of participants required for program implementation and may
develop specific program coverages requiring detailed agreements for implementation of the above
programs.
(b) Program and Authority Funding. The members developing or participating in an
insurance program shall fund all costs of that program, including administrative costs, as hereinafter
provided. Costs of staffing and supporting the Authority, hereinafter called Authority general expenses,
shall be equitably allocated among the various programs by the Board, and shall be funded by the
members developing or participating in such programs in accordance with such allocations, as hereinafter
provided. In addition,the Board may, in its discretion, allocate a share of such Authority general expense
to those members which are not developing or participating in any program, and require those counties
and public entities to fund such share through a prescribed charge.
(1) Development Charge. Development costs of an insurance program shall be
funded by a development charge, as established by the Board of Directors. The development charge
shall be paid by each participant in the program following the program's adoption by the Board.
Development costs are those costs actually incurred by the Authority in developing a program for review
and adoption by the Board of Directors, including but not limited to: research, feasibility studies,
information and liaison work among participants, preparation and review of documents, and actuarial and
risk management consulting services. The development charge may also include a share of Authority
general expenses, as allocated to the program development function.
The development charge shall be billed by the Authority to all participants in the
program upon establishment of the program and shall be payable in accordance with the Authority's
invoice and payment policy.
Upon the conclusion of program development: any deficiency in development
funds shall be billed to all participants which have paid the development charge, on a pro-rata or other
equitable basis, as determined by the Board; any surplus in such funds shall be transferred into the
Authority's general expense funds.
(2) Annual Premium. Except as provided in (3) below, all post-development costs
of an insurance program shall be funded by annual premiums charged to the members participating in the
program each policy year, and by interest earnings on the funds so accumulated. Such premiums shall
be determined by the Board of Directors upon the basis of a cost allocation plan and rating formula
developed by the Authority with the assistance of a casualty actuary, risk management consultant, or
other qualified person. The premium for each participating member shall include that participant's share
of expected program losses including a margin for contingencies as determined by the Board, program
reinsurance costs, and program administrative costs for the year, plus that participant's share of Authority
general expense allocated to the program by the Board.
(3) Premium Surcharge
(i) If the Authority experiences an unusually large number of losses under a
program during a policy year, such that notwithstanding reinsurance coverage for large individual losses,
Page 10 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
the joint insurance funds for the program may be exhausted before the next annual premiums are due,
the Board of Directors may, upon consultation with a casualty actuary, impose premium surcharges on all
participating members; or
(it) If it is determined by the Board of Directors, upon consultation with a
casualty actuary, that the joint insurance funds for a program are insufficient to pay losses, fund known
estimated losses, and fund estimated losses which have been incurred but not reported, the Board of
Directors may impose a surcharge on all participating members.
(iii) Premium surcharges imposed pursuant to (i)and/or(ii)above shall be in
an amount which will assure adequate funds for the program to be actuarially sound; provided that the
surcharge to any participating member shall not exceed an amount equal to three(3)times the member's
annual premium for that year, unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors.
Provided, however, that no premium surcharge in excess of three times
the member's annual premium for that year may be assessed unless, ninety days prior to the Board of
Directors taking action to determine the amount of the surcharge, the Authority notifies the governing
body of each participating member in writing of its recommendations regarding its intent to assess a
premium surcharge and the amount recommended to be assessed each member. The Authority shall,
concurrently with the written notification, provide each participating member with a copy of the actuarial
study upon which the recommended premium surcharge is based.
(iv) A member which is no longer a participating member at the time the
premium surcharge is assessed, but which was a participating member during the policy year(s)for which
the premium surcharge was assessed, shall pay such premium surcharges as it would have otherwise
been assessed in accordance with the provisions of(i), (ii), and (iii)above.
(c) Program Implementation and Effective Date. Upon establishment of an insurance
program by the Board of Directors, the Authority shall determine the manner of program implementation
and shall give written notice to all members of such program, which shall include, but not be limited to:
program participation levels, coverages and terms of coverage of the program, estimates of first year
premium charges, program development costs, effective date of the program (or estimated effective date)
and such other program provisions as deemed appropriate.
(d) Late Entry Into Program. A member which does not elect to enter an insurance
program upon its implementation, pursuant to (c) above, or a county or public entity which becomes a
party to this Agreement following implementation of the program, may petition the Board of Directors for
late entry into the program. Such request may be granted upon a majority vote of the Board members,
plus a majority vote of those board members who represent participants in the program. Alternatively, a
county or public entity may petition the Executive Committee for late entry into the program, or a program
committee,when authorized by an MOU governing that specific program, may approve late entry into that
program. Such request may be granted upon a majority vote of the Executive Committee or program
committee.
As a condition of late entry, the member shall pay the development charge for the
program, as adjusted at the conclusion of the development period, but not subject to further adjustment,
Page 11 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
and also any costs incurred by the Authority in analyzing the member's loss data and determining its
annual premium as of the time of entry.
(e) Reentry Into A Program. Any county or public entity that is a member of an insurance
program of the Authority who withdraws or is cancelled from an insurance program under Articles 21 and
22, may not reenter such insurance program for a period of three years from the effective date of
withdrawal or cancellation.
ARTICLE 15
ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS
(a) Annual Budget. The Authority shall annually adopt an operating budget pursuant to
Article 8 of this Agreement, which shall include a separate budget for each insurance program under
development or adopted and implemented by the Authority.
(b) Funds and Accounts. The Auditor of the Authority shall establish and maintain such
funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practices and by the Board of Directors.
Separate accounts shall be established and maintained for each insurance program under development
or adopted and implemented by the Authority. Books and records of the Authority in the hands of the
Auditor shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by authorized representatives of members.
The Authority shall adhere to the standard of strict accountability for funds set forth in
Government Code Section 6505.
(c) Auditor's Report. The Auditor, within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the
close of each fiscal year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year
to the Board and to each member.
(d) Annual Audit. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505, the Authority shall either
make or contract with a certified public accountant to make an annual fiscal year audit of all accounts and
records of the Authority, conforming in all respects with the requirements of that section. A report of the
audit shall be filed as a public record with each of the members and also with the county auditor of the
county where the home office of the Authority is located and shall be sent to any public agency or person
in California that submits a written request to the Authority. The report shall be filed within six months of
the end of the fiscal year or years under examination. Costs of the audit shall be considered a general
expense of the Authority.
ARTICLE 16
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FUNDS AND PROPERTY
(a) The Treasurer shall have the custody of and disburse the Authority's funds. He or she
may delegate disbursing authority to such persons as may be authorized by the Board of Directors to
perform that function, subject to the requirements of(b)below.
(b) Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.5,the Treasurer shall:
Page 12 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
(1) Receive and acknowledge receipt for all funds of the Authority and place them in
the treasury of the Treasurer to the credit of the Authority.
(2) Be responsible upon his or her official bond for the safekeeping and
disbursements of all Authority funds so held by him or her.
(3) Pay any sums due from the Authority, as approved for payment by the Board of
Directors or by any body or person to whom the Board has delegated approval authority, making such
payments from Authority funds upon warrants drawn by the Auditor.
(4) Verify and report in writing to the Authority and to members, as of the first day of
each quarter of the fiscal year, the amount of money then held for the Authority, the amount of receipts
since the last report,and the amount paid out since the last report.
(c) Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.1, the Chief Executive Officer, the
Treasurer, and such other persons as the Board of Directors may designate shall have charge of, handle,
and have access to the properly of the Authority.
(d) The Authority shall secure and pay for a fidelity bond or bonds, in an amount or amounts
and in the form specified by the Board of Directors, covering all officers and staff of the Authority, and all
officers and staff who are authorized to have charge of, handle, and have access to property of the
Authority.
ARTICLE 17
RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBERS
Members shall have the following responsibilities under this Agreement.
(a) The board of supervisors of each member county shall appoint a representative and one
alternate representative to the Board of Directors, pursuant to Article 7.
(b) Each member shall appoint an officer or employee of the member to be responsible for
the risk management function for that member and to serve as a liaison between the member and the
Authority for all matters relating to risk management.
(c) Each member shall maintain an active safety program, and shall consider and act upon
all recommendations of the Authority concerning the reduction of unsafe practices.
(d) Each member shall maintain its own claims and loss records in each category of liability
covered by an insurance program of the Authority in which the member is a participant, and shall provide
copies of such records to the Authority as directed by the Board of Directors or Executive Committee, or
to such other committee as directed by the Board or Executive Committee.
(e) Each member shall pay development charges, premiums, and premium surcharges due
to the Authority as required under Article 14. Penalties for late payment of such charges, premiums
and/or premium surcharges shall be as determined and assessed by the Board of Directors. After
withdrawal, cancellation, or termination action under Articles 20, 21, or 23, each member shall pay
promptly to the Authority any additional premiums due, as determined and assessed by the Board of
Page 13 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
Directors under Articles 22 or 23. Any costs incurred by the Authority associated with the collection of
such premiums or other charges, shall be recoverable by the Authority.
(f) Each member shall provide the Authority such other information or assistance as may be
necessary for the Authority to develop and implement insurance programs under this Agreement.
(g) Each member shall cooperate with and assist the Authority, and any insurer of the
Authority, in all matters relating to this Agreement, and shall comply with all Bylaws, and other rules by
the Board of Directors.
(h) Each member county shall maintain membership in CSAC.
(i) Each member shall have such other responsibilities as are provided elsewhere in this
Agreement, and as are established by the Board of Directors in order to carry out the purposes of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 18
ADMINISTRATION OF CLAIMS
(a) Subject to subparagraph (e), each member shall be responsible for the investigation,
settlement or defense, and appeal of any claim made, suit brought, or proceeding instituted against the
member arising out of a loss.
(b) The Authority may develop standards for the administration of claims for each insurance
program of the Authority so as to permit oversight of the administration of claims by the members.
(c) Each participating member shall give the Authority timely written notice of claims in
accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws.
(d) A member shall not enter into any settlement involving liability of the Authority without the
advance written consent of the Authority.
(e) The Authority, at its own election and expense, shall have the right to participate with a
member in the settlement, defense, or appeal of any claim, suit or proceeding which, in the judgment of
the Authority, may involve liability of the Authority.
ARTICLE 19
NEW MEMBERS
Any California public entity may become a party to this Agreement and participate in any
insurance program in which it is not presently participating upon approval of the Board of Directors, by a
majority vote of the members, or by majority vote of the Executive Committee.
Page 14 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
ARTICLE 20
WITHDRAWAL
(a) A member may withdraw as a party to this Agreement upon thirty (30) days advance
written notice to the Authority if it has never become a participant in any insurance program pursuant to
Article 14, or if it has previously withdrawn from all insurance programs in which it was a participant.
(b) After becoming a participant in an insurance program, a member may withdraw from that
program only at the end of a policy year for the program, and only if it gives the Authority at least sixty
(60)days advance written notice of such action.
ARTICLE 21
CANCELLATION
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 20,the Board of Directors may:
(1) Cancel any member from this Agreement and membership in the Authority, on a
majority vote of the Board members. Such action shall have the effect of canceling the member's
participation in all insurance programs of the Authority as of the date that all membership is canceled.
(2) Cancel any member's participation in an insurance program of the Authority,
without canceling the member's membership in the Authority or participation in other programs, on a vote
of two-thirds of the Board members present and voting who represent participants in the program.
The Board shall give sixty (60) days advance written notice of the effective date
of any cancellation under the foregoing provisions. Upon such effective date, the member shall be
treated the same as if it had voluntarily withdrawn from this Agreement, or from the insurance program,
as the case may be.
(b) A member that does not enter one or more of the insurance programs developed and
implemented by the Authority within the member's first year as a member of the Authority shall be
considered to have withdrawn as a party to this Agreement at the end of such period, and its membership
in the Authority shall be automatically canceled as of that time,without action of the Board of Directors.
(c) A member which withdraws from all insurance programs of the Authority in which it was a
participant and does not enter any program for a period of six(6)months thereafter shall be considered to
have withdrawn as a parry to the Agreement at the end of such period, and its membership in the
Authority shall be automatically canceled as of that time,without action of the Board of Directors.
(d) A member county that terminates its membership in CSAC shall be considered to have
thereby withdrawn as a party to this Agreement, and its membership in the Authority and participation in
any insurance program of the Authority shall be automatically canceled as of that time, without the action
of the Board of Directors.
Page 15 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
ARTICLE 22
EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR CANCELLATION
(a) If a member's participation in an insurance program of the Authority is canceled under
Article 21, with or without cancellation of membership in the Authority, and such cancellation is effective
before the end of the policy year for that program, the Authority shall promptly determine and return to
that member the amount of any unearned premium payment from the member for the policy year, such
amount to be computed on a pro-rata basis from the effective date of cancellation.
(b) Except as provided in (a) above, a member which withdraws or is canceled from this
Agreement and membership in the Authority, or from any program of the Authority, shall not be entitled to
the return of any premium or other payment to the Authority, or of any property contributed to the
Authority. However, in the event of termination of this Agreement, such member may share in the
distribution of assets of the Authority to the extent provided in Article 23 provided; however, that any
withdrawn or canceled member which has been assessed a premium surcharge pursuant to Article 14 (b)
(3) (ii) shall be entitled to return of said member's unused surcharge, plus interest accrued thereon, at
such time as the Board of Directors declares that a surplus exists in any insurance fund for which a
premium surcharge was assessed.
(c) Except as provided in (d) below, a member shall pay any premium charges which the
Board of Directors determines are due from the member for losses and costs incurred during the entire
coverage year in which the member was a participant in such program regardless of the date of entry into
such program. Such charges may include any deficiency in a premium previously paid by the member,
as determined by audit under Article 14 (b) (2); any premium surcharge assessed to the member under
Article 14 (b) (3); and any additional amount of premium which the Board determines to be due from the
member upon final disposition of all claims arising from losses under the program during the entire
coverage year in which the member was a participant regardless of date of entry into such program. Any
such premium charges shall be payable by the member in accordance with the Authority's invoice and
payment policy.
(d) Those members which who have withdrawn or been canceled pursuant to Articles 20
and 21 from any program of the Authority during a coverage year shall pay any premium charges which
the Board of Directors determines are due from the members for losses and costs which were incurred
during the county's participation in any program.
ARTICLE 23
TERMINATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS
(a) A three-fourths vote of the total voting membership of the Authority, consisting of member
counties, acting through their boards of supervisors, and the voting Board members from the member
public entities, is required to terminate this Agreement; provided, however,that this Agreement and the
Page 16 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
Authority shall continue to exist after such election for the purpose of disposing of all claims, distributing
all assets, and performing all other functions necessary to conclude the affairs of the Authority.
(b) Upon termination of this Agreement, all assets of the Authority in each insurance
program shall be distributed among those members which participated in that program in proportion to
their cash contributions, including premiums paid and property contributed (at market value when
contributed). The Board of Directors shall determine such distribution within six (6) months after disposal
of the last pending claim or other liability covered by the program.
(c) Following termination of this Agreement, any member which was a participant in an
insurance program of the Authority shall pay any additional amount of premium, determined by the Board
of Directors in accordance with a loss allocation formula, which may be necessary to enable final
disposition of all claims arising from losses under that program during the entire coverage year in which
the member was a participant regardless of the date of entry into such program.
ARTICLE 24
LIABILITY OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS,COMMITTEE MEMBERS
AND LEGAL ADVISORS
The members of the Board of Directors, Officers, committee members and legal advisors to any
Board or committees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and reasonable diligence in the exercise of
their powers and in the performance of their duties pursuant to this Agreement. They shall not be liable
for any mistake of judgment or any other action made,taken or omitted by them in good faith, nor for any
action taken or omitted by any agent, employee or independent contractor selected with reasonable care,
nor for loss incurred through investment of Authority funds, or failure to invest.
No Director, Officer, committee member, or legal advisor to any Board or committee shall be
responsible for any action taken or omitted by any other Director, Officer, committee member, or legal
advisor to any committee. No Director, Officer, committee member or legal advisor to any committee
shall be required to give a bond or other security to guarantee the faithful performance of their duties
pursuant to this Agreement.
The funds of the Authority shall be used to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Authority
and any Director, Officer, committee member or legal advisor to any committee for their actions taken
within the scope of the authority of the Authority. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the Authority to
purchase insurance to provide such coverage as is hereinabove set forth.
Page 17 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28,2006
ARTICLE 25
BYLAWS
The Board may adopt Bylaws consistent with this Agreement which shall provide for the
administration and management of the Authority.
ARTICLE 26
NOTICES
The Authority shall address notices, billings and other communications to a member as directed
by the member. Each member shall provide the Authority with the address to which communications are
to be sent. Members shall address notices and other communications to the Authority to the Chief
Executive Officer of the Authority, at the office address of the Authority as set forth in the Bylaws.
ARTICLE 27
AMENDMENT
A two-thirds vote of the total voting membership of the Authority, consisting of member counties,
acting through their boards of supervisors, and the voting Board members from member public entities, is
required to amend this Agreement.
ARTICLE 28
PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT
No member may assign any right, claim or interest it may have under this Agreement, and no
creditor, assignee or third party beneficiary of any member shall have any right, claim or title to any part,
share, interest,fund, premium or asset of the Authority.
ARTICLE 29
AGREEMENT COMPLETE
This Agreement constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the parties.
Page 18 of 22
JPA,CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28,2006
ARTICLE 30
EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENTS
Any amendment of this Agreement shall become effective upon the date specified by the Board
and upon approval of any Amended Agreement as required in Article 27. Approval of any amendment by
the voting boards of supervisors and public entity board member's must take place no later than 30 days
from the effective date specified by the Board.
ARTICLE 31
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
When a dispute arises between the Authority and a member,the following procedures are to be
followed:
(a) Request for Reconsideration. The member will make a written request to the Authority
for the appropriate Committee to reconsider their position,citing the arguments in favor of the member
and any applicable case law that applies. The member can also,request a personal presentation to that
Committee,if it so desires.
(b) Committee Appeal. The committee responsible for the program or having jurisdiction
over the decision in question will review the matter and reconsider the Authority's position. This
committee appeal process is an opportunity for both sides to discuss and substantiate their positions
based upon legal arguments and the most complete information available. If the member requesting
reconsideration is represented on the committee having jurisdiction, that committee member shall be
deemed to have a conflict and shall be excluded from any vote.
(c) Executive Committee Appeal. If the member is not satisfied with the outcome of the
committee appeal, the matter will be brought to the Executive Committee for reconsideration upon
request of the member. If the member requesting reconsideration is represented on the Executive
Committee,that Executive Committee member shall be deemed to have a conflict and shall be excluded
from any vote.
(d) Arbitration. If the member is not satisfied with the outcome of the Executive Committee
appeal,the next step in the appeal process is arbitration. The arbitration,whether binding or non-binding,
is to be mutually agreed upon by the parties. The matter will be submitted to a mutually agreed arbitrator
or panel of arbitrators for a determination. If Binding Arbitration is selected,then of course the decision of
the arbitrator is final. Both sides agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrator. The cost of arbitration
will be shared equally by the involved member and the Authority.
(e) Litigation. If,after following the dispute resolution procedure paragraphs a-d,either parry
is not satisfied with the outcome of the non-binding arbitration process,either party may consider litigation
as a possible remedy to the dispute.
Page 19 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
ARTICLE 32
FILING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE
The Chief Executive Officer of the Authority shall file a notice of this Agreement with the office of
California Secretary of State within 30 days of its effective date, as required by Government Code Section
6503.5 and within 70 days of its effective date as required by Government Code Section 53051.
Page 20 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned party hereto has executed this Agreement on the date
indicated below.
DATE: MEMBER:
(Print Name of Member)
BY:
(Authorized signature of Member)
Seal:
Page 21 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned party hereto has executed this Agreement on the date
indicated below.
DATE: MEMBER:
(Print Name of Member)
BY:
(Authorized signature of Member)
Seal:
Page 21 of 22
JPA, CSAC-EIA Amended: February 28, 2006
APPENDIX A
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
CREATING THE CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
MEMBER COUNTIES (AS OF MARCH 2005)
ALAMEDA
ALPINE
AMADOR
BUTTE
CALAVERAS
COLUSA
CONTRA COSTA
DEL NORTE
ELDORADO
FRESNO
GLENN
HUMBOLDT
IMPERIAL
INYO
KERN
KINGS
LAKE
LASSEN
MADERA
MARIN
MARIPOSA
MENDOCINO
MERCED
MODOC
MONO
MONTEREY
NAPA
NEVADA
PLACER
PLUMAS
RIVERSIDE
SACRAMENTO
SAN BENITO
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN DIEGO
SAN JOAQUIN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
SANTA BARBARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CRUZ
SHASTA
SIERRA
SISKIYOU
SOLANO
SONOMA
STANISLAUS
SUTTER
TEHAMA
TRINITY
TULARE
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
YOLO
YUBA
Page 22 of 22
Adopted: September 11, 1980
Amended: May 7, 1982
Amended: January 23, 1987
Amended: June 3, 1988
Amended: October 5, 1990
Amended: June 7, 1996
Amended March 3, 2006
BYLAWS
OF THE
CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS
The definitions of terms used in these Bylaws shall be the same as are contained in the
Agreement Creating the Excess Insurance Authority, hereinafter called the Agreement, unless
otherwise expressly provided.
ARTICLE II. OFFICES
The Authority's principal office for the transaction of business is located at 3017 Gold
Canal Drive, Suite 300, Rancho Cordova, California. The Board of Directors may change the
location of the principal office from time to time.
The Board may establish one or more subordinate offices at any place or places where
the Authority is qualified to do business.
ARTICLE 111. MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1. Regular Meetings
(a) Time Held
The Board of Directors shall hold a minimum of three meetings per year.
These meetings should, if at all possible, be scheduled at least one year prior to each meeting.
Unless otherwise changed by a majority vote of the Board of Directors at a regular meeting,
these meetings shall be held at 8:30 a.m. on the first Friday of March, June and October.
Should any of these days fall upon a legal holiday, the meeting of the Board shall be held on
the same day of the following week.
1of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
(b) Business to be Transacted
At the second yearly regular meeting, the Board shall review, modify if
necessary, and adopt the annual operating budget of the Authority.
At the last yearly regular meeting, the Board shall elect officers and Executive
Committee members as required by the Agreement and these Bylaws.
At any meetings, the Board may transact any other business within its powers,
and receive reports of the operations and affairs of the Authority.
(c) Notice
Written notice of each regular meeting of the Board shall be delivered to each
director and/or alternate director at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting. The notice
shall specify:
L The place, date and hour of the meeting.
ii. Those matters which are intended to be presented for action by the
Board.
iii. The general nature of any proposal for action by the Board concerning
a change in the Agreement or these Bylaws, a change in the membership of the Authority, or
any other matter substantially affecting the rights and obligations of the members.
iv. If officers and Executive Committee members are to be elected, the
names of the persons nominated for such positions at the time the notice is sent.
2. Special Meetings
A special meeting of the Board of Directors and/or of the participating members in any
insurance program may be called at any time by the President of the Board, or by a majority of
the members of the Board or such participating members subject to the requirement for 24-
hour written notice to the members, participating members and to requesting representatives of
the media provided in Section 54956 of the California Government Code. The notice of a
special meeting shall specify the time and place of the meeting and the business to be
transacted. No other business shall be considered at the meeting.
3. Annual Meeting of Public Entity Members
(a) The Public Entity members of the Authority shall hold at least one meeting
each year. Members attending shall be reimbursed expenses in accordance with Authority
policy.
(b) The Chief Executive Officer of the Authority shall provide for the keeping of
minutes of annual meetings of the Public Entity members, and shall provide a copy of the
minutes to each member of the Board at the next scheduled meeting.
2of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
(c) The annual meeting of the Public Entity members shall be called, noticed, held
and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 54950 at seq.
4. Place of Meeting
Each regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors or participating members in
any insurance program shall be held at a place within the State of California designated by the
Board of Directors at its preceding meeting, or if no such designation is made, as designated
by the Executive Committee or the President of the Board.
5. Adjourned Meetings
The Board of Directors may adjourn any regular or special meeting to a time and place
specified in the order of adjournment, whether or not a quorum has been established. If a
quorum is not established, no business other than adjournment may be transacted.
A copy of the order for adjournment shall be posted as required by Section 54955 of
the Government Code. No other notice of an adjourned meeting shall be necessary, unless the
adjournment is for a period of 30 days or more, in which case notice of the adjourned meeting
shall be given in the same manner as notice of the original meeting.
ARTICLE IV. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
1. Membership
The eleven member Executive Committee shall consist of: President, Vice-President,
one county CAO, one county Risk Manager, one financially-oriented member (preferably with
investment background) from a member county but not necessarily a member of the Board,
one county supervisor, two members from the public entity Board members, and the balance
shall be elected at large. The immediate Past President shall also be a member of the
Executive Committee, but shall serve in an advisory capacity only. If the Past President is
elected to the Executive Committee for a term immediately succeeding his/her term as
President, then the position of Past President shall remain vacant until filled in accordance with
these Bylaws. The Executive Committee shall appoint the County Counsel representative who
shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee.
If a specific category is not able to be filled, then the Board of Directors will fill from
within its own membership.
Any duly appointed or elected member of the Board may be elected by the Board to
serve as President or Vice-President, provided however, that in no event shall there be more
than two public entity directors on the Executive Committee.
2. Terms of Office
3of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
The terms of office of the nine non-officer members of the Executive Committee shall
be for two (2) years, or as otherwise provided for in the Agreement. The term of office for the
immediate Past President shall be for one (1)year.
3. Removal,Vacancies and Alternates
The Board of Directors may remove any or all non-officer members from the Executive
Committee at any time.
A vacancy in any non-officer position on the Executive Committee, because of death,
resignation, removal, disqualification, or any other cause, shall be filled by election of the
Board. Pending action by the Board, the remaining members of the Executive Committee may
fill a vacancy on an interim basis, except in the case of a vacancy caused by removal, which
may only be filled by the Board.
The altemate director for a director who is a member of the Executive Committee may
attend and participate in a meeting of the Committee as the representative of the member, but
may not vote.
Continued membership of any Executive Committee member who misses more than
50% of the meetings in any calendar year or who misses two consecutive meetings shall be
reviewed by the Executive Committee with any removal recommendations to be made to the
Board of Directors.
4. Meetings
The Executive Committee shall meet on the first Thursday of every month, or on the
call of the President of the Board, at such times and places as are designated by that officer.
The Committee shall also meet on the call of any six of its members, at such time and
place as they may designate.
Written notice of regular meetings shall be in accordance with the provisions of Article
III. (1). (c). Special meetings shall be called and noticed in accordance with the provisions of
Article III. (2).
5. Quorum and Voting Requirements
Seven members of the Executive Committee shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business. All actions of the Committee shall require the affirmative votes of a
majority of the members at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present. .
6. Adjourned Meetings
The Executive Committee may adjourn any meeting to a time and place specified in the
order for adjournment, whether or not a quorum has been established. If a quorum is not
established, no business other than adjournment may be transacted.
4of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
A copy of the order for adjournment shall be posted as required by Section 54955 of
the Government Code. No other notice of an adjourned meeting shall be necessary, unless the
adjournment is for a period of 24 hours or more, in which case notice of the adjourned meeting
shall be delivered to the members who were not present at the time of adjournment.
ARTICLE V. OFFICERS
1. Duties of the President
The President shall preside at and conduct all meetings of the Board and shall chair
the Executive Committee.
2. Duties of Vice President
In the absence of the President, the Vice President shall perform all duties assigned to
the President by the Agreement and by these Bylaws.
3. Terms of Office
The terms of office of the President and Vice-President shall be for one (1)year.
4. Removal and Vacancies
The Board of Directors may remove an officer at any time. A vacancy in an officer
position, because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification, or any other cause, shall be
filled by election of the Board.
ARTICLE VI. COMMITTEES
1. Establishment of Committees
In accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement, by adoption of these Bylaws, the
following committees are hereby established.
(a) Claims Review Committee
The Claims Review Committee shall review all claims arising out of the
Workers' Compensation, Liability I, and Property programs against members which involve or
may involve liability of the Authority. The Claims Review Committee may, subject to monetary
limits established by the Board, settle claims within its monetary limits in accordance with
Article X of these Bylaws. The Committee shall advise the Executive Committee and the Board
as to the nature and extent of claims adjusting and legal defense services necessary to protect
the funds of the Authority, as to settlement of claims above its monetary limits which involve
5of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3,2006
liability of the Authority and such other functions as the Board and/or Executive Committee may
direct. The Executive Committee may appoint County Counsel representatives to serve in an
advisory capacity to the Claims Review Committee.
(b) Underwriting Committee
The Underwriting Committee shall be responsible for approval of applications
by non-members for membership in the Workers' Compensation and Liability programs of the
Authority subject to ratification by the Executive Committee. The Committee shall formulate,
advise and make recommendations to the Executive Committee regarding the allocation of
premiums to members and prospective non-members; advise and make recommendations
regarding the distribution of such premiums; assess the stability of insurers and reinsurers and
advise and make recommendations regarding said insurers and reinsurers and perform such
other functions as the Board and/or Executive Committee may direct.
(c) Property Committee
The Property Committee shall review all matters pertaining to property
insurance, including but not limited to, coverage and claims for the purpose of evaluating the
Authority's property program. The Committee shall advise the Executive Committee and the
Board as to matters affecting the Authority's property insurance program. The Property
Committee shall be responsible for approval of applications by non-members for membership
in the Authority's Property Insurance Program.
(d) Finance Committee
The Finance Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Chief
Executive Officer and Executive Committee. The Committee shall study and recommend
policies, procedures and practices to be implemented regarding various financial matters of the
Authority and may:
L Review budgets
ii. Review financial statements on a quarterly basis
iii. Recommend for approval the external auditor to perform annual audits
iv. Recommend for approval an investment program for trust monies
V. Recommend for approval the accounting and internal control systems
which monitor the safeguarding of the Authority's assets.
vi. Recommend for approval the Treasurer of the Authority
(e) Medical Malpractice Committee
6of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
The Medical Malpractice Committee shall review all matters pertaining to the
Medical Malpractice Program, including but not limited to, coverage and claims,for the purpose
of evaluating the Authority's Medical Malpractice Program. The Medical Malpractice
Committee shall have authority to decide all matters as described in the Memorandum of
Understanding between the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority and Medical Malpractice
members. The Medical Malpractice Committee shall be responsible for approval of applications
by non-members for membership in the Authority's Medical Malpractice Program.
(f) Loss Prevention Committee
The Loss Prevention Committee shall develop, evaluate and review all matters
pertaining to the Authority's loss prevention services. The Committee shall advise and make
recommendations to the Executive Committee or the Board of Directors regarding the
programs, proposed regulatory changes specific to loss prevention and safety, the drug and
alcohol testing consortium and perform such other functions as the Board and/or Executive
Committee may direct.
(g) Employee Benefits Committee
The Employee Benefits Committee shall develop, evaluate and review all
matters pertaining to the Authority's employee benefits programs. The Committee shall advise
and make recommendations to the Executive Committee or the Board of Directors regarding
existing programs and the development and implementation of new employee benefits
programs and perform such other functions as the Board and/or Executive Committee may
direct.
(h) Legislative Committee
The Legislative Committee shall actively propose amending, supporting, or
opposing legislation and regulations for the benefit of the members regarding issues of concern
to public entities. Such legislation, legislative reform, and/or regulation shall be in the areas of
workers' compensation, tort, workplace safety and loss prevention, and other areas of interest
to public entities. The Committee shall advise and make recommendations to the Executive
Committee regarding legislative activities to be sponsored by the Authority and perform such
other functions as the Board and/or Executive Committee may direct.
2. Committees Created by Memorandums of Understanding
The Board of Directors may, from time to time, approve development of insurance
programs through Memorandums of Understanding (MOU). Those programs may create
committees through the MOU to act for and on behalf of such programs. Any committee so
created, except as otherwise provided in any applicable MOU, shall be established and act in
accordance with the provisions of Article 12 and these Bylaws.
7of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
3. Appointment of Members
By adoption of these Bylaws, the Board of Directors delegates to the Executive
Committee the appointment of the members of the Claims Review, Underwriting, Property,
Finance, Medical Malpractice, Loss Prevention and Employee Benefits Committees, such
appointment to be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Article 12 of the Agreement.
4. Committee Meetings
(a) Committees shall meet at regularly scheduled times and places or upon the
call of their chairs. Written notice of regular meetings shall be in accordance with the
provisions of Article III. (1). (c). Special meetings shall be called and noticed in accordance
with the provisions of Article III. (2).
A majority of the members of the respective Committees shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business. All actions of the Committees shall require the
affirmative votes of a majority of the members at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is
present.
ARTICLE VII. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
1. Adoption of Resolutions
As provided in Article 8 of the Agreement, the Board of Directors may adopt such
resolutions as are deemed necessary in the exercise of its power and duties, including the
delegation of certain powers and duties to the Executive Committee. Any resolutions so
adopted by the Board are by this reference incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
2. Adoption of other Policies and Procedures
As also provided in Article 8 of the Agreement, the Board of Directors is vested with
authority to exercise all powers and conduct all business of the Authority. In furtherance of that
authority, the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee shall develop and implement
such policies and procedures, not otherwise prohibited by the Agreement or law, as they from
time to time deem necessary to aid and assist in the conduct of the business of the Authority.
Any such policies and procedures as adopted are by this reference incorporated herein as
though fully set forth.
ARTICLE VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
8of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
1. Execution of Contracts
The Board of Directors or the Executive Committee may authorize any officer, staff
member, or agent of the Authority to execute any contract in the name of and on behalf of the
Authority, and such authorization may be general or specific in nature. The Chief Executive
Officer, or his or her designee, may enter into such contracts and authorize such payments as
are approved in the Authority's budget, renew any existing contract or authorize any payment
which does not exceed $10,000.00. Except as otherwise provided, no officer, staff member or
agency shall have any power to bind the Authority by contract.
2. Authorization of Payments
All invoices, billings, and claims of members for payment of losses under an excess
insurance program shall be approved and signed by the following before payment by the
Treasurer:
(a) President of the Board or,
(b) The Vice President of the Board or,
(c) The Chief Executive Officer or his or her designee.
3. Rules of Procedure for Meetings
All meetings of the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and other committees or
bodies of the Authority shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order,
provided that in the event of a conflict, such rules shall be superseded by the Agreement, these
Bylaws, and California law.
ARTICLE IX. FISCAL YEAR
The fiscal year of the Authority shall be from July 1 to June 30.
ARTICLE X.ADMINISTRATION AND NOTICE OF CLAIMS
A. Administration of Claims
1. In accordance with Article 18 of the Agreement, each member shall be
responsible for the investigation, settlement or defense, and appeal of any claim made, suit
brought, or proceeding instituted against the member arising out of a loss covered by an
insurance program of the Authority of which the member is a participant.
2. The Authority may develop standards for the administration of claims for
designated insurance programs of the Authority. Any standards for the administration of claims
9of12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
which have been developed for any designated program, or which otherwise may be
developed, are by this reference incorporated herein as though fully set forth.
B. Notice of Claims
If a member is a participant in the Workers' Compensation, Liability I and/or Liability II
programs of the Authority, the member shall give the Authority timely written notice in
accordance with the adopted reporting requirements established for each such program. Such
reporting requirements, as adopted or as amended, are by this reference incorporated herein
as though fully set forth.
ARTICLE XI. CLAIMS SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY
In accordance with Article 8 paragraph 0) of the Agreement, by adoption of these
Bylaws,the following claims settlement authority is established.
(a) The Board of Directors hereby delegates to the Executive Committee full
settlement authority for the full limits of coverage for any claim involving coverage under any
established program of the Authority.
(b) The first $5,000,000 of settlement authority involving liability under the
Workers' Compensation and Excess Liability Programs, and full settlement authority for liability
under the Property Insurance Program, is hereby delegated to the Claims Review Committee.
(c) The Executive Committee hereby delegates all of its settlement authority up to
the full limit of coverage for liability involving coverage under the Medical Malpractice Program
to the Medical Malpractice Committee.
ARTICLE XII. TREASURER AND AUDITOR
1. Treasurer
The duties of the Treasurer are set forth in Article 16 of the Agreement. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 6505.6 and in accordance with Article 13(a)(2) of the Agreement,
the Board appoints the Chief Executive Officer to the position of Treasurer, who shall comply
with the provisions of Government Code Section 6505.5(a-d).
2. Auditor
The Auditor shall draw warrants to pay demands against the Authority when approved
by the Treasurer. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.6 and in accordance with
Article 13(a)(3) of the Agreement, the Board appoints the Chief Financial Officer to the position
of Auditor,who shall comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 6505.5(a-d).
10 of 12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
ARTICLE XIII. PUBLIC ENTITY BOARD MEMBERS
1. Election
In accordance with Article 7(b-c), the Public Entity members shall elect seven (7)voting
directors and three (3) alternate directors to the Board of Directors. The election shall be
conducted by mail in ballot under the direction of the Executive Committee. The Executive
Committee shall adopt rules and procedures for the conduct of the elections, which shall
include, but not be limited to, a nominating committee which shall be responsible for
determining a slate of candidates. Election of Board members shall be by a majority vote of
those responding. In order for the election to be valid, a response rate of at least one-third of
the public entity membership is required. Should there be a tie vote for the election of any
Board member, the winner will be determined in accordance with the adopted rules and
procedures for the conduct of elections. Unless otherwise approved by the Executive
Committee, the names of nominated candidates shall be mailed to all members no later than
August 18' of each year. Ballots shall be returned no later than September 181. Elected Board
members shall take office on October la1.
2. Composition and Terms
The ten directors shall be those that receive the highest votes from the participating
public entity members, with the top seven highest vote totals designated as the director
members and the remaining three with the highest vote totals designated as alternate
directors. Three of the director seats shall consist of one from a city member, one from a
schools member, one from a special district member and the remaining four seats shall be
elected at large. The terms of the seven director positions shall be staggered such that
approximately half of the directors'terms will expire each year. Terms of office for the directors
shall generally be two-year terms, provided however, that some one-year terms will be
established initially and may be established from time to time in order to establish and maintain
the appropriate stagger. Alternate members will be elected for one year terms and will be
permitted to vote only if the required number of director members are absent. Should the
number of alternate votes authorized due to director absences be less than the number of
alternate members at any meeting, the alternates shall decide which alternate members shall
be entitled to vote, and if they cannot agree, the President of the Board will determine which of
the alternate directors may vote in a director's absence. Alternate directors who attend Board
meetings will be entitled to expense reimbursement as if they were a director regardless of
whether or not they are in a voting capacity.
ARTICLE XIV.AMENDMENTS
11 of 12
Bylaws Amended: March 3, 2006
These Bylaws may be amended at any time by a majority vote of the Board of
Directors. Following adoption of amendments, the Chief Executive Officer shall prepare and
distribute a revision of the Bylaws to all members.
CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
I, the undersigned, certify that I am presently the Chief Executive Officer of the CSAC
Excess Insurance Authority and that the above Bylaws, consisting of ten pages, are amended
Bylaws of the Authority, as adopted at a meeting of the Board of Directors held on March 3,
2006.
Date: March 3, 2006
Executed at Rancho Cordova, California
MICHAEL FLEMING
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
12 of 12
L T 13
Adopted: March 5, 1993
Amended: October 4, 1996
Amended: October 6, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by and between the CSAC Excess
Insurance Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") and the participating
members who are signatories to this Memorandum.
1 . Joint Powers Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, all terms used
herein shall be as defined in Article 1 of the Joint Powers Agreement Creating the CSAC
Excess Insurance Authority (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement"), and all other
provisions of the Agreement not in conflict with this Memorandum shall be applicable.
2. Annual Premium. The participating members, in accordance with the provisions
of Article 14(b)(2) of the Agreement, shall be assessed an annual premium for the
purpose of funding the Excess Workers' Compensation Program (hereinafter referred to
as the "Program"). Annual premiums shall include expected losses for the policy period,
including incurred but not reported losses (IBNR), as well as a margin for contingencies
based upon a confidence level as determined by the Board of Directors of the Authority
(hereinafter Board), and adjustments, if any, for a surplus or deficit from all program policy
periods. In addition, the premium shall include program reinsurance costs and program
administrative costs, plus the Authority's general expense allocated to the Program by the
Board for the next policy period.
3. Cost Allocation. Each participating member's share of annual premium shall be
determined pursuant to a cost allocation plan as described in Article 14(b)(2) of the
Agreement. The Board approved cost allocation plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A and
may be amended from time to time by an affirmative vote of the majority of the Board
representing the members participating in the Program.
4. Dividends and Assessments. The Program shall be funded in accordance with
paragraph 2 above. In general, the annual premium, as determined by the Board, will be
established at a level which will provide adequate overall funding without the need for
adjustments to past policy period(s) in the form of dividends and assessments. However,
should the Program for any reason not be adequately funded, except as otherwise
provided herein, pro-rata assessments to the participating members may be utilized to
ensure the approved funding level for those policy periods individually or for a block of
Page 1 of 4
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority Amended:October 6,2006
Excess Workers'Compensation Program MOU
policy periods, in accordance with the provisions of Article 14(b)(3) of the Agreement.
Pro-rata dividends will be declared as provided herein. Dividends may also be declared
as deemed appropriate by the Board.
5. Closure of Policy Periods. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Memorandum,the following provisions are applicable:
(a) Upon reaching ten(10)years of maturity after the end of a program period,
that period shall be "closed" and there shall be no further dividends
declared or assessments made with respect to those program periods
except as set forth in paragraphs 6(a)and 6(b),below;
(b) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (a) above, the Board may take action to
leave a policy period 'open" even though it may otherwise qualify for
closure. In addition, the last ten (10) policy periods shall always remain
"open"unless the Board takes specific action to declare any of the last ten
(10)policy periods closed.
(c) Dividends and assessments(other than as outlined in paragraphs 6(a)and
6(b),below)shall be administered to the participating members based upon
the proportion of premiums paid to the Program in"open"periods only. For
purposes of administering dividends and assessments pursuant to this sub-
paragraph,all'open"policy periods shall be considered as one block.
6. Declaration of Dividends. Dividends shall be payable from the Program to a
participating member in accordance with its proportionate funding to the Program during
the applicable program period as follows:
(a) A dividend shall be declared at the time a program period is closed on all
amounts over the 90%confidence level;
(b) A dividend shall be declared at the time a program period is closed on all
amounts which represent premium surcharge amounts assessed pursuant
to Article 14(b)(3) of the Agreement where the funding exceeds the 80%
confidence level.
7. Memorandum of Coverage. A Memorandum of Coverage will be issued by the
Authority evidencing membership in the Program and setting forth terms and conditions of
coverage.
Page 2 of 4
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority Amended:October 6,2006
Excess Workers'Compensation Program MOU
8. Claims Administration. Each participating member is required to comply with
the Authority's Underwriting and Claims Administration Standards (including Addendum
A - W.C. Claims Administration Guidelines) as amended from time to time, and which
are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein.
9. Late Payments. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary regarding
late payment of invoices or cancellation from a Program, at the discretion of the Executive
Committee, any member that fails to pay an invoice when due may be given a ten (10)
day written notice of cancellation.
10. Disputes. Any question or dispute with respect to the rights and obligations of the
parties to this Memorandum regarding coverage shall be determined in accordance with
the Joint Powers Agreement Article 31, Dispute Resolution.
11. Amendment. This Memorandum may be amended by two-thirds of the CSAC
Excess Insurance Authority's Board of Directors and signature on the Memorandum by
the member's designated representative who shall have authority to execute this
Memorandum. Should a member of the Program fail to execute any amendment to this
Memorandum within the time provided by the Board, the member will be deemed to have
withdrawn as of the end of the policy period.
12. Complete Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Memorandum
constitutes the full and complete agreement of the members.
13. Severability. Should any provision of this Memorandum be judicially determined
to be void or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect any remaining provision.
14. Effective Date. This Memorandum shall become effective on the effective date
of coverage for the member and upon approval by the Board of any amendment,
whichever is later.
15. Execution in Counterparts. This Memorandum may be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, all of which shall constitute but one and
the same instrument.
Page 3 of 4
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority Amended:October 6,2006
Excess Workers'Compensation Program MOU
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Memorandum as of
the date set forth below.
Dated:
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
Dated:
Member Entity:
Page 4 of 4
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority Amended:October 6,2006
Excess Workers'Compensation Program MOU
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Memorandum as of
the date set forth below.
Dated:
CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
Dated:
Member Entity:
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM
COST ALLOCATION PLAN
As delegated by the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee will determine
the specific allocation of all costs among the members subject to the following
parameters:
Actuarial Analysis
An annual actuarial analysis will be performed using loss data and payroll
collected from the members. The analysis will determine the necessary funding
rates at various confidence levels and using various discount assumptions.
Different rates may be developed for different groups or classes of business as is
deemed necessary or appropriate by the Executive Committee. At the March
Board meeting, the Board of Directors will select the funding level rates and
discount factors to be used based upon the actuarial analysis and
recommendations from the actuary, the Underwriting Committee and the
Executive Committee.
Pool Contributions
The total needed deposit pool contribution will be determined by multiplying the
rates described above by the payroll for all of the members participating in the
pool. Estimated payroll for the year being funded will be used. The Executive
Committee may break the pool into different layers for allocation purposes, and
may apply a different loss experience modification for each layer as is deemed
appropriate based on loss frequency. In general, the lower layers will be subject
to greater experience modification and the higher layers will be subject to lower
experience modification or no experience modification. Within the layers, the
larger members will be subject to greater experience modification than the
smaller members. After the experience modification has been applied for each
layer, there will be a pro-rata adjustment back to the total needed deposit pool
contribution. This amount will be collected from the members at the beginning of
the policy period. The actual payroll for the period will be determined after the
completion of the policy period and an adjustment to each member's pool
contribution will be made to account for the difference between the estimated and
actual payroll. Additional contributions will be collected or return contributions
will be refunded as appropriate.
Reinsurance Premiums
The reinsurance premium will be determined through negotiations with the
reinsurer(s) and approved by the Board upon recommendation of the
EWC Program MOU
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 2
Underwriting and Executive Committees. This premium will then be allocated
among the members based upon their estimated payroll. Adjustments will be
made based on the actual payroll upon completion of the policy period in the
same manner as described in the Pool Contribution section above.
EIA Administration Fees
The total EIA Administration Fees will be determined through the annual
budgeting process with an appropriate amount allocated to the Excess Workers'
Compensation Program. These fees will be allocated among the members as
determined by the Executive Committee. In general, the basis for this allocation
will be each member's percentage of the total pool contributions and reinsurance
premium.
Deviation From the Standard
The Executive Committee may establish policies to deviate from the standard
allocation methodology selected for each year on a case-by-case basis, if
necessary. They may also elect to further delegate some or all of the decision-
making authority described herein to the Underwriting Committee.
EXHIBIT B
Adopted: December 6, 1985
Amended: January 23, 1987
Amended: October 6, 1995
Amended: October 1 , 1999
Amended: October 3, 2003
Amended: October 1 , 2004
CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY
UNDERWRITING AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION STANDARDS
I. GENERAL
A. Each Member shall appoint an official or employee of the Member to be
responsible for the risk management function and to serve as a liaison
between the Member and the Authority for all matters relating to risk
management.
B. Each Member shall maintain a loss prevention program and shall consider
and act upon all recommendations of the Authority concerning the reduction
of unsafe conditions.
C. Each Member shall maintain records of claims in each category of
insurance covered by a program of the Authority and shall provide copies of
such records to the Authority as directed by the Executive, Underwriting or
Claims Review Committees.
Such records shall provide the following information by fiscal year: number
of claims (open and closed); amounts paid, amounts reserved and total
incurred. Allocated expenses shall be included. If losses are capped, the
excess amount shall be indicated.
II. EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM
A. The Member shall be responsible for the investigation, settlement, defense
and appeal of any claim made, suit brought or proceeding instituted against
the Member.
1 . The Member shall use only qualified personnel to administer its
workers' compensation claims. At least one person in the claims
office (whether in-house or outside administrator) shall be certified by
the State of California as a qualified administrator of self -insured
workers' compensation plans.
2. Qualified defense counsel experienced in workers' compensation
law and practice shall handle litigated claims. Members are
Page 1 of 5
encouraged to utilize attorneys who have the designation "Certified
Workers'Compensation Specialist,the State Bar of California,Board
of Legal Specialization".
3. The Member shall use the Authority's Workers' Compensation
Claims Administration Guidelines(Addendum A)and shall advise its
claims administrator that these guidelines are utilized in the
Authority's workers'compensation claims audits.
B. The Member shall provide the Authority written notice of any potential
excess workers'compensation claims in accordance with the requirements
of the Authority's bylaws. Updates on such claims shall be provided as
requested by the Authority and/or the Authority's excess carrier.
C. A claims administration audit utilizing the Authority's Workers'
Compensation Claims Administration Guidelines (Addendum A) shall be
performed once every two(2)years. In addition,an audit will be performed
within twelve(12)months of any of the following events:
1. There is an unusual fluctuation in the Member's claim experience or
number of large claims or
2. There is a change of workers' compensation claims administration
firms or
3. The Member is a new member of the Excess Insurance Authority.
The claims audit shall be performed by a firm selected by the Authority.
Recommendations made in the claims audit shall be addressed by the
Member and a written response outlining a program for corrective action
shall be provided to the Authority within sixty (60) days of receipt of the
audit.
D. The Member shall obtain an actuarial study performed by a Fellow of the
Casualty Actuarial Society (FCAS) at least once every three (3) years.
Based upon the actuarial recommendations, the Member should maintain
reserves and make funding contributions equal to or exceeding the present
value of expected losses and a reasonable margin for contingencies.
III. EXCESS LIABILITY PROGRAMS
A. The Member shall be responsible for the investigation, settlement, defense
and appeal of any claim made,suit brought or proceeding instituted against
the Member.
1. The Member shall use only qualified personnel to administer its
liability claims.
Page 2 of 5
2. Qualified defense counsel experienced in tort liability law shall
handle litigated claims. Members are encouraged to utilize defense
counsel experienced in the subject at issue in the litigation.
3. The Member shall use the Liability Claims Administration Guidelines
(Addendum B) and shall advise its claims administrator that these
guidelines be utilized in the Authority's liability claims audits.
B. The Member shall provide the Authority written notice of any potential
excess liability claim in accordance with the requirements of the Authority's
Bylaws. Updates on such claims shall be provided as requested by the
Authority and/or the Authority's excess carrier.
C. A claims administration audit utilizing the Authority's Liability Claims
Administration Guidelines (Addendum B) shall be performed once every
three (3) years. In addition, an audit will be performed within twelve (12)
months of any of the following events:
1. There is an unusual fluctuation in the Member's claims experience or
number of large claims or
2. There is a change of liability claims administration firms or
3. The Member is a new member of the Excess Insurance Authority.
The claims audit shall be performed by a firm selected by the Authority.
Recommendations made in the claims audit shall be addressed by the
Member and a written response outlining a program for corrective action
shall be provided to the Authority within sixty (60) days of receipt of the
audit.
D. The Member shall obtain an actuarial study performed by a Fellow of the
Casualty Actuarial Society (FCAS) at least once every three (3) years.
Based upon the actuarial recommendations, the Member should maintain
reserves and make funding contributions equal to or exceeding the present
value of expected losses and a reasonable margin for contingencies.
IV. PROPERTY PROGRAMS
A. The Member shall maintain appropriate records including a complete list of
insured locations and schedule of values pertaining to all real property.
Copies of such records shall be provided to the Authority or its brokers as
requested by the Executive or Property Committees.
B. Each Member shall perform a real property replacement valuation for all
locations over one million dollars. Valuations shall be equivalent to the
Marshall Swift system and shall be performed at least once every five (5)
Page 3 of 5
years. New members shall have an appraisal or valuation performed within
one year from entry into the Program.
V. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE PROGRAM
A. The Member, if a member of Medical Malpractice Program I (hereinafter
Program 1), or Mid Mal Program; or the third party administrator for Medical
Malpractice Program II (hereinafter Program 11); shall be responsible for the
investigation, settlement, defense and appeal of any claim made, suit
brought or proceeding instituted against the Member.
1. The Member (Program I and Mid Mal Program) or third party
administrator (Program 11) shall use only qualified personnel to
administer its health facility claims.
2. Qualified defense counsel experienced in health facility law shall
handle litigated claims.
3. The Member (Program I and Mid Mal Program) or third party
administrator (Program ll) shall use the "Claims Reporting And
Handling Guidelines" in the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
Medical Malpractice Excess Insurance Program Operating And
Guidelines Manual (hereinafter OPERATING AND GUIDELINES
MANUAL), and shall advise its claims administrator that these claims
handling guidelines are utilized in the Authority's medical malpractice
claims audits.
B. The Member (Program I and Mid Mal Program) or third party administrator
(Program ll) shall provide the Authority and its excess carrier written notice
of any potential excess claim or "major incident" in accordance with the
requirements of the Authority and of the excess carrier as stated in the
OPERATING AND GUIDELINES MANUAL. Updates on such claims or
major incidents shall be provided as requested by the Authority and/or the
Authority's excess carrier.
C. A claims administration audit utilizing the Authority's Claims Reporting and
Handing Guidelines in the OPERATING AND GUIDELINES MANUAL shall
be performed once every three (3) years. In addition, an audit will be
performed within twelve (12) months of any of the following events:
1. There is an unusual fluctuation in the Member's claims experience or
number of large claims or
2. There is a change of health facility claims administration firms or
3. The Member is a new member of the Excess Insurance Authority or
Page 4 of 5
4. The Medical Malpractice Committee requests an audit.
The claims audit shall be performed by a firm selected by the Authority.
Recommendations made in the claims audit shall be addressed by the
Member and a written response outlining a program for corrective action
shall be provided to the Authority within sixty (60) days of receipt of the
audit.
D. If a Member of Program I or the Mid Mal Program, the Member shall obtain
an actuarial study performed by a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society
(FCAS) at least once every three (3) years. Based upon the actuarial
recommendations, the Member should maintain reserves and make funding
contributions equal to or exceeding the present value of expected losses
and a reasonable margin for contingencies.
E. The Member shall have an effective risk management program in
accordance with the "Risk Management Guidelines" as states in the
OPERATING AND GUIDELINES MANUAL.
VI. SANCTIONS
A. The Authority shall provide the Member written notification of the Member's
failure to meet any of the above-mentioned standards or of other concerns,
which affect or could affect the Authority.
B. The Member shall provide a written response outlining a program for
corrective action within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Authority's
notification.
C. After approval by the Executive Committee of the Member's corrective
program, the Member shall implement the approved program within ninety
(90) days. The Member may request an additional sixty (60) days from the
Executive Committee. Further requests for extensions shall be referred to
the Board of Directors.
D. Failure to comply with subsections B or C may result in cancellation of the
Member from the affected Authority insurance program in accordance with
the provisions in the Joint Powers Agreement.
E. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, any Member may be canceled
pursuant to the provision of the Joint Powers Agreement.
Page 5 of 5
ADDENDUM TO EXHIBIT B
Adopted: December 6, 1985
Amended: March 4, 1988
Amended: October 7, 1988
Amended: October 6, 1995
A0hk%4k Amended: October 1 , 1999
Amended: June 6, 2003
ADDENDUM A
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES
The following Guidelines have been adopted by the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority in
accordance with Article 18(b) of the March 1993 Amended Joint Powers Agreement
Creating the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority.
I. CASELOAD
A. On or after 07/01 /2004, the claims examiner assigned to the Member shall
handle a caseload not to exceed 175 indemnity claims. This caseload will
include future medical cases with every 4 future medical cases counted as 1
indemnity case.
B. Supervisory personnel should not handle a caseload, although they may
handle specific issues.
II. CASE REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION
A. Documentation should reflect any significant developments in the file and
include a plan of action. The examiner should review the file every 45 days.
The supervisor shall monitor any significant activity on the file every 120 days.
An accomplishment level of 95% shall be considered acceptable.
III. COMPENSABILITY
A. The initial compensability determination (accept claim, deny claim or delay
acceptance pending the results of additional investigation) and the reasons for
such a determination will be made and documented in the file within fourteen
(14) calendar days of the filing of the claim with the employer. An
accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered acceptable.
B. Delay of benefit letters shall be mailed in compliance with Department of
Industrial Relations' guidelines. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be
considered acceptable.
C. The final compensability determination shall be made by the claims examiner
or supervisor within 90 days of employer receipt of the claim form. An
accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered acceptable.
Page 1 of 6
IV. THREE POINT CONTACT
A. The claims examiner shall conduct the three(3)point contact with the injured
worker,employer representative and treating physician within five(5)working
days of receipt of the notice of the claim. An accomplishment level of 95%
shall be considered acceptable.
V. INITIAL INDEMNITY PAYMENT
A. The initial indemnity payment will be issued and mailed to the injured
employee within fourteen(14)days of the first day of disability.This shall not
apply with salary continuation. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be
considered acceptable.
B. The properly completed DWC Benefit Notice shall be mailed to the employee
within fourteen (14) days. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be
considered acceptable.
C. Late payments due directly to the injured worker must include the self
imposed 10% penalty in accordance with Labor Code Section 4650. An
accomplishment level of 100%shall be considered acceptable.
VI. SUBSEQUENT INDEMNITY PAYMENTS
A. All indemnity payments subsequent to the first payment will be verified,except
for obvious long-term disability, and issued in compliance with Labor Code
Section 4651. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered
acceptable.
B. Late payments must include the self-imposed 10%penalty in accordance with
Labor Code Section 4650. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be
considered acceptable.
VII. FINAL INDEMNITY PAYMENTS
A. All final payments will be issued with the appropriate DWC benefit notices.
VIII. TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE
A. Transportation reimbursement will be mailed within fifteen (15) working days
of the receipt of the claim for reimbursement. Advance travel expense
payments will be mailed to the injured employee ten (10) days prior to the
anticipated date of travel. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be
considered acceptable.
IX. MEDICAL PAYMENTS
A. Medical treatment billings (physician, pharmacy, hospital, physiotherapist,
etc.) will be matched to the file, reviewed for correctness, approved for
Page 2 of 6
payment and paid within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt. An
accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered acceptable.
B. The medical provider must be notified in writing within 30 working days if a
medical bill is contested, denied or incomplete.
C. A bill review process should be utilized wherever possible. There should be
participation in a PPO whenever possible.
X. PHYSICIAN CONTACT
A. In cases involving loss of time from work, the attending physician's office will
be contacted within five (5) working days of notice of claim. Such contact will
continue as needed during the continuation of temporary disability to assure
that treatment is related to a compensable injury or illness.
XI. LITIGATED CASES
The claims administrator and Member shall establish written guidelines for the
handling of litigated cases. The guidelines should, at a minimum, include the
points below, which may be adopted and incorporated by reference as "the
guidelines".
A. Defense of Litigated Claims
1. The claims administrator shall promptly initiate investigation of issues
identified as material to potential litigation. The Member shall be alerted
to the need for in-house investigation, or the need for a contract
investigator who is acceptable to the Member. The Member shall be
kept informed on the scope and results of investigations.
2. The claims administrator shall, in consultation with the Member, assign
defense counsel from a list approved by the Member. (Note: To comply
with Government Code Section 25203, the Member's list should be
approved by a two-thirds vote of the board of supervisors.)
3. Settlement proposals directed to the Member shall be forwarded by the
claims administrator or defense counsel in a concise and clear written
form with a reasoned recommendation. Settlement proposals shall be
presented to the Member as directed so as to insure receipt in sufficient
time to process the proposal.
4. Knowledgeable Member personnel shall be involved in the preparation
for medical examinations and trial, when appropriate or deemed
necessary by the Member so that all material evidence and witnesses
are utilized to obtain a favorable result for the defense.
5. The claims administrator shall comply with any reporting requirement of
the Member.
Page 3 of 6
B. Subrogation
1. In all cases where a third party (other than a Member employee or
agent) is responsible for the injury to the employee, the third party shall
be contacted within 10 days with notification of the Member's right to
subrogation and the recovery of certain claim expenses. If the third
party is a governmental entity, a claim shall be filed with the governing
board (or State Board of Control as to State entities) within 6 months of
the injury or notice of the injury.
2. Periodic contact shall be made with the responsible party and/or insurer
to provide notification of the amount of the estimated recovery to which
the Member will be entitled.
3. The file will be monitored to determine the need to file a complaint in civil
court in order to preserve the statute of limitations.
4. If the injured worker brings a civil action against the party responsible for
the injury, the claims administrator shall consult with the Member about
the value of the subrogation claim and other considerations. Upon
Member authorization, subrogation counsel shall be assigned to file a
Lien or a Complaint in Intervention in the civil action.
5. Whenever practical, the claims administrator will aggressively pursue
recovery in any subrogation claim. They should attempt to maximize the
recovery for benefits paid, and assert a credit against the injured
workers' net recovery for future benefit payments.
XII. VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
A. Adjusting personnel will notify the injured worker of their potential rights to
rehabilitation benefits per Labor Code Section 4636 after 90 days of
aggregate temporary disability and get the treating doctor to determine if
injured worker is a Qualified Injured Worker.
B. Determination of the Qualified Injured Worker/Non-Qualified Injured Worker
status shall be made in accordance with Labor Code Section 4637. The
adjusting personnel shall advise the injured worker of his/her rehabilitation
benefits in accordance with the Rules of the Division of Workers'
Compensation, within ten (10) days of knowledge of medical eligibility. The
claims administrator will:
1. Notify the employer of the employee's permanent work restrictions so
that the employer can determine the availability of permanent modified
or alternate work.
2. Make timely referral to a Qualified Rehabilitation Representative in
accordance with Labor Code Section 4637
Page 4 of 6
3. Control rehabilitation costs.
4. Attempt to secure the prompt conclusion of vocational rehabilitation
benefits, and settle rehabilitation where appropriate.
XIII. FISCAL HANDLING
A. Active indemnity cases will be balanced with appropriate file documentation
on a semi-annual basis to verify that statutory benefits are paid, and medical,
legal and vocational rehabilitation charges are appropriate. An
accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered acceptable.
XIV. EXCESS INSURANCE
A. Potential Workers' Compensation excess cases shall be reported in
accordance with the reporting criteria established by The Bylaws of the CSAC
Excess Insurance Authority.
All cases which meet the established reporting criteria are to be reported
within five (5) working days of the day on which it is known the criterion is met.
An accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered acceptable.
XV. AWARD PAYMENT
A. Payments on undisputed Awards, Commutations, or Compromise and
Releases will be issued within ten (10) days following receipt of the
appropriate document. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered
acceptable.
XVI. PENALTIES
A. If the Member utilizes a third party administrator, the Member will be advised
of the assessment of any penalty for delayed payment and the reason thereof,
and the administrators plans for payment of such penalty within five (5) days
of assessment. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered
acceptable.
B. If the Member utilizes a third party administrator, the Member, in their contract
with the administrator, shall specify who is responsible for specific penalties.
XVII. RESERVES
A. Using the information available at the time, an initial reserve will be
established at the most probable case value. Claim reserves shall be
reviewed on a regular basis and updated as case values increase or
decrease.
Page 5 of 6
XVIII. RESOLUTION OF CLAIM
A. Within ten (10) days of receiving medical information indicating that a claim be
finalized, the claims examiner shall take appropriate action to finalize the
claim. An accomplishment level of 95% shall be considered acceptable.
XIX. CASE CLOSURE
A. All indemnity cases will be closed within sixty (60) days of the final financial
transaction or final correspondence to the injured worker as required by law.
An accomplishment level of 95% shall be considered acceptable.
B. All medical only cases will be closed or transferred to an indemnity status by
the ninetieth (90) day following incurral. An accomplishment level of 95%
shall be considered acceptable.
XX. TELEPHONE INQUIRIES
A. Return calls will be made within one working day of the original telephone
inquiry. An accomplishment level of 90% shall be considered acceptable.
XXI. INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
A. All correspondence received will have the date of receipt clearly stamped on
the front side. An accomplishment level of 100% shall be considered
acceptable.
XXII. RETURN CORRESPONDENCE
A. All correspondence requiring a written answer will have such answer
completed and transmitted within five (5)working days of receipt. An
accomplishment level of 95% is acceptable.
XXIII. SETTLEMENTS
A. The third party administrator shall obtain the Member's authorization on all
settlements or stipulations in excess of the settlement authority provided in
any provision of the individual contract between the Member and the claims
administrator.
B. No agreement shall be authorized involving liability, or potential liability, of the
Authority without the advance written consent of the Authority.
Page 6 of 6
$555,875.36
Ck. No. 23103 - 23263
RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
Payroll for December 2006
$3,011,045.36
Ck. No. 167278 - 167622
INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS
PERS HEALTH
PERS RETIREMENT
FEDERAL 941 TAX
STATE DISABILITY TAX
STATE INCOME TAX
PERS & ICMA DEFERRED COMP
SECTION 125 DEDUCTION
anc
C
a
an
CD
CD 3
s
S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS
CITY OF BURLINGAME
01-04-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
FUND RECAP - 06-07
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 62,307.94
PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 15,781.90
CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 52,877.22
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 4,867.00
WATER FUND 526 243.71
SEWER FUND 527 174.49
SOLID WASTE FUND 528 2,175.00
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 42.85
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 5,303.45
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 15,822.11
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 150.34
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 288.96
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 293.91
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 43.47
BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 1,752.64
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 666.50
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 8162,791.49 J V 1 11
100ago%4
So
1 bS�> 2301, 7
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 7
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 23193 THROUGH 23263 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF 8162,791.49, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER
OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
... ........... ...................... .../.../-..
FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
........... ......................... .../.../...
COUNCIL DATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
01/04/07
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23260 SALESID LANGI 27189 800.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 800.00 101 22520
23261 R&L DIESEL 27190 5,865.15
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 5,865.15 201 65200 203
23262 KEITH WALTERS 27191 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
23263 BRETT BOTTORINI 27192 3,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546
TOTAL 8162,791.49
O�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
01/04/07
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23245 IMPACT SCIENCES 26099 1 ,973.00
DEPOSIT REFUND 1 ,973.00 101 22590
23246 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26161 42.85
COMMUNICATIONS 42.85 530 65400 160
23247 GOLDFARB LIPMAN ATTORNEYS 26325 1 ,234 . 00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1 ,234. 00 101 64350 210
23248 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26373 73 .09
COMMUNICATIONS 73 .09 101 65100 160
23249 WILKINSON CONSTRUCTION 26485 3,000 . 00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 3, 000 . 00 101 22520
23250 ARUP 26735 21875 .00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,875 .00 320 80790 210
23251 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 502.97
OFFICE EXPENSE 70.71 101 65300 110
MISC . SUPPLIES 8.40 101 66210 120
MISC . SUPPLIES 334 . 22 101 65300 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 37.90 101 66210 120
OFFICE EXPENSE 51 .74 619 64460 110
23252 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26896 106.84
COMMUNICATIONS 106.84 201 65200 160
23253 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26897 716.34
COMMUNICATIONS 716.34 201 65200 160
23254 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26898 33 .43
OFFICE EXPENSE 33 .43 101 64150 110
23255 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26899 66.87
COMMUNICATIONS 66.87 101 64150 160
23256 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26901 138.40
COMMUNICATIONS 138.40 101 65300 160
23257 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26910 357.56
COMMUNICATIONS 357.56 101 66100 160
23258 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27019 666.50
UTILITY EXPENSE 666.50 896 20281
23259 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 85 .50
TRAINING EXPENSE 85 .50 101 64420 262
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
01/04/07
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23230 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 160.00
MISCELLANEOUS 160.00 130 20024
23231 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 640.00
MISCELLANEOUS 640.00 130 20024
23232 C.L.E.A. 24523 624.00
MISCELLANEOUS 624.00 130 20026
23233 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 420.00
UNION DUES 420.00 130 21091
23234 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60
MISCELLANEOUS 320.60 130 21092
23235 SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY MANAGERS A 24699 100.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 100.00 101 64150 240
23236 AETNA 24760 3,719.16
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,356.16 130 20022
MISCELLANEOUS 363.00 130 20028
23237 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 24796 5,365.14
MISCELLANEOUS 1,231.35 130 20025
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,133.79 130 20021
23238 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 168.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 145.97 101 66210 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 22.03 527 66520 260
23239 JACOB NGUYEN 25167 2,340.00
MISCELLANEOUS 2,340.00 101 22546
23240 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 286.56
OFFICE EXPENSE 286.56 201 65200 110
23241 JUAN CONTRERAS 25418 1 ,650.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,650.00 101 22546
23242 OFFICE DEPOT 25488 126.96
OFFICE EXPENSE 126.96 101 64200 110
23243 CHRISTI JOHNSON 25641 2,280.00
MISCELLANEOUS 2,280.00 101 22546
23244 GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 26096 1,540.70
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,540.70 201 65200 203
CITY OF BURLINGAME
WA R RA N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
01/04/07
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23218 DENISE LAUGESEN 21963 5,300.00
MISCELLANEOUS 5,300.00 101 22546
23219 CALPELRA 22902 270.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 270.00 101 64420 240
23220 OFFICE DEPOT 23153 378.44
MISC. SUPPLIES 378.44 101 68010 120 1349 -
23221 MICHAEL GAUL 23276 6,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000.00 101 22546
23222 DATASAFE 23410 96.10
OFFICE EXPENSE 45.35 101 64420 110
BANKING SERVICE FEES 50.75 101 64250 120
23223 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 2,175.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,175.00 528 66600 210
23224 AT&T/MCI 23728 16.91
COMMUNICATIONS 16.91 101 68020 160 '
23225 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 12,516.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,892.00 619 64460 220 5240
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 176.00 619 64460 220 5130
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 619 64460 220 5230
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 989.00 619 64460 220 5210
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 170.00 619 64460 220 5140
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 619 64460 220 5170
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,140.00 619 64460 220 5110
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,101.00 619 64460 220 5180
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 619 64460 220 5121
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 902.00 619 64460 220 5190
23226 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 1,992.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,992.00 320 80520 210
23227 QUILL 24090 324.55
OFFICE EXPENSE 35.59 101 64250 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 288.96 621 64450 110
23228 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 4,485.00
MISCELLANEOUS 4,485.00 130 20016
23229 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 48.00
UNION DUES 48.00 130 21080
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
01/04/07
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*� Denotes Hand Written Checks
23204 DOUBLETREE HOTEL 16247 239.90.
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 119.95 101 65100 210
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 119.95 101 65100 250
23205 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 500.67
OFFICE EXPENSE 500.67 101 64250 110
23206 LEE & ASSOCIATES 17568 1,864.50
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,864.50 201 65200 200
23207 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 18419 14,959.35
MISCELLANEOUS 14,959.35 201 65200 012 '
23208 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 550.00
MISCELLANEOUS 550.00 618 64520 604
23209 ANG NEWSPAPERS - 19083 131.25
MISC. SUPPLIES 59.42 101 64400 120
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 71.83 101 64200 150
23210 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 1,216.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,216.00 618 64520 210
23211 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 60.66
OFFICE EXPENSE 15.17 101 64200 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 15.16 101 64150 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 15.17 101 64420 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 15.16 101 64350 120
23212 CLEARLITE TROPHIES 19§79 455.73
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 455.73 101 68020 140 2200
23213 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 1,752.64
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,752.64 736 64570 220
23214 MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP. 20925 50.00
OFFICE EXPENSE 50.00 101 64200 110
23215 NICHOLS DIAMOND TOOL, INC. 21018 1,050.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,050.00 619 64460 210 5120
23216 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 3,280.12
MISCELLANEOUS 3,036.41 101 66100 400
OFFICE EXPENSE 243.71 526 69020 110
23217 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 1,900.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,900.00 101 64420 210
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
01/04/07
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*� Denotes Hand Written Checks
23193 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,681 .66
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,441 .66 101 64560 220
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 120.00 101 64150 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 120.00 101 64100 250
23194 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 2,563.43
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 864.87 101 66210 219
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 1,698.56 101 66210 226
23195 K & W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 1,694.90
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,694.90 619 64460 210 5250
23196 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 509.47
MISC. SUPPLIES 509.47 619 64460 120
23197 P. G. & E. 03054 20,882.45
GAS & ELECTRIC 20,105.78 101 66100 170
GAS & ELECTRIC 776.67 201 65200 170
23198 CITY OF MILLBRAE - 09234 23,558.25
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23,558.25 201 65200 220
23199 TMT ENTERPRISES 09446 209.40
MISC. SUPPLIES 209.40 101 68020 120 2200
23200 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 3,537.45
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,537.45 618 64520 210
23201 CHIEF DON DORNELL 11568 3,540.24
OFFICE EXPENSE 47.36 201 65200 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 150.15 201 65200 120
FIRE--SUPPLIES 150.00 201 65200 127
SMALL TOOLS 174.66 201 65200 130
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 35.73 201 65200 140
GAS, OIL & GREASE 50.00 201 65200 201
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 215.00 201 65200 240
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 239.60 201 65200 250
TRAINING EXPENSE 2,140.36 201 65200 260
MISC. SUPPLIES 293.91 730 69579 120
MISCELLANEOUS 43.47 731 22554
23202 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 120.00
COMMUNICATIONS 120.00 101 65100 160
23203 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 302.80
MISC. SUPPLIES 152.46 527 66520 120
SUPPLIES 150.34 620 15000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
12-28-2006 WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 8
FUND RECAP - 06-07
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 67,996.64
CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 6, 142.43
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 19, 723 .38
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 72. 10
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 27,383 .48
WATER FUND 526 195 ,525 .51
SEWER FUND 527 36,478.92
SOLID WASTE FUND 528 6, 143 .37
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 2,985 .30
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 4,675 . 70
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 3,317.59
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 21 ,617. 58
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 504.07
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 800 . 00
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 400 .00
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 11 , 042.80
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $404,808.87
< ;2 Vv �
<g b l 0 > 03
Ido > \/OI L?
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL : '� 7
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 8
INCLUSIVE , AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 23103 THROUGH 23192 INCLUSIVE ,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $404,808.87, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER
OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ - . ./ . . .
FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ . . ./ . . .
COUNCIL DATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
12/28/06
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23184 WAYNE SOSNICK 27177 750.00
MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 101 22525
23185 NCBPA 27179 60.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 60.00 526 69020 240
23186 REDWOOD GARDEN AND BUILDING MATE 27180 920.51
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 920.51 101 68020 190 2100
23187 MICHAEL CHRIS14AN 27181. 1,945.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,945.00 101 36630
23188 ANNETTE DOHERTY 27182 2,213.30
MISCELLANEOUS 2,213.30 101 22546
23189 GALLI BUILDERS INC 27183 4,025.00
MISCELLANEOUS 4,025.00 101 22546
23190 TOMMY NGAI 27184 1,200.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,200.00 101 22546
23191 OFFICE DEPOT 27185 116.84
OFFICE EXPENSE 116.84 101 64400 110
23192 PEAK ENGINEERING 27186 11,050.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 11,050.00 101 22520
TOTAL 8404,808.87
Y r"" p7
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
12/28/06
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23169 NETVERSANT SILICON VALLEY 25422 140 .73
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 140 .73 619 64460 210 5270
23170 CINGULAR WIRELESS 25775 48. 10
COMMUNICATIONS 48. 10 101 65100 160
23171 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 153 .22
RENTS & LEASES 153 .22 526 69020 180
23172 EDMOND ' S PLAZA FLORIST 26041 70.90
MISC . SUPPLIES 70.90 101 65100 120
23173 PRISTINE AUTO DETAIL 26046 60 . 00
EQUIPMENT MAINT . 60 . 00 101 65100 200
23174 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC 26294 21 ,430 .00
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 21 ,430 . 00 621 64450 220
23175 CEMEX 26506 33.94
MISC. SUPPLIES 33.94 101 66210 120
23176 CALPICO INC 26556 227.33
MISCELLANEOUS 227.33 526 69020 233
23177 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 26570 4,805 . 16
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 4,805 . 16 101 65100 140
23178 ARUP 26735 2, 085 .00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2, 085 .00 320 80790 210
23179 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 385 .43
OFFICE EXPENSE 101 .20 101 64400 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 80 . 12 101 65300 110
MISC . SUPPLIES 47.96 101 66210 120
MISC . SUPPLIES -45 . 72 526 69020 120
OFFICE EXPENSE 201 .87 619 64460 110
23180 AMERON 26894 2, 182.21
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2, 182. 21 619 64460 210 5250
23181 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 26977 98.31
UTILITY EXPENSE 98.31 896 20281
23182 CARPET SYSTEMS 27137 198. 00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 198. 00 619 64460 210 5170
23183 HERMAN BARAHONA 27169 800 . 00
MISC . SUPPLIES 800.00 730 69579 120
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
12/28/06
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*' Denotes Hand Written Checks
23156 AT&T/MCI 23728 8,549.91
UTILITY EXPENSE 8,549.91 896 20281
23157 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 430.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5180
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5110
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5130
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5120
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5160
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5150
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5170
23158 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 1 ,518.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,518.00 101 23620
23159 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 288.98
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 174.00 619 64460 220 5110
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 114.98 619 64460 220 5130
23160 A&G SERVICES 24400 7,845.88
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,845.88 320 81720 220
23161 BEACON FIRE & SAFETY 24535 180.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 108.00 619 64460 210 5110
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 72.00 619 64460 210 5180
23162 DIAMOND SECURITY SOLUTIONS 24659 495.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 375.00 619 64460 210 5130
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 120.00 619 64460 210 5120
23163 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 38.56
TRAINING EXPENSE 38.56 527 66520 260
23164 A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS 25020 792.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 792.00 201 65200 220
23165 MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT 25098 2,340.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,340.00 526 69020 210
23166 ADVANCED MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 25198 .' - 194.85
RADIO FIAINT. 194.85 201 65200 205
23167 JOE CYR 25213 125.00
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 125.00 101 65300 250
23168 ORLANDO BUENA 25229 2,900.00
MISCELLANEOUS 2,900.00 101 22546
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
12/28/06
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23142 ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC. 21749 1 ,430.80
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,430.80 530 65400 200
23143 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 4,450.26
MISC. SUPPLIES 2,731.15 526 69020 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,719.11 527 66520 120
23144 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 2,375.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,805.00 201 35220 000 7100
MISCELLANEOUS 570.00 201 35221 000 7100
23145 JENNIFER HAYDEN 23150 1,080.00
MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630
MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525
23146 BO PARKER 23175 1,020.00
MISCELLANEOUS 270.00 101 36630
MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 101 22525
23147 OFFICE MAX 23306 477.36
OFFICE EXPENSE 59.19 101 64250 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 307.44 101 68010 110 1101
MISC. SUPPLIES 110.73 101 68010 120 1101
23148 POWERPLAN 23335 374.43
SUPPLIES 374.43 620 15000
23149 THE PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS GROUP 23367 800.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 800.00 101 66100 260
23150 RECALL- TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT 23411 105.00
OFFICE EXPENSE 105.00 101 65300 110
23151 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC. 23428 339.33
MISC. SUPPLIES 339.33 527 66520 120
23152 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 72.10
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 72.10 326 73171 210
23153 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 57.95
MISC. SUPPLIES 57.95 619 64460 120 5170
23154 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 27,260.66
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 27,260.66 327 81500 210
23155 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 9,870.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,870.00 101 68010 220 1331
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
12/28/06
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT . AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23127 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 625.18
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 137.48 101 65100 200
RADIO MAINT. 487.70 201 65200 205
23128 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 864.69
OFFICE EXPENSE 864.69 101 64250 110
23129 TABOR'S SHOOTERS SUPPLY INC 18442 29.20
POLICE--SUPPLIES 29.20 101 65100 126
23130 CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 18893 301.21
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 301.21 101 64420 150
23131 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 406.63
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 406.63 527 66520 140
23132 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 50.45
MISC. SUPPLIES 50.45 101 64400 120
23133 HUSBANDS & ASSOCIATES 19253 213.85
MISCELLANEOUS 213.85 101 68020 192 2200
23134 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 637.45
OFFICE EXPENSE 112.58 101 64250 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 337.29 201 65200 111
OFFICE EXPENSE 187.58 621 64450 110
23135 AMERICA PRINTING 19430 1,007.37
OFFICE EXPENSE 1,007.37 620 66700 110
23136 WINGES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 19471 400.00
MISCELLANEOUS 400.00 731 22525
23137 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 5,404.64
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,404.64 528 66600 210
23138 EIP ASSOCIATES 20526 7,537.72
DEPOSIT REFUND 7,537.72 101 22590
23139 LARRY ANDERSON 20716 769.45
MISCELLANEOUS 769.45 101 64350 031
23140 SPRINT PCS 20724 757.93
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 757.93 101 65100 220
23141 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 - 351.81
MISC. SUPPLIES 351.81 527 66520 120
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
12/28/06
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
23116 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 1,391.00
PRISONER EXPENSE 1,391.00 101 65100 291
i
23117 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 792.06
MISC. SUPPLIES 230.96 101 68020 120 2200
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 16.22 101 68020 190 2200
MISCELLANEOUS 189.26 101 68020 192 2200
MISC. SUPPLIES 16.23 526 69020 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 217.31 527 66520 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 11.37 619 64460 120 5130
MISC. SUPPLIES 15.98 619 64460 120 5150
MISC. SUPPLIES 94.73 619 64460 120
23118 ANA FITZGERALD 09975 270.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 270.00 101 68010 220 1646
23119 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 524.15
MISC. SUPPLIES 524.15 201 65200 111
23120 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 11749 43.28
MISC. SUPPLIES 43.28 527 66520 120
23121 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 1,345.97
MISC. SUPPLIES 588.79 101 65100 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 209.54 101 65150 120
COMMUNICATIONS 277.59 101 65100 160
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 15.08 101 65100 200
MISC. SUPPLIES 209.52 530 65400 120
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 45.45 530 65400 140
23122 DOCUMENT PROCESSING SYSTEMS 13890 186.00
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 186.00 101 64250 200
23123 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY 14358 102.79
GAS, OIL & GREASE 102.79 101 65100 201
23124 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,627.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,627.00 101 65100 220
23125. MICHAEL MATTEUCCI 15616 660.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 660.00 101 64420 210
23126 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 82.11
MISC. SUPPLIES 82.11 101 66210 120
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
12/28/06
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
* � Denotes Hand Written Checks
23103 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 3, 597.43
GAS, OIL & GREASE 390 .37 201 65200 201
VEHICLE MAINT . 18. 58 201 65200 202
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT . 748.62 201 65200 203
SUPPLIES 2, 102 .48 620 15000
EQUIPMENT MAINT . - 166.69 620 66700 200
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT . 504 . 07 625 65213 203
23104 L . N . CURTIS & SONS 02027 273 .87
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 273 .87 201 65200 140
23105 VEOLIA WATER 02110 33,457.91
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 122 .82 327 79480 210
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT . 7,922.49 527 66530 190
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 25 ,412 .60 527 66530 800
23106 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 2,394 . 58
MISCELLANEOUS 2,394 . 58 896 20282
23107 IRVINE & JACHENS INC . 02599 571 .02
MISC . SUPPLIES 571 .02 101 65100 120
23108 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORPORATION 03002 738. 73
MISC . SUPPLIES 738.73 528 66600 120
23109 AT&T 03080 234 .33
COMMUNICATIONS 156.48 101 67500 160
COMMUNICATIONS 77.85 101 65100 160
23110 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 378.88
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 378.88 619 64460 210 5130
23111 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT . 03353 190, 043 .30
WATER PURCHASES 190, 043 .30 526 69020 171
23112 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE , INC. 03760 3, 207.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3, 207. 00 101 68020 220 2300
23113 RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS 09213 27.80
OFFICE EXPENSE 27.80 527 66520 110
23114 POM INC. 09248 1 ,299. 53
EQUIPMENT MAINT . 1 , 299. 53 530 65400 200
23115 TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. 09270 9, 792. 50
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,792 . 50 320 81550 210
BURL i NAME
Board of Trustees Minutes
October 17, 2006
I. Call to Order
President Toft called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.
II. Roll Call
Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Bruce Carlton, Katie
McCormack, Pat Toft
Trustee Absent: Deborah Griffith
Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian
Sidney Poland, Recorder
III. Warrants and Special Funds
The Trustees unanimously approved.the Warrants. M/S/C
(Carlton/Toft)
IV. Minutes
The Trustees approved as written the minutes of the September 26,
2006 meeting. M/S/C (McCormack/Brock)
V. Correspondence and Attachments
Property Insurance for Library Collections - The City Librarian
presented insurance valuations of the library collections as
determined by the City's insurance provider.
VI. From the Floor - No one from the public attended.
VII. Reports
A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report
1. OneBook/One Community - The appearance of Khaled
Housseni, author of the Kite Runner, at the Performing Arts
Center October 19, 2006 will conclude the first One Book/One
Community project. Isabelle Allende will be the featured
author for next year's project.
2. New City Website - On October 23rd a citizen's group will
review the new site and offer comments and suggestions. The
site address will remain the same www.burlingame.org/library.
480 Primrose Road• Burlingame•California 94010-4083
Phone (650) 558-7474' Fax (650) 342-6295wmw.burlingame.org/library
3. Key Indicators - The City Librarian prepared a power
point program on key service indicators for 2005-2206. The
program showed increases per capita in the following
departments:
a. Circulation - 17 items - increase of 13%
b. Reference - 2.5 questions - increase of 4%
C. Children's - 22 items per individual checked out
In addition, there were increases in the following areas from
2003-2004: patron registration 13%, and database and
internet usage up 26%. Children's programs show a 10%
increase over 2005.
B. Foundation Report
1. Fall Book Sale - Sales for the event totaled $4,006.35.
2. Newsletter - The newsletter will be mailed out in early
November.
C. Centennial Report - Mayor Cathy Baylock and Councilwoman
Terry Nagel are planning to meet with some architects regarding ideas for
a Centennial monument. A fountain is one of the current suggestions. It
has been mentioned that the City consider holding a competition for the
project.
VIII. Old Business
A. Employee Achievement Awards Status - Trustees Toft 8s
Griffith
The information for the Employee Achievement Awards was provided
to each employee on October 6th. The deadline for nominations is
November 3rd. President Toft and Secretary Griffith will review the
nominations and select the recipients.
B. Employee Recognition Dinner/Entertainment
President Toft, Secretary Griffith, and Susan May from the
Foundation Board, will meet with Lisa Normandy from the
Doubletree on October 27th to finalize the set up and menu for the
event. Manuel Caneri and Vicki Machado will provide entertainment
for the evening.
IX. New Business
A. Ergonomic Book Drops
The Trustees unanimously approved the request of the City Librarian
to authorize the expenditure of$8,647.45 to purchase new book
drops and new ergonomically engineered carts. M/S/C
(McCormack/Brock).
B. Author's Luncheon - The Foundation Board has agreed to
provide a bus to the Author's Luncheon. Cost per individual is ,
$10.00.
Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2
October 17,2006
X. Announcements - Katie McCormack /Systems Advisory Board
Representative
A. CLA- CLA Conference will be held in Sacramento on November
11th. Pat Hardin Library r ary Service Manager, and Bariy Mills,
Technology Manager, will attend.
B. San Mateo Public - Trustee McCormack shared with the
Trustees some of the facts discussed at the SAB Meeting regarding
San Mateo Public's opening. It was noted that Genentech gave $ 2M
to the Biotech section, 8,000 people attended opening day, and
80,000 people visited the library during the month of September.
Materials borrowed increased by 163%, new cards increased by
277% and reference questions increased by 126%. This comparison
was based on San Mateo figures from August 2005 at their
temporary quarters.
C. Project Read -Programs are held in South San Francisco, San
Mateo; Redwood City, and Menlo Park. There are usually 300-400
participants in the program.
D. Joint Workshop PLS, BALIS and SVLS - SAB representatives
discussed having a joint workshop with Library Board members,
Friends, and Foundation members of PLS, Balis and SVLS libraries
to help plan programs. Suggestions for workshops were literacy,
fundraising, and aging population and what this means for library
services. San Mateo has offered to host the event. Representatives
were requested to conduct an informal poll at their own library. The
Library Board of Trustees expressed interest in the event but not at
the present time. It was suggested that next year would be a time to
reconsider this project.
XI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. The next regular meeting will
be held November 28, 2006 in the Conference Room at 5:30pm.
M/S/C (McCormack/Carlton)
Respectfully Submitted,
l�1�c
Alfred H. Esco ier
City Librarian
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
October 17,2006 3
BURLINOA E
City Librarian's Report
November 28, 2006
Use of Public Libraries Today
Attached is an article about the increasing use of public libraries and
technology. Highlights of the article include:
• The Internet provides not only a world of information, but 24/7
access to the library catalog
• Libraries provide access to computer information for those who do
not have access to the technology
• Studies have shown that library material requests increase
dramatically when holds for materials can be made online; an
example is Westchester County that showed a jump from 4,0.00
paper hold requests per month in 1999 to 93,000 electronic holds .
per month in 2005.
• Library websites filter the vast amount of information on the web,
and make recommendations for the best sites to find specific
information
• Public library users have access to commercial full-text databases,
which bring the user literally millions of articles via the library
website
• _Tutor.com provides live homework help for students
• Libraries provide free wireless access to the web
• Libraries are providing free user-friendly access to recommended
reading, eg: Next Reads/Novelist, and products like them.
• Library buildings not only house electronic and print information,
but they are community centers at the heart of our communities
I think you'll agree that the Burlingame libraries are part of a vast
network of information and resources unique in the community!
One Book/One Community
City Librarian, Al Escoffier has taken the chairmanship of the project for
2007. Isabelle Allende will be our featured author. She has agreed to a
program on October 11, 2007 at the Performing Art Center. Librarians
system wide will be developing programs around the book selected. The
actual selection will take place on November 17h, so I can fill you in at
your meeting.
1
48o Primrose Road Burlingame•California 94010-4083
Phone(650) 558-7474'Fax(650) 342-6295•wwwburlingame.org/library
Jim Kaufman to Retire
Jim Kaufman, our Building Maintenance Worker, will be retiring on
December 29th after 30 years of service. But we won't miss Jim for long,
as he will come back in an hourly capacity 3 hours a day to assist with
community room set ups, vacuuming, supply ordering, etc. We will be
contracting with the city's cleaning vendor for evening cleaning of the
building 5 days a week.
While Jim has been with us for 30 years, he's really been a part of the
library much longer than that. His former company Rancelli Custodial
has cleaned the library since 19351 So we have a long history with Jim
and his family.
Burlingame Library Foundation
The Foundation Newsletter has been released and is a beautiful piece of
work. The cover features children's librarian Cathy Somerton andtwo
young girls (Maryam's daughters!) in full Halloween costume with big
smiles! Lisa Rosenthal edited the Newsletter. The newsletter has been
mailed to over 800 donors and friends of the library. Copies will also be
available at both libraries for distribution. The Newsletter is sent out with
a return envelope for donations. We typically gather $ 8,000+ in
donations from the Newsletter distribution.
Launching of New City Website
The new City website is so much better than the old onel The staff teams
who worked on the site did a great job. If you have comments or
suggestions for updates or changes, please let me know. There is a link
to the Foundation website under: "Support Your Library." The site
address will be the same: www.burlingame.org/library. The Foundation's
website is: www.burlineamelibrarvfoundatiori org.
Federal Grant Received for "The Big Read"
Burlingame and Peninsula Library System are partnering on this recently
awarded Federal grant. The funds will support a reading project based on
Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird." There will be reading groups,
lectures and other events to highlight the reading of the book. I will be
attending a workshop in Seattle to gather more information. The project
will begin next year.
Imvroving our Online Catalog
After doing usability surveys with the public and staff, PLS has been
reviewing ways to make the online catalog more user-friendly. PLAN has
been looking at third party venders who can place a software template
over our catalog to make it more user friendly. We have looked at one
option. so far, Acquabrowser, but have mixed feelings about its usability.
2
We will be,looking at a new option from OCLC (the international library
database) later in the month. PLS would be a beta site for this new
product if we decide to go forward.
Easton Branch Library Tree
As you may remember, there has been discussion about removal of the
large eucalyptus tree in front of the Easton Branch for some time. Its
roots are invasive and are lifting up the street. In February 2005, the
Library Board voted to uphold the Beautification Commission's
recommendation that the tree be removed and replaced. The replacement
tree, "Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum" is on your agenda for review and
potential approval.
Behavior Policy Update
With the recent groups of people wanting to use the library porch for
surveys, the City Attorney recommended we revise our behavior policy to
include dealing with such groups. This new policy is in your packet for
review and approval. Basically, we are asking people to use the sidewalk
and not the library porch for such efforts.
Meeting with Architects on Centennial monument
The Centennial Executive Committee will be drafting a Request for
Proposal for an invitational competition for a Centennial monument at
the train station site. This will go out to architects, hopefully before
Thanksgiving, so that we can get some decisions made and move forward
with fundraising for the monument.
Personnel News
We have hired Amy Pelmari to'fill.Kelly Keefer's position as Librarian I.
Amy comes to us from the Califomia Center for the Book, in Southern
California, and more recently from Solano County Library. We welcome
her to her new job on December 4th. We have invited her to attend the
Employee Recognition Dinner the evening before, so that she can get to
know our library staff and community.
"Burning Cold" Program
Om Sunday, December 10th, we will be featuring an encore presentation
of"A Night to Remember, the story of the greatest Coast Guard sea
rescue." Burlingame's Unsinkable Jeanne Gilmore will be on hand to talk
and answer questions. A video of the rescue mission will be shown.
Books will be available for sale and signing. Unfortunately, the author H.
Paul Jeffers will be unable to attend the event. The event will be at 2 PM
that day in the Lane Room.
3
Holiday Pro-grams Scheduled
In addition to lighting the front of the main library, staff will be erecting a
12' Christmas tree irythe atrium of the library. We will have the
Peninsula Girls Chorus perform in the lobby on Tuesday, December S, 7
PM. At the Easton Branch we will have a Holiday Sing-a-Long with Jim
Stevens on Wednesday, December 20th, 7 PM at Easton. This is always a
popular event.
Upcoming Events:
• Veteran's Day, Friday, November 10, Closed
• California Library Association Conference, November 11-13, Sacramento
• Thanksgiving Closure: Wednesday, November 22; close at 5 PM; Closed
Thursday, November 23rd and Friday, November 24th. Reopen on Saturday,
November 25th.
• Library Board Meeting, Tuesday, November 28, 5:30 PM, Board Room (Changed
approved Date)
• Holiday Tree lighting and Burlingame Avenue Open House, Friday, December 1,
Begins at 4:30 PM, on the City Hall lawn
• Staff Recognition Dinner, Sunday, December 3, 6 PM
• Peninsula Girls Chorus Program, Main Library, Tuesday, December 5, 7 PM
• "Burning Cold" program, Sunday, December 10, 2-4 PM, Lane Room
• Library Board Meeting, December 19, CANCELLED
• Easton Branch Sing-a-long, Wednesday, December 20, 7 PM,
• Christmas Holiday Closures: Friday, December 22nd, close 5 pm; December 23,
24, 25, Closed; Reopen Tuesday, December 26th.
• New Year's Holiday Closures: Sunday, December 31, Closed; January 1, Closed;
Reopen Tuesday, January 2nd.
Alfred H. Escoffier
City Librarian
November 9, 2006
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
January 8, 2007
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the January 8,2007,regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Osterling left at 9:15 p.m.
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner,Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the December 11, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were reviewed the following changes were approved: page 1,
line 1,change Vice-Chair Jerry Deal....;page 6 line 36 and
7, lines 8 and 14 change graphite to graffiti. With the noted corrections the
minutes were approved.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, have comments on two FYI since public
comment is not allowed in that portion of the meeting. Am in favor of the
proposed changes at 1465 Balboa, the request was submitted in a timely
fashion although, because of the holidays, the windows were installed
because of the need to close up the building for the weather. 216 Bloomfield
came to ask for an FYI after the framing had been finaled without prior
notification to the Commission of changes,feel that any architect working in
Burlingame should know about the FYI process, also do not endorse the
change to the chimney cap replacement,it is a cheaper and not as consistent
with the approved design.
This item ended at 7:05 p.m.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM
MAP, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIANCES FOR PARKING SPACE
DIMENSION, DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND BACK-UP AISLE WIDTH FOR A 25-UNIT, 7-STORY
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM(PAUL BOGATSKY,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;AND
DAN IONESCU ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS,ARCHITECT)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN
BROOKS
a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND VARIANCES FOR PARKING SPACE
DIMENSION, DRIVEWAY WIDTH AND BACK-UP AISLE WIDTH; AND
b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP—PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
■ believe there is no podium shown at the rear of the building,however the top of grade is incorrectly
shown at 53.10',please revise plans to accurately show top of grade at the rear of the lot;
■ concerned with the number of substandard parking conditions,concerned with the proposed parking
layout including 8%2 foot wide stalls next to a wall,vehicles will have a lot of difficulty maneuvering
in and out of the stalls;
■ traffic study notes that within parking areas the substandard conditions create tight maneuvering for
vehicles and the study notes that vehicles would have to drive with caution,this is not something we
want to see;
■ concerned that the driveway width was reduced from 12 feet to 9.5 feet, landscaping along the
driveway edge will reduce the useable driveway width even further;
■ concerned that the parking is still at the street level, intent of the TW zoning is to encourage
pedestrian activity at street level, request that the applicant explain why the parking rather than
housing or other pedestrian oriented use is at the street level;
■ why are there no residential units proposed on the ground floor;
■ clearly identify the proposed exterior materials on the building,including scale and size of trim and
architectural elements;
■ the toilet room serving the common open space is not articulated or detailed well, revise building
elevation to clearly identify this room;
■ concerned with the 11 foot floor to floor dimension for the garage level, why does it have to be so
tall, what is the extra space needed for, typically 8'-2" is sufficient;
■ clearly show on the site plan the location of the PIV valve and backflow preventer, provide plan
detail on how these utilities will be screened or otherwise blend in;
■ proposed common open space is located at the ground level below the level of the units,do not see a
good access for the tenants from their units to the common open space area; --•
■ concerned with how deliveries will be made to the site given the size and number of dwelling units,
proximity to the hospital and its entrance and narrow driveway width;need to address substandard
parking issues;
■ species of some plants are not identified on landscape plan, need to clearly identify species of all
landscaping on the landscape plan;
■ clearly identify which are the affordable units on the floor plans;
■ provide an explanation of how the program for the affordable units will be administered,also should
be included in the conditions of approval;
■ if parking garage will be at street level, something will have to be incorporated into the design to
make the building more pedestrian oriented,enclosing the stairway does not meet this intent,exterior
stairway would be acceptable if it is designed appropriately and is more elegant;
■ provide most recent comments from Department of Public Works regarding status of the sewer line
easement and access situation; and
■ this area was rezoned to allow high density residential, this project would be one of the first
significantly taller buildings in the area opposite the hospital, would like to see a 3D visual
presentation showing the proposed building in context with the other buildings in area,with more
detail on the project and adjoining buildings than just the abstract buildings as shown in the
environmental document.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m.
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
II. ACTION ITEMS
�-- Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt.
2a. 1441-1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE,ZONED R-4—AMENDED APPLICATION FOR A NEW FOUR-
STORY, 20-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER
ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O LITKE
PROPERTIES,PROPERTY OWNERS)(141 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:MAUREEN BROOKS
a. APPLICATION FOR ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING; AND
b. AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL
PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
2b. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT(JOEL CAMPOS, LA CORNETA TAQUERIA,APPLICANT; J. MARK
CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; KARIM A. SALMA) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. A Commissioner asked that item 2b. 1123 Burlingame Avenue be moved to the action
calendar.
C.Deal moved approval of the consent calendar item 2a, 1441-1445 Bellevue Avenue,based on the facts in
the staff report,commissioners' comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions
in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a
voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25
p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2b. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT(JOEL CAMPOS, LA CORNETA TAQUERIA, APPLICANT; J. MARK
CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; KARIM A. SALMA) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report January 8,2007,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Twenty-one conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the
projecting signs will be removed. CP noted that a condition of approval was added requiring the removal of
the projecting signs, proposed plans also show the projecting signs removed. Commission asked if the
design reviewer's comments will be incorporated. CP noted that the design reviewer's comments were added
as conditions of approval. There were no further questions of staff.
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Cronander,project architect, 1800 Laguna Street, San
Francisco, represented the project, verified that the project signs will be removed, noted that his intention
was to rectify the problems identified with the project. Commission asked the architect to clarify the size
and location of the lanterns,don't just want to see larger lanterns at the same location of the existing smaller
lanterns now on the building; architect noted that dimensions were provided on the revised front elevation,
lanterns will be approximately 2 feet tall, 17-1" above the ground to the center of the lantern, location will
be different as shown on the revised plans. Commission expressed a concern with the location of the fire
department standpipe,as-built standpipe extends out one foot from the building and is located at the entrance
to the restaurant, location is unattractive and may not comply with ADA requirements,have recently seen
them recessed into the building,should check with the fire department if this standpipe can be recessed into
the building;architect noted that there were issues with the standpipe. CP noted that this request would have
to be checked with the fire department,could add as condition of approval. Commission asked which front
door will be used, the one installed on the building or the one shown on the revised plans; architect noted
that the door shown on the plans will be used, the original design included a tapering entry, however the
concrete column on the front did not allow for the flare,suggested using limestone around the entry to make
it more substantial, design reviewer agreed with idea. Commission noted that a transom window was
installed above the entry, this is different than what is shown on the revise plans, which one is correct?
Architect noted that the grid above the entry was always intended to be made of wood,not glass,the wooden
grid will be installed 3 feet in front of the transom window. Commission noted that the opening into the
main entry is shown to be 11'-8" above ground, which is also the approximate height to the top of the
existing beam, does the beam stop at the entry, if it does not the entry door and transom will have to be
shortened,please clarify; architect confirmed that the as-built opening is 11'-8"tall,think there is a separate
header, one over each window and one over the door, do not intend to change the height of the opening or
door/transom window. Commission noted that the top of the opening at 11'-8" approximately lines up wit --�
the top of the beam and transom on each side,would be acceptable if the height of the opening needed to be
shorter,architect needs to decide. Commission noted that a special encroachment permit will be required for
the trellis extending into the public right-of-way,applicant should apply for one now if applicant has not yet
been submitted. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion:Asked if the business cannot begin operating until the change are made; CP noted
that all changes will have to be implemented and verified prior to the final inspection and release of the gas
tags. During the discussion with the architect,sensed some doubt about certain aspects of the project,do not
want to see it come back in the future for further changes, can these questions will be verified through the
building inspection process; CP noted that architectural certification prior to framing inspection will be
required, if changes occur project will return as an FYI item.
C.Vistica moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amendments to the conditions
to include the size and location of the lanterns, true height and design of the front door, and recessing the
standpipe into the wall at the front of the building; and the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
December 15,2006, floor plans and elevations, and date stamped June 15,2005, site plan and demo plans;
that the lanterns to be placed on the fagade shall match the dimensions shown on the approved plans; and
that any changes to the to building materials, exterior finishes, awnings, footprint or floor area of the
building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that any signs shall require a separate permit from
the Planning and Building Departments; (2) that the two projecting signs shall be removed as shown on the --�
proposed plans date stamped December 15, 2006, before scheduling a final inspection; (3) that the
conditions of the City Engineer's December 18, 2006 and April 4, 2005 memos; the Chief Building
Official's December 18,2006,May 25,2005 and March 25,2005 memos;the Recycling Specialist's April
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
4,2005 memo;the Fire Marshal's December 20,2006,May 26,2005,and March 30,2005 memos;and the
NPDES Coordinator's December 18, 2006 memo shall be met; (4) that the metal pull down gate and its
�— supporting apparatus at the entrance to the patio along Burlingame Avenue shall be removed prior to
scheduling a final inspection with the Planning Department; (5) 5.that the entry doorway shall be
surrounded with honed limestone and all protruding exterior trim detail shall be designed using a 3/4"
plywood base with stucco applied over it;and that these improvements shall be in place before scheduling a
final inspection; (6) that the size and location of the lanterns shall be installed as shown on the plans date
stamped December 15, 2006; (7) that the front door, transom window and wooden grid in front of the
transom window shall be installed as shown on the plans date stamped December 15,2006; (8) that the fire
standpipe shall be recessed into the building with approval of the fire department;all necessary permit shall
be obtained to recess the standpipe into the building; (9) that demolition or removal of the existing
structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued
and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District; (10) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or
other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of
perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (11) that the full service food
establishment, with 623 SF of on-site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a
limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the
criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; (12) that the 623 SF
area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas
within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; (13) that this food
establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape
`. improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional
locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (14) that the applicant shall provide daily
litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50) feet of all frontages of the business;
(15) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from
this premise; (16) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any
opening within 10'of the property line; (17) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to
any retail or other use,a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit
shall become void; (18) that this full service food establishment may be open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00
p.m., seven days a week,with a maximum of 9 employees on site at any one time; (19) that any changes to
the size or envelope of building,which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls,
moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject
to design review; (20) 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; (2 1) that deliveries to businesses located on
this site shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. daily, except
Sundays and holidays;deliveries to the site shall be limited to the rear of the building on Hatch Lane,except
BFI; (22) that the trash enclosure and recycling bins shall be covered and shall have a drain connecting to
the sanitary sewer system as required by the City Engineer in the memo dated March 28,2005,and shall be
located on the parcel as shown on the plans date stamped June 15,2005; (23) that one on-site parking space
10 feet wide by 20 feet deep shall be located in the paved area on the south east corner of the property, and
shall be maintained for use exclusively by the food establishment at 1123 Burlingame Avenue;the parking
space shall remain free and clear of any trash cans,recycling bins or other storage materials or debris; (24)
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,
2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
3. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
KENDRICK LI PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Commissioner Osterling noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the
proceedings. He left the chambers.
Reference staff report January 8,2007,with attachments. Plr.Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Twenty conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Kendrick Lee,2212 Hillside Drive,project applicant,and Ben
Behravesh,4 West Santa Inez, San Mateo,project architect,were available to answer questions, submitted
pictures of the roof tiles and color rendering of the front.elevation. Commission asked why wasn't the sump
pump relocated,concerned about it being located in courtyard adjacent to neighbor; architect noted that the
sump pump can be relocated to the rear of the property,but that the water would then have to be sent to the
back of the property and then pumped to the street, this would required a larger pump which be noisier,
sump pump in the sunken garden would work better because the retaining wall provides a barrier to reduce
the sound. Commission noted that for the neighbor's benefit,would rather error on the side of caution and
see the sump pump relocated away from the neighbor, sump pump will be next to the neighbors bedroom,
because the sump pump will be located in sunken garden, sound will echo and be louder,would like to see
the sump pump completely enclosed in the mechanical room or garage,water can gravity flow to garage and
then pumped to street. Architect noted that if located in the garage,the pump will have to pull the water up
from the sunken garden, it is better to push the water rather than pull, pump will have to be bigger and
louder if it is required to pull water. Commission noted that the pump can be installed deeper in the garage
so that water can reach it by gravity. Commission noted that the window trim is inconsistent throughout the
house, especially on the half-round windows, this element would help the north elevation, trim should
continue at base of the windows at the height of the wainscot to meter height of wall and should be carried
around to the master bedroom, asked if the applicant would object to continuing the trim; no objection.
Commission also pointed out that the window treatment is missing from the window below the bump-out on
the north elevation. Commission noted several concerns with the revised project: suggested that an
additional beam be added between the upper and lower beams on the gables ends,as proposed beams are too
far apart, adding a beam in between would give it more character; north elevation is flat with a couple of
minor bump-outs, a six inch bump-out will not read in the field and is not enough to create a shadow line;
north elevation is a big blocky mass with a second floor ridge line running straight across the entire length of
the house, overall fagade is long and tall, feel that not enough changes were made,north elevation needs to
be handled better by adding more articulation or dropping the plate at various locations. Commission asked
architect to confirm that exposed rafters will be 2x8 cedar sistered together,24 inches on center as noted on
the plans; architect noted that a 4x can also be used,this is usually left up to the contractor to decide,will at
least be a double 2x8.
Continued discussion: Commission commented that usually like round windows,but feel that in this case
there are too many round windows, not necessary on the south elevation on either side of the chimney. -�
Commission reviewed materials board and noted that the wood siding and trim seems out ofplace;architect
commented that these materials were used on the house shown in the photos submitted,feel it is appropriate
and vocabulary works well with this kind of architecture. Commission expressed a concern with the size of
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
the window trim at the base of the window, trim size is not consistent, 3 inch trim as shown on window
detail is not big enough, mullions are too small, materials too small and will negatively affect the
appearance; architect noted that the mullions shown on the plans make not be the exact size from the
manufacturer but it is close. Commission noted that asked is there any reason why the trim piece couldn't be
from a 2x6 to get a 6 inch dimension;architect noted that a 2x6 could be used. Commission commented that
lanterns with a bright light source are discouraged,want to make sure the proposed lighting complies with
city standards;architect noted that he has used the proposed lighting in the past,glass is obscure to shield the
light source. Regarding the landscaping,the Commission pointed out that photinia frazeri is susceptible to
disease, should use pittosporum or bay laurel instead. Commission expressed a concern with the siting of
the house, noting that it abuts a corner lot which presents challenges to development, suggested that the
driveway location remain along the left side of the lot to create a buffer between the project and corner
house;architect pointed out that the driveway was relocated to the right because existing corner house has an
increased setback and the existing house on the right is located very close to the project house, felt the
location as proposed provided the best solution. There appears to be several drafting errors, on floor plan
laundry room contains no windows but one is shown on south elevation, second floor stairway window is
larger on south elevation than shown on floor plan,and north-south-east-west building elevation are labeled
incorrectly, plans need to be checked and revised accordingly. Commission expressed a concern with the
design as proposed, this is barely a Spanish style design, three recessed gables are more appropriate for a
Tudor or Craftsman design,not for a Spanish design,typically see one or two receding gables,also often see
a round element which is common in this neighborhood.
Public from the Floor: Delores and Dennis Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue;and Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa
Avenue,spoke,expressed concern with the sump pump in the sunken garden,a sump pump at the rear with
a typical sloping lot would satisfy concern, or would rather see the sump pump located in the mechanical
�-- room or somewhere inside house; concerned with the sunken garden, why is it necessary; would like the
applicant to remove an existing cyclone fence and ivy along the driveway between the properties,wooden
fence is located behind cyclone fence, ivy has damaged the wooden fence and it takes a lot of extra to
maintain the fence in good condition;concerned about the amount of paving proposed and the potential of
cars being parked in the rear yard,if project is approved would like parking area clearly defined to be in the
garage and driveway, not in rear yard; wasn't aware of new requirement for automatic driveway gates,
would like Commission to explain;noticed that the design of the chimney caps were changed to reduce the
height of the chimneys, would like to see the height of the center chimney reduced further, if it is a gas
vented fireplace can just use a flue pipe;full landscape plan should be submitted,thought one was required
for new houses; side access door should be added in garage;concerned that the amount of hardscape was not
reduced, there is excessive paving; concerned that the plate height on the first and second floors was not
reduced; 216 Bloomfield Road is a Spanish style house with a detached garage, house was recently
remodeled, massing was handled well by articulated the second floor, architect should visit the site;
alternative location for the sump pump is in the "wet well" along the right side of the house; Table 2,
Comment 22 in staff report notes that Chief Building Official reviewed the basement and notes that proper
egress is provided if the room in the basement were a sleeping room, feel that this is equivalent to a fifth
bedroom and therefore a two-car garage should be required, could affect the proposed floor area ratio,
encourage Commission not to approve ceiling height in basement,if basement is kept with proposed height
project should be required to comply with parking requirement for a five-bedroom house. Architect noted
that the presence of a door and closet defines a bedroom, room in basement does not have closet.
Commission clarified that in Burlingame, a room with a door and window defines a bedroom. Architect
commented that a door from the basement is necessary to access the sunken garden, the plate height was
already reduced 8'-2" and does not think it's advisable to reduce it even further, future owners who will
purchase the house have some rights too, cannot justify sacrifice to make all changes suggested by the
Commission, this is a narrow lot which has its challenges. Property owner noted that the purpose of the
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
sunken garden is to allow natural light into the basement area. There were no further comments. The public
hearing was closed. --�
Commission discussion:there are many concerns with this project,think the design is marginal,more detail
work is needed,second floor plate height needs to be articulated,very concerned with blank wall along north
elevation, sump pump should be located in a mechanical room, cyclone fence and ivy along existing
driveway should be removed,should add automatic driveway gate to make the garage access and driveway
useable,could reduce height of center chimney with a gas vented fireplace,landscape plan does not reflect
removal of the magnolia trees in the right-of-way, landscape plans should be revised and should correlate
with the landscaping items mentioned in the discussion tonight,side access door should be added in garage,
architectural details need to coordinate throughout the plans,window sizes need to be checked and shown at
correct size,bedrooms are prohibited in basements therefore it cannot be counted by Planning as a bedroom,
proposed parking complies with requirements for a four-bedroom house;toilet in basement will be located
eight feet below grade and therefore will need a sewage ejection system,not just a sump pump,will need to
redesign the mechanical room to accommodate a sump pump and sewer ejector, going to have difficulties
pumping water and sewage out;proposed project is 6 SF below the maximum allowed floor area ratio,there
is no requirement for a basement other than developer pro forma. CA Anderson noted that a condition of
approval can be added to prohibit use of the basement for sleeping purposes or use as a second dwelling
unit. Commission noted that at the last meeting felt confident that the project would come back improved,
not so,now a good candidate for review by a design review consultant. CA noted that the Commission had
an opportunity to refer the project to a design review consultant at the last meeting and chose not to do so,
Commission should now take action on the project deny or deny without prejudice.
C. Terrones moved to deny this application by resolution based on the various concerns expressed by the --�
Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: Commission asked CA to explain the ramifications of a denial. CA noted that a
denial requires the applicant to wait one year before reapplying with the same or a similar project for
Planning Commission review. With a denial without prejudice, the applicant may reapply with a project
which has addressed the Commissions'concerns. The applicant may also voluntarily go to a design review
consultant.
The maker of the motion modified the motion and moved to deny the proj ect without prejudice. The second
agreed.
Comment on the modified motion: if applicant chooses to voluntarily go to a design review consultant,the
consultant should listen to the tapes of both meetings.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a
6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
C. Osterling returned to the dais.
4. 1300 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR
SUBSTANDARD UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
FOR HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (STEVEN —�
PEDIGO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TWYLA KABATCHNICK, PROPERTY OWNER) (77
NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
Reference staff report January 8,2007,with attachments. Plr.Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Plr.noted that condition one should
�— be corrected the overall height of 11'-7"as measured from adjacent grade to the new roof. Commissioner
asked will the recently-approved penalties for work without a permit apply to this project. CP noted that this
code enforcement was in process before the penalties changed,so it is not affected. There were no questions
of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No representative of the project was present. Fred Mcelhany,
1009 Laguna spoke. Am neighbor to this house on the driveway side;members of my family have lived at
1009 Laguna for 56 years;we are used to the garage at the present location, it replaced the former garage;
the new garage looks like the former garage; if the garage were moved to the rear of the property at 1300
Sanchez the yellow structure would be in the sight line from my patio, at its present location my house
blocks the view of garage from my patio;would like to leave the garage where it is. There were no further
comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission comment: went to the site and looked at the garage,its OK owners problem is how he handled
the project, no problem with the garage's location, but it needs to comply with the regulations of the
building code, needs a one hour wall on property line and roof needs to drain to the street. CP noted that
should the planning approvals be granted the property owner would be required to apply for a building
permit and correct any errors in construction, and have a final inspection of the revised work and make
corrections noted then.
C.Deal moved to approve the application by resolution,with the additional condition that the variances for
uncovered parking space length and conditional use permits for height and windows within 10 feet of
�-.- property line in an accessory structure go with the existing structure and should the structure be removed or
the house removed or have a major remodel of more than 50% of the value of the existing residential
structure,then the variance and conditional use permits granted for the garage shall become void and with
the following conditions:
(1) that the accessory structure project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped May 11,2005,site plan,floor plan and building elevations, and that the new
detached garage shall not exceed an overall height of 11'-0"measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge,
with a maximum plate height of 8'-0"measured from adjacent grade;and shall meet all California Building
and Fire Code requirements; (2) that the variance go with the existing structure and should the structure be
removed or the house removed or have a major remodel of more than 50% of the value of the existing
residential structure then the variance and conditional use permits granted for the garage shall become void;
(3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's May 15, 2006 memos and the
Recycling Specialist's May 17, 2006 memo shall be met; (4) that demolition or removal of the existing
structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued
and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District; (5) that the accessory structure shall never include a kitchen, there shall be no
shower or tub added without an amendment to this conditional use permit,and the accessory structure shall
never be used for living purposes as a second dwelling unit; (6) that the project shall comply with the
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new
construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and (7) that
�. the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
9
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: This work was done without a permit, are there any consequences for the
contractor who built it? CA noted that the CBO can notify the State licensing board.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the parking variance for uncovered
parking space dimension and conditional use permits for accessory structure height and windows within 10
feet of property line with the amended condition that the variance and conditional use permits for the
accessory structure shall become void if the garage is ever removed or there is a maj or remodel to the house
or the house is replaced. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 8:48 p.m.
5. 1130 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE
SEATING AREA,HOURS OF OPERATION AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FOR REPLACEMENT
OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
RALPH T BEHLING PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report January 8,2007,with attachments. Plr..Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Staff noted that since the study
meeting and noticing of this project, the applicant has removed the request for the use of the patio area for
additional seating area,this change eliminates the parking variance;they propose to continue to use the area
at the rear of the restaurant for storage and required exiting. Depending upon the success of the restaurant
they may ask to extend the seating area to the patio in the future. Condition 1 has been amended to provide
no seating in the area at the rear of this business and the business next door at 1136 Broadway.
Commissioners asked: How are the hours of operation in the patio area determined? Plr. noted it is up to
the Commission. So if this item returns to add outdoor seating at the rear, commission could review the
hours and could add a limitation that smoking be restricted to this rear area and away from the front door?
CP noted yes. Has this item has been noticed for the parking variance which is required to extend seating
into the storage area at the rear? Pk.. noted that the parking variance had been noticed. There were no
further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, represented the
project. Main reason withdrew the request to put outdoor seating for this business in the area behind this
business and the one next door was the need for a parking variance. Applicant wants to move forward
quickly and was concerned about possible delay. Commissioner noted that he would like to reduce delay
and asked if the Commission approved the outdoor seating area with a time limit to 9 p.m.would that work
for the applicant. Architect noted that it would. Pk. noted that the outdoor seating is an intensification of
the food establishment use on this site and requires a 5 space parking variance. Architect noted that they
would be willing to reduce the area by placing tables only in the outdoor storage area behind their business,
which would leave about three tables.
Public from the Floor: Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue. Broadway is my shopping area, am
concerned about granting a parking variance on Broadway,particularly in this area with Walgreens,the bank
and other uses which cause the parking to fill up. In addition Broadway is an entrance to the freeway and
cars travel very fast on the street which is difficult for pedestrians. There were no further comments from -�
the floor. The public hearing was closed.
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
Commissioner comment: Broadway is also my backyard,the issue here is that there is no on-site parking for
this building,everyone coming must use public parking,reason would support outdoor seating is would like
�-' to see this business succeed, later evening activity helps street life on Broadway, outdoor seating would
support increased activity. When City Council decided to expand the number of food establishments in the
Broadway area they recognized that this would increase the demand on parking in the area since so few sites
had any on site parking, however, they felt that the benefit to pedestrian activity created by the additional
food establishments would off set the increased demand on parking. Agree, live on Paloma and walk to
Broadway as do a lot of people, restaurant will not be a parking problem. Fine with outdoor seating, the
findings for the parking variance have been made,the problem of noise from the outdoor patio use would be
addressed by limiting its use to 9 p.m. CA noted that based on problems in other parts of the city, the use of
the patio should not allow any live entertainment or piping of music to the outdoor seating area.
C. Vistica moved to approve the application including a three space parking variance and the use of the
portion of the outdoor area which would be supported by a three space parking variance e.g. maximum of
600 SF,that there shall be no cooler,bar,or piped music or live entertainment in the outdoor patio area,and
that the use of the outdoor patio are shall be limited to 10 p.m. daily, by resolution, with the following
conditions as amended:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
December 22, 2006, sheets P1 through P4, and shall include a maximum of six hundred(600) square feet
customer seating in the outdoor patio area only behind 1130 Broadway,that there shall be no cooler,bar,or
piped music or live entertainment in the outdoor patio area and that the use of the outdoor patio area shall
cease at 10:00 p.m. daily; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 12,2006 memo,the
City Engineer's June 9,2006 memo,the Fire Marshal's June 8,2006 memo,the Recycling Specialist's June
`— 12, 2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's June 12, 2006 memo shall be met; (3) that demolition or
removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building
permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District; (4) that any mechanical equipment associated with the food
establishment shall be located behind the existing parapet wall and shall not extend above the top of parapet;
any new mechanical equipment shall be of a non-reflective material; (5) that this business location,
occupied by a specialty shop food establishment,with 1,440 SF of on-site seating(765 SF indoor+ 75 SF
outdoor entry area+a maximum of 600 SF of on-site seating located directly behind the business at 1130
Broadway) may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same or less leased
square footage subject to the conditions of this conditional use permit, or shall be allowed to change to a
different type of food establishment with a new conditional use permit; that if this specialty shop food
establishment is changed to any other type of food establishment classification, this site shall not return to
specialty shop use; (6) that a clear path of travel for exiting from the rear of this business and the adjacent
restaurant at 1136 Broadway through the outdoor patio area at the rear of the business at 1130 Broadway
shall be maintained in accordance with building and fire code requirements; (7) that the 1,440 SF area of
on-site seating of the specialty shop food establishment shall only be enlarged or extended to any other areas
within the tenant space by an amendment to this conditional use permit; (8) that this specialty shop food
establishment may be open Monday through Saturday, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. (midnight), with a
maximum of seven employees (two full-time and five part-time employees) on site at any one time,
including the business owner and manager; (9) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles
as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at
the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire
�,. Department; (10) that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within
fifty(50) feet of all frontages of the business; (11) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall
be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; (12) that there shall be no food sales allowed at
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; (13) that if this site is
changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use this conditional use permit shall become
void and a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site; (14) that seating on the sidewalk outside
the food establishment shall require an encroachment permit and shall conform to the requirements of any
encroachment permit issued by the city; (15) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the
California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame,
and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would
affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit.
The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi.
Comment on the motion: want to clarify that there will be no piped music or live entertainment requiring an
amusement permit in the outdoor patio area, concerned about nearby residents.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the food establishment use with outdoor
patio area limited to 600 SF of seating area immediately behind the business with no cooler, bar, piped
music or live entertainment in the outdoor patio seating area. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
6. 401 PRIMROSE ROAD — SUITE B, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 — APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE (ALLAN OMAND, APPLICANT;
MURRAY COHN PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report January 8,2007,with attachments. Plr.Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria --�
and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Allan Omand,El Granada,represented the project. He noted
that his business specializes in real estate investments.There were no questions of the applicant. There were
no further comments. The public hearing was closed.
C. Cauchi moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions:
(1) that the real estate business shall be limited to 812 SF in Suite B at 401 Primrose Road,as shown on the
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 18, 2006; (2) that the real estate
business shall not expand into any other tenant space in the building without an amendment to this permit;
(3) that the real estate business may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m.,seven days a week;with a maximum of two employees at any one time,including the business owner;
the number of employees shall not be increased without an amendment to the conditional use permit; (4)
that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as
stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; (5) that the use and any
improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame;and (6) that this conditional use permit shall be
reviewed upon complaint.
The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for real estate
use in 812 SF in Suite B. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 9:10 p.m.
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
C. Osterling noted that for business he needed to catch a flight and stepped down from the dias and left the
council chambers. Chair Brownrigg noted his departure at 9:15 p.m.
7. 50 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED RR—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW,
PARKING AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCES FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (MCA ARCHITECTS,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HACOR, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (7 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report January 8,2007,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: need 69
parking spaces,54 will be provided in 18 units which stack three deep,so 15 parking spaces are provided at-
grade on site,outside of the loading docks. CP responded yes, should be identified on the plans. Applicant
did not respond to the question about whether this location will be a point of sale for this product. CA noted
that the commission can make it a condition of approval that this be a point of sale for the product produced
on this site. If this business leaves this site what happens to the lifts? CP noted that commission can require
that they be removed. CA noted that commission can limit continued use to a specific use such as food
processing, and if the use changed from that the variance and stacked parking could be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing.Jeff Wright,HCA Architects,Portland,represented the project.
He noted that the point of sale for products produced at this site would be in Burlingame; if the structures
are not being used for stacking,the 18 parking spaces can be used for one car; there are 69 parking spaces,
including the 18, 3 decked parking machines, on-site and documented on the plans; the staff report
documents the main shifts and show that the crews come in at different times to allow for parking space
turnover. Commissioner asked,chose not to go with a subsidy to employees who use mass transit,will you
still provide incentives for employees to use mass transit? Have been working with the Alliance which has
agreed to work with the employees to use mass transit, think that there is a strong possibility that many
employees will use mass transit since all the employees at this site will be new. The entry canopy as drawn
is massive, can it be modified so that it would look lighter; would suggest lowering the portion over the
support beams by two-thirds. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was
closed.
Commission comments: need to add a condition requiring that the point of sale for products made on this
site shall be in Burlingame; observe that this stacking system is like one saw in San Francisco, did some
work with a company that made these systems, they work.
C.Brownrigg moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the amended condition that the point of
sale for all sales from this site shall be in the City of Burlingame and the following conditions:
(1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
December 26,2006,sheets A0.0 thru L1.2,and date stamped January 2,2007,sheet L1.1,as amended by the
December 27,2006 letter from the applicant,and date stamped December 28,2006,supplemental packet for
HACOR Burlingame In-Flight kitchen,that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, awnings,
footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that any signs shall
�-- require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; (2) that the point-of-sale for all
products produced on this site shall be the City of Burlingame and should this change the conditional use
permit shall be subject to review and revocation by the Planning Commission; (3) that the vertical lifts for
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
parking shall be operated by a parking valet shall be in the employ of the business on the site and shall be
on-site to operate the lifts during all hours that the business is open and for one hour before and after
opening and closing; the lifts shall be maintained in working order and a valet present at all times; and the
applicant shall submit a report on their maintenance and operation record to the Planning Department on an
annual basis,commencing one year after proj ect approval;if the lifts are ever removed or become inoperable
for a period to exceed 30 days,the parking variance for this use at this site shall become null and void; and
the applicant shall be required to apply to the Planning Commission within 30 days for review of all permits
granted to this site for this use; (4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 6, 2006
memo, the Fire Marshall's October 10, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinators
October 16,2006 memos and the City Engineer's October 23,2006 memo shall be met; (5) that demolition
or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a
building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,
first or mezzanine floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or
changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
Planning Commission review; (7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect,
engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under
penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (8) that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; (9) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,
etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (10) --�
that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance; and (11) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California
Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by
C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
8. 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
AUTO STORAGE FOR A TOWING BUSINESS AND AN AUTOMOBILE DEALER IN A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT (MARC ROCHETTE, I? & M TOWING, APPLICANT; FITNESS PROPERTIES LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER) G 8 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report January 8,2007,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Nineteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: thought
that it was a requirement in the zoning that the vehicles stored be operable? CP noted that this application
was received when the M-1 zoning was in effect for this area, and the operable vehicle requirement was a
criteria added to the zoning with the RR zoning now in effect. Is the amount of the liability shown going to
be sufficient over time? CA noted that in the past received a flooding claim for 40 vehicles stored in the
drain, settlement was $20,000 per vehicle or $800,000, so thought $1,000,000 would be adequate.
Commissioner noted that should add a condition to the liability condition that there be a bi-annual escalator
for the liability insurance determined by the City Attorney. No variance is required for the storage of
inoperable vehicles? CP under the M-1 zoning district that is correct. Noted in on site inspection that
opening the gate at the end of 1640 Rollins Road for D & M towing access will cause the loss of some
stripped parking along the fence at the rear of the site,can they be replaced on site? CP noted that it is our
14
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
understanding that the use in this building is changing. The new use would be required to provide parking to
code requirements on site. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Nichole Rochette , D & M towing manager, and Guillermo
Macalpin,representing the property owner spoke. Counted 18 parking spaces along the rear fence of 1640
Rollins Road, two of these are located in the gate area, there are also 12 parking spaces on the side of the
building,for a total on site of 30 without the two at the gate. Atherton Appliance now owns the building and
intends to use 1640 as a warehouse,then need access to the loading docks at the rear which may also affect
the parking at the rear. Commissioner asked if when D &M parks an inoperable car, do they drain the oil
and gas? Leave the car/truck as towed,if they see a leak they call the Fire Department,they put absorbent
material or a pan under the vehicle, D & M is not a salvage yard, so do not touch the vehicles.
Commissioner asked how often does the drain flood? Sr.Engineer Bell noted that there is about one to two
feet of water in the drain every 5 years;no use will be allowed without an encroachment permit from Public
Works which will require appropriate drainage with petroleum filters, etc. CP noted that there has been
some kind of Fish and Game permit and US Army Corps of Engineers review,but any improvements will
also need to be consistent with the requirements of these agencies. There were no further comments from
the floor. The public hearing was closed.
C. Cauchi moved to approve the application,by resolution,with an amendment to condition 11 to provide
the City Attorney bi-annually a review of the adequacy of the amount of liability insurance, and shall have
the right to increase the amount if it is determined by him to be appropriate, and with the following
conditions:
(1) that the project shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
`-- stamped December 18,2006; and the use within the drainage easement shall include no construction except
for a fence, required paving, drainage improvements, and wildlife protection facilities; (2) that the
conditions of the City Engineer's February 22,2005 and June 27,2006 memos and the NPDES Coordinator's
February 16, 2005 memo shall be met; (3) that driveway access to the towing vehicle storage area at the
south end of the drainage easement shall be provided through property at 1640 Rollins Road, and the
applicant shall enter into a lease agreement for ingress and egress with the owner of that property for the
duration of the use of the drainage easement for storage of towed vehicles; (4) that driveway access to the
automobile dealer storage area within the northern portion of the drainage easement shall be provided
through the northern driveway on property at 1704 Rollins Road, and the applicant shall enter into a lease
agreement for ingress and egress with the owner of that property for the duration of the use of the drainage
easement for automobile storage; (5) that cars shall only be moved from the automobile dealers storage
portion of the site only between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.,there shall be no car carriers used to
deliver vehicles to the site or remove them,nor shall car carriers be parked in the public right-of-way to load
or unload cars from this site; (6) that parking within the drainage easement shall be exclusive for storage of
up to 40 vehicles for an automobile dealership and for storage of eight tow trucks and up to 70 cars which
have been towed to the site; and the maximum number of vehicles stored in the designated drainage
easement area shall not exceed 118; (7) that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and
through the easement from the adjacent parcels and from Rollins Road; (8) that all the vehicles shall be
relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility and liability of the property owner;and it
is the responsibility of the business to make tow trucks available to move any vehicles stored on the site that
are not in operable condition; (9) that the applicant shall provide a hold harmless agreement in a form
approved by the City Attorney that provides as follows: (A) Owner agrees and understands that some of the
parking proposed in the application is to be located in a drainage area that is subject to periodic flooding.
The Owner has obtained professional analysis of the effects and impacts of the drainage area; (B) Owner
agrees and affirms that Owner is relying solely on Owner's own knowledge and the representations of
15
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
Owner's own experts and consultants in designing,constructing,and using the project and in no way relying
on any representations or analyses of the City or any of its officers or employees in proceeding with the
construction and uses; (C) Owner agrees that Owner shall defend and indemnify the City, its officers
and employees against, and will hold them and each of them harmless from any and all actions, claims,
damages to persons or properties, penalties, obligations, and liabilities, including any attorneys fees or
associated costs,that may be asserted by any person arising from the approval, design, location, methods,
installation,operation,and existence of the parking within the drainage area approved by the City; (D) This
agreement shall be recorded by the City in the Official Records of the Recorder of San Mateo County; (10)
that the property shall be posted at all times with signs approved by the City Engineer at distances no further
apart than 20 feet notifying all users of the property that the area is subject to flooding at any time and that
use of the property is at the user's sole risk; (11) that the property owner shall maintain liability insurance
for general liability and flood coverage at all times in an amount of not less than$1 million,naming the City
as an additional insured; and that the City Attorney shall bi-annually review the adequacy of the amount of
liability insurance carried by the applicants and shall have the right to increase the amount of that liability
insurance if it is determined by him to be appropriate;and that the property owner shall keep a current proof
of insurance on file with the City Department of Public Works with the additional insured endorsement at all
times; (12) that the property owner shall obtain the same written acknowledgments of any tenant, lessee,
subtenant, or sublessee of the property as required by Condition No. 9 and file a copy of the
acknowledgments with the City; (13) that the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the
City of Burlingame for maintenance on the drainage easement; (14) that all runoff created during
construction and future discharge from this site shall be required to meet National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System(NPDES)standards. Runoff shall be collected and filtered into the storm water drainage
system through a collection system whose size shall be approved by the City Engineer before it is discharged
into the channel;the property owner shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the system; (15) --�
that each storm water catch basin on the site shall be equipped with one Pig Sump Skimmer#SKM403 at all
times; all catch basins shall be inspected on a weekly basis, and immediately following periods of heavy
rainfall, to ascertain the conditions of the Sump Skimmer filter; any filters found to be at or close to
absorption limit shall be immediately replaced with a new product;and adequate inventory of new product
shall be kept on hand to assure no replacement delays; (16) that the applicant shall obtain an encroachment
permit from the Public Works Department for improvements within the drainage easement;submittal to the
Public Works Department shall include a drawing for the proposed drainage improvements;provide detail
drawings for alternate#4 for the drainage overflow pipe and the size of the sump pump shall be indicated;
(17) that construction activities for the storm drain improvements shall comply with the construction hours
of the Burlingame Municipal Code; (18) that if required for any improvements,the applicant shall amend
the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers permits for any operational
or physical changes made for these uses in this drainage area,and if those permits are not issued these uses
shall cease;and (19) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform
Fire Codes,2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: People whose cars are towed should be made aware that they are being stored in a
flood area; CA noted majority of tows in this case are involuntary or the result of accidents, this is not
voluntary parking where notification of flooding would be important, in this case D & M towing takes
responsibility once they tow the vehicle, it belongs to them and they are liable.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit to use the drain
for auto storage and storage for towed vehicles,operable and inoperable. The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C. -�
Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m.
16
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
9. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE: REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING
PERMITS, RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
POLICY ON FRAMING CERTIFICATION(NOTICE IN SAN MATEO TIMES)PROJECT PLANNER:
MARGARET MONROE
Reference staff report January 8, 2009, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that a
Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been working with the Chief Building Official,City Planner
and City Attorney to address three issues: building permit extension times which also affect Planning
approval extensions;fees for building permit extensions; construction site maintenance;and certification of
framing for design review projects. The first three are amendments/changes to the Municipal Code so are
recommendations to the City Council for action. The framing certification is a Planning Commission policy
and should be adopted by Planning Commission Resolution.
CBO Joe Cyr joined CP in responding to Commissioners questions. Why should the city not hire a
qualified inspector for certification of the framing? If the City certifies the framing then the city becomes
liable for whatever goes wrong in the building in the future, especially since this is not a life/safety issue;
city does not want the exposure. Would not like to see this certification as a profit center for the City. What
kind of litter does the construction site maintenance provision refer to? CP noted paper and other waste.CA
noted that `litter' also includes demolition debris scattered on the lawn or around the site for extended
periods of time. Commissioner noted that responsible builders have dumpster on site,but the streets are so
narrow that these can block traffic and cause a parking problem,not want them in the street any longer than
necessary,this encourages dumpsters. Committee member noted that dumpsters were discussed,and it was
noted that dumpsters are so expensive that they are not kept throughout construction, daily removal in a
`-' smaller truck is now more common. CA noted that litter includes all discarded material. Commissioner
noted that stacked building materials would not be a problem. CP noted certainly not if they were covered.
Commissioner noted that this does not seem to read that drywall and other debris would need to be removed
from the site every night.CBO noted that currently there is no construction site maintenance ordinance,and
thus no way to regulate serious abuse or address neighbor's legitimate complaints. Commissioner noted he
supported the framing certification being done by an architect or residential designer because too frequently
the architect is not engaged in the project after it has been approved by the Planning Commission and the
building permit has been issued. Commissioner noted that he had done several framing certifications since
the Commission directed that a condition be added to residential design review projects,think it works well
and is a great idea. Self certification rarely works. Architect would be certifying what he can see at
framing, there will still be a design review inspection as a part of the final inspection to address details
added after framing.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. The definition of litter
notwithstanding,Commission should approve this amendment;regarding framing certification would also
like to see a notice of completion filed with the County Recorder, so everyone would know up front if a
project had not called for a final inspection,this should be required for all substantial remodels and all new
construction. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: All agree on the permit extension and framing certification,think the construction
site regulation is a dramatic change,would prefer to see a condition requiring site maintenance added to the
Planning Commission's action on each project. Don't have a problem covering materials stored on the site
`-- or refuse and dumpsters at night,would have the benefit of keeping the neighbors from tossing their things
into the dumpster; concerned about trash receptacle on site, when full should pick up, ok if it must be
covered went they drive away;practically this is a code enforcement issue.
17
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
C. Cauchi, noted that the construction site maintenance issue is practically a code enforcement issue and --�
moved to adopt the planning commission resolution establishing architectural certification of the framing for
all projects subject to design review prior to calling for a final framing inspection and recommendation to
the City Council for approval of the changes to the municipal code for permit extensions, short term
extensions,permit extension fees and construction site maintenance with amendment to the text(in italics)
to include:
"Any property own or person in charge of a construction site shall furnish covered litter containers for
construction litter, including construction debris. All waste matter or litter from construction and related
activities shall be picked up and placed in covered containers at the end of each working day. Water matter
or litter receptacles of a sufficient number must be located on the construction site to receive personal litter,
construction debris, or any waste matter generated by the employees, workers, invitees, or other persons
using the site." The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Commission resolution for
architectural certification of the framing before the final framing inspection and to recommend to the City
Council amendments to the municipal code for permit extension, short term permit extensions, permit
extension fees and the amended construction site maintenance provisions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR ANEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE(MR.AND MRS.BERNARD CORRY,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;JAMES
CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA
WHITMAN
Commissioner Auran noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the
proceedings. He left the chambers.
Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that two letters were submitted by neighbors
sharing concerns about the project. There were no questions of staff. Commissioner noted that he met with
the applicant on the site to discuss the details of the project.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, and Bernard Corry,property owner,
noted that this is a difficult site to work with because of the upward slope, there is a difference of 12 feet
from front to rear, they are proposing to maintain the finished floor of the house as it exists because the
sewer main is located in the easement to the rear of the property;detached garage is at the rear of the lot and
therefore had to adjust the slope of the driveway to make it easier to back onto the street,otherwise driveway
would be very steep.
Public comment continued: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, noting that there are a lot of
neighborhoods in Burlingame with the sewer line at the rear;however,there may also be a sewer line in the
street at the front of the house,should check with Public Works;should consider planting a Jacaranda tree in
front yard,would be appropriate for Craftsman style house;chimney along left side of house is too high and -�
massive;should consider shifting the house six inches to the right to provide a wider driveway,would make
it easier for vehicles to enter and exit the site; concerned that the design of the proposed door is being used
on a lot of houses, should consider using a craftsman style door with divided lites, ledge and recessed
18
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
panels; in June 2005, an application for a remodel and addition was approved, with that project the house
was 4 feet taller than proposed,a building permit was issued but the project was never built,at that time the
lot was listed as 6,000 SF but with this application the lot is listed as 6,014 SF,where did the extra SF come
from? Commission noted that a survey was done for the current project, the surveyed lot size is more
accurate.
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the design:
■ front and left elevations are inconsistent,grade on front elevation should be lower and will make the
house look taller, please revise to show correct grade elevation;
■ add note on plans to specify size of brackets;
■ chimney on left elevation appears slender,need to make it more substantial,could add a shoulder or
other element to beef it up;
■ concerned with the 34 foot tall chimney along the left elevation,need to do something to reduce its
height, could make it a direct vent fireplace or completely remove chimney; however, since the
chimney provides articulation,removing it may create additional problems with articulation on that
side;
■ front elevation shows stucco on bay window,right elevation shows shingle on bay window,please
clarify right elevation to show stucco on bay window, review plans and make details of design
consistent throughout;
■ concerned with the massing of the stairway to the front of the house,the 6 foot width and substantial
railing will make it look very massive, steep stairway needs to be eliminated, suggest starting the
walkway slightly to the right of the driveway and work with the slope,have the walkway meander
up to the porch with some steps along the way;
■ concerned with the 100 foot long blank fence along the driveway,there is no landscaping proposed,
need to add landscaping along the entire length of the driveway to soften the fence;
■ concerned with inset for stairway on the left elevation,creates an awkward roof relationship with the
bay above, needs to be addressed;
■ stairway is prominent, need to reduce the massing of the stairway, also study size of stairway
window;
■ concerned with the height of the mechanical door on the left elevation, looks awkward to have the
bottom of the door raised off the ground,should consider lowering the door to look like it is entering
the house;
■ if a driveway gate is proposed, applicant should consider adding an electronic gate, 20 feet back
from the front property line to encourage use of the driveway and garage;
■ concerned with the two story element on the left side of the house as seen on the front elevation,
need to reduce the massing at the front,suggest relocating bedroom#2 to the right side of the house
to mirror master bedroom,this would benefit the front elevation by adding a one-story element at the
front of the house, this would not significantly affect the floor space or room size, may reduce
hallway area;
■ would like to see the relationship between the proposed house and houses next door to make sure the
proposed height is compatible,provide streetscape of proposed house and adjacent houses;
■ would like to see a tree planted in the front yard of a species with a vertical shape which would grow
to a 25 foot height to soften the height of the building,proposed strawberry tree can remain if it will
grow to 25 feet in height,need verification of growth height from landscape architect;reduction of
the walkway width will provide more room for a substantial tree in front yard;if strawberry tree will
`-- not achieve height, landscape architect should choose a tree that is the dominant species on this
block; and
19
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
■ applicant needs to work with the neighbor regarding the concern over the hedge along the north side
of the property, landscape architect or specialist should advise on protection during construction, -�
issue needs to be resolved before coming back for action; condition of approval will be added to
require an arborist's report to maintain and protect hedge during construction.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions
have been made and plan checked and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C.
Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran abstain, C. Osterling
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00
p.m.
C. Auran returned to the dais.
11. 1592 COLUMBUS AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE (JAMES MCFALL, MCFALL ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
GREG AND LYNNE MCVEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA
WHITMAN
Chairman Brownrigg noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the
proceedings. He left the chambers.
Plr.Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that three letters were submitted by neighbors
in support of the project. There were no questions of staff.
Vice-Chair Deal opened the public comment. Greg Mcvey, property owner and James McFall, project
architect represented the project,noted that he has been a resident of Burlingame for 20 years,like the way
the house is built around the center patio,but the house has an odd shape and placement on the lot;run local
toy business in Burlingame which requires long hours,use the existing accessory structure in the rear yard as
a home office,would like to continue same use in new hobby room proposed over the garage;now have a
two-car garage at the front of the house,project includes moving garage out of site to the rear;three letters in
support submitted by neighbors were unsolicited, show proposed plans to seven neighbors.
Public comment continued:Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,spoke,noted that this is a wonderful looking
house, the front trellis would look great with wisteria on it,would also help to enhance the posts.
Commission noted: typically would not approve two-story accessory structure, but in this case it is
acceptable because the structure will not impose on the neighbors given the site conditions, including the
buffer created by the creek behind the property;proposed hobby room above the garage is modest,no sewer
or water line is proposed.
Commissioners made the following comments regarding the design:
20
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
■ projection for kitchen stove on the west elevation looks awkward, should consider removing it or
changing the exterior material from shingle to horizontal siding;
■ should make the corbels along the left side of the house more substantial,use double corbels to add
visual support;
■ suggest not building a property line fence along the left side and rear of the garage,fence should stop
at the front of the garage and turn in, this eliminates the unusable space between the garage and
fence and allows better access for maintenance if neighbors agree;
■ proposed garage is close to property line, applicant should verify that the gutter and eave of garage
does not extend across property line;
■ skylights should be tinted to reduce night glow;
■ would like to see a detailed landscape plan or additional landscaping on the site plan; more
landscaping should be added between the deck and rear property line(or identify existing material in
this area) and along the driveway;
■ could break the plate line along the long side by increasing the plate height in the guest room at the
front of the house;
■ concerned that the design proposed at the front of the house makes it look like the back of a house;
the trellis,second floor cantilever and front door together make it look like the back of a house,does
not integrate well, maybe could add a covered porch element to announce the front entrance and
better integrate the entrance;
■ large,broad deck at the front of the house works well because this is probably the sunny side of the
lot,consider changing the shape of the deck or adding a railing to help announce the entrance to the
house; and
■ entrance to the house can also be identified by enhancing the design of the columns making them
more substantial and adding the address number.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C.Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have
been made and plan checked, and there is space on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Brownrigg abstain, C. Osterling
absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:25
p.m.
Chairman Brownrigg returned to the dais.
X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
- There were no Commissioner's Reports for review.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of January 2, 2007.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 2,2007, she noted that the Council
set the appeal hearing from 1557 Drake for January 16, 2007. She also noted that at their special
�. meeting in December the council moved the appeal hearing for 3 Rio Court to February 5, 2007.
21
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2007
- FYI: 1465 Balboa Avenue—changes to a previously approved design review project. -�
Commission had no comments on this request.
- FYI: 469 Bloomfield Avenue—changes to a previously approved design review project.
Commission had no comments on this request.
- FYI: 2105 Roosevelt Avenue—changes to a previously approved design review project.
Commission had no comments on this request.
- FYI: 216 Bloomfield Road—as-built changes to a previously approved design review project.
Commission had no comments on this request.
- FYI: 1783 El Camino Real—street light fixture selection for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project.
Commission endorsed the selection of the American made light standard based on the facts that it was
preferred by the Public Works department,the cost was less than the alternative and maintenance would
be reduced because the parts were more readily available. Commissioners did note that they were
opposed to the use of low pressure sodium lights or any colored lighting in these fixtures. Staff will pass
this decision on to the hospital project manager. The hospital is getting ready to install the light fixtures
and landscaping along El Camino and Trousdale at the parking garage.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
22
City of Burlingame
DECEMBER PERMIT ACTIVITY
" December permit activity was down significantly from the same time last year. Small permits for plumbing and commercial signs dropped significantly in December.
Permits for residential alterations were about the same as November.The permit activity for the fiscal year remains positive due to the recent issuance of permits for some
large tenant improvements and a new condominium complex.
* There were two requests for pre-application meetings: One for a condominium conversion on Bellevue Ave. and another for an interior renovation at Banana Republic.
THIS MONTH THIS MONTH DIFF F. Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF
LAST YEAR
Permit Type # # % # # %
WATER HEATER 5 4,627 3 3,682 26 23 32,620 32 26,290 24
SWIMMING POOL 2 86,500 5 103,800 -17
SIGN 2 33,000 3 1,100 2,900 25 167,195 20 54,537 207
ROOFING 13 160,849 15 186,724 -14 156 2,197,903 152 1,896,368 16
RETAINING WALL 1 12,000 2 262,020 6 254,017 3
PLUMBING 9 33,750 179 716,303 -95 92 262,824 265 933,257 -72
NEW SFD 2 855,000 7 3,534,000 12 4,345,000 -19
NEW COMMERCIAL
NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 3,500,000
NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT
MECHANICAL 3 6,900 27 355,623 24 94,585 276
KITCHEN UPGRADE 3 58,000 4 55,594 4 17 586,600 17 460,594 27
FURNACE 2 9,600 2 10,430 -8 5 25,914 19 61,695 -S8
ELECTRICAL SERVICE 1 8,000 11 30,150 5 61,200 -51
City of Burlingame
DECEMBER PERMIT ACTIVITY
THIS MONTH
THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F.Y. 2007 F.Y.2006 DIFF
Permit Type # # % # # %
ELECTRICAL 5 119,570 7 16,700 616 26 242,845 42 115,517 110
BATHROOM UPGRADE 2 20,000 3 27,563 -27 21 311,200 22 422,463 -26
ALTERATION RESIDENTI 17 875,305 20 960,615 -9 169 7,933,810 243 8,981,349 -12
ALTERATION NON RES 5 1,458,500 8 265,800 449 43 7,705,674 49 4,036,966 91
Totals: 67 2,788,101 247 39111,511 -10 627 27,234,878 913 21,8479638 25
' CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
December 31 , 2006
Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM
Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
LAIF & County Pool 16,015,793.88 16,015,793.88 16,015,793.88 52.52 1 1 4.627 4.691
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 14,000,000.00 13,939,390.00 14,000,000.00 45.91 1,092 580 4.232 4.291
Federal Agency Issues - Discount 500,000.00 496,350.00 480,695.56 1.58 280 53 5.212 5.285
30,515,793.88 30,451,533.88 30,496,489.44 100.00% 506 267 4.455 4.517
Investments
Total Earnings December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 111,538.97 675,908.14
Average Daily Balance 29,184,731.81 30,500,369.82
Effective Rate of Return 4.50% 4.40%
Pursuant to State law, there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and
availa 'lity of some9f these funds is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds).
i/ �l�Or1
J SUS NAV , FINANCE DIR./TREASURER
Reporting period 12/01/2006-12/31/2006 Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 01/11/2007-09:17 PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver. 5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 2
Portfolio Details - Investments
December 31, 2006
Average Purchase
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date
LAIF&County Pool
SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 7,950,444.00 7,950,444.00 7,950,444.00 5.129 5.129 1
SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 8,065,349.88 8,065,349.88 8,065,349.88 4.260 Aaa 4.260 1
Subtotal and Average 14,526,616.89 16,015,793.88 16,015,793.88 16,015,793.88 4.691 1
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon
3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 991,880.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 172 06/22/2007
3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 996,560.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 4.817 662 10/24/2008
3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 994,380.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 686 11/17/2008
3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 996,880.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 361 12/28/2007
3133XGQM9 528 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2006 1,000,000.00 999,380.00 1,000,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.400 991 09/18/2009
3133XJ6F0 531 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/20/2006 1,000,000.00 991,250.00 1,000,000.00 5.025 Aaa 5.025 1,449 12/20/2010
3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,994,930.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 29 01/30/2007
3128X5LP1 529 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/06/2006 1,000,000.00 995,820.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,739 10/06/2011
3128X5SU3 532 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 12/29/2006 1,000,000.00 995,500.00 1,000,000.00 5.220 Aaa 5.220 1,457 12/28/2010
3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 993,440.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 116 04/27/2007
3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 989,060.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 290 10/18/2007
31359MMP5 530 FANNIE MAE 12/01/2006 1,000,000.00 1,000,310.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.215 104 04/15/2007
Subtotal and Average 14,177,419.35 14,000,000.00 13,939,390.00 14,000,000.00 4.291 580
Federal Agency Issues-Discount
313588CFO 526 FANNIE MAE 05/19/2006 500,000.00 496,350.00 480,695.56 4.964 Aaa 5.285 53 02/23/2007
Subtotal and Average 480,695.56 500,000.00 496,350.00 480,695.56 5.285 53
Total and Average 29,184,731.81 30,515,793.88 30,451,533.88 30,496,489.44 4.517 267
Portfolio CITY
a
CP
Run Dale:01/11/2007-09:17 PM(PRF_PM2)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
sort Ver.5.00
}
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 3
Portfolio Details - Cash
December 31, 2006
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity
Average Balance 0.00 0
Total Cash and Investmentss 29,184,731.81 30,515,793.88 30,451,533.88 30,496,489.44 4.517 267
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Dale:01/11/2007-09:17
PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 4
Activity By Type
December 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006
Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance
LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary)
SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 4.260 5,719,592.05 2,000,000.00
Subtotal 12,296,201.83 5,719,592.05 2,000,000.00 16,015,793.88
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon
3133XEUE 522 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.000 12/22/2006 0.00 2,000,000.00
3133XFRL2 527 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.200 12/22/2006 0.00 500,000.00
3133XJ6F0 531 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.025 12/20/2006 1,000,000.00 0.00
3128X5SU3 532 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 5.220 12/29/2006 1,000,000.00 0.00
31359MMP5 530 FANNIE MAE 5.250 12/01/2006 1,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal 13,500,000.00 3,000,000.00 2,500,000.00 14,000,000.00
Federal Agency Issues-Discount
Subtotal 480,695.56 480,695.56
Total 26,276,897.39 8,719,592.05 4,500,000.00 30,496,489.44
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM(PRF_PM3)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Run Date:01/11/20 7-^9:17
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 5
Activity Summary
December 2005 through December 2006
Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number
Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average
End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity
December 2005 10 27,741,871.03 3.594 3.644 3.613 1 0 356 214
January 2006 10 29,203,493.47 3.692 3.743 3.767 0 0 338 192
February 2006 10 27,236,535.77 3.734 3.786 3.836 0 0 363 196
March 2006 11 28,865,253.49 3.750 3.802 3.721 1 0 361 192
April 2006 11 31,600,492.83 3.997 4.052 4.136 0 0 330 165
May 2006 15 34,904,265.49 4.169 4.227 4.293 4 0 317 155
June 2006 16 33,717,988.31 4.224 4.283 4.375 1 0 330 150
July 2006 16 32,218,943.80 4.307 4.367 4.539 0 0 346 143
August 2006 16 32,238,322.45 4.317 4.377 4.558 0 0 345 128
September 2006 14 30,514,724.43 4.326 4.386 4.500 1 3 379 158
October 2006 15 29,368,136.07 4.375 4.435 4.533 1 0 456 210
November 2006 14 26,276,897.39 4.464 4.526 4.812 0 1 496 211
December 2006 15 30,496,489.44 4.455 4.517 4.691 3 2 506 267
Average 13 30,337,185.69 4.108% 4.165% 4.260 1 0 379 183
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:01/11/2007-09:17 PM(PRF_PM4)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 6
Distribution of Investments By Type
December 2005 through December 2006
December January February March April May June July August September October November December Average
Security Type 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006' 2006 2006 2006 by Period
LAIF&County Pool 64.0 65.8 63.3 58.4 62.0 58.6 55.6 53.6 53.6 54.2 49.0 46.8 52.5 56.7%
Certificates of Deposit-Bank
Certificates of Deposit-S&L
Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln
Negotiable CD's-Bank
CORP NOTES
Bankers Acceptances
Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing
Commercial Paper-Discount
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 36.1 34.2 36.7 41.6 38.0 37.2 40.0 41.9 41.9 44.2 49.4 51.4 45.9 41. %
Federal Agency Issues-Discount 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.99%
Treasury Securities-Coupon
Treasury Securities-Discount
Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon
Miscellaneous Securities-Discount
Non Interest Bearing Investments
Mortgage Backed Securities
Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2
Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM(PRF_PM5)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Run Date:01/11/20007-09:17 ( Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 7
Interest Earnings Summary
December 31, 2006
December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
CD/Coupon/Discount Investments:
Interest Collected 130,500.00 317,033.33
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 117,412.20 117,412.20
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 194,666.16) ( 119,852.38)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Interest Earned during Period 53,246.04 314,593.15
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Earnings during Periods 53,246.04 314,593.15
Pass Through Securities:
Interest Collected 0.00 0.00
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00
Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00
Cash/Checking Accounts:
Interest Collected 0.00 400,347.15
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 414,813.62 414,813.62
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 356,520.69) ( 453,845.78)
Interest Earned during Period 58,292.93 361,314.99
Total Interest Earned during Period 111,538.97 675,908.14
Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Total Earnings during Period 111,538.97 675,908.14
Portfolio CITY
Run Dale:01/11/2007-09:17
CP
PM(PRF_PM6)SymRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
PFM Asset Managentent LLC- CAMP PROGRAM
Investment Portfolio Information For
CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME (116-00)
Portfolio #
12510150
Section/Report Title
A. Account Summary
B. Detail of Securities Held
C. Fair Market Values&Analytics
D. Security Transactions&Interest
E. Cash Transactions Report
F. Realized Gains&Losses
G. Cash Balance Report
For The Month Ending
December 31, 2006
CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME
CA
PFM Asset Management LLC*One Keystone Plaza*North Front&Market Streets,Suite 300*Harrisburg,PA 17101-2044*(717)232-2723
For more information,please contact your client m( r: NSESA KAZADI (415)982-5544 KAZADIN@pfTn.com
iAim
Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOF BURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash)
MONTH ENDED: December 31,2006
MARKET%OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION
SECURITY TYPE PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WORST
FED AGY BOND/NOTE 3,000,000.00 2,994,425.89 2,994,687.50 75.240 5.286 4.963 0.126
FED AGY DN. 1,000,000.00 985,916.67 985,511.88 24.760 5.191 5.240 0.270
TOTAL SECURITIES 4,000,000.00 3,980,342.56 3,980,199.38 100.000 5.262% 5.032% 0.161
TOTAL INVESTMENTS 4,000,000.00 3,980,342.56 3,980,199.38 100.000%
ACCRUED INTEREST 35,138.89 35,138.89
TOTAL PORTFOLIO $4,000,000.00 $4,015,481.45 $4,015,338.27
Disclosure Statement: PFM's monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity.The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes(i.e.settles)all investment transactions.The custodian
statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions.Only the client has the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian and to direct the movement of securities.Clients
retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies,implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions.PFM recognizes that our clients may use these
reports to facilitate record keeping,therefore the custodian bank statement and the PFM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved.PFM's market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last
business day of the month as supplied by F.T.Interactive Data,Bloomberg or Telerate.Prices that fall between data points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates of deposit are priced at par.
A-1
PFMAsset Iement LLC- ! PROGRAM I , /
Detail of Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: December 31,2006
SECURITY TYPE MATURITY S&P TRADE SETTLE ORIGINAL YTM ACCRUED AMORTIZED MARKET
CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE RATING DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE
FED AGY BOND/NOTE
31359MTXI FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 1,000,000 2.625 01/19/07 AAA 08/30/06 08/31/06 989,574.00 5.346 11,812.50 998,649.87 998,750.00
3134A4UN2 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 AAA 09/27/06 09/28/06 989,068.00 5.290 8,972.22 996,488.99 996,562.50
3134A4NW0 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 AAA 09/27/06 09/28/06 998,391.00 5.221 14,354.17 999,287.03 999,375.00
3,000,000 ,9 7,033.00 5.286 35,138.89 2,994,425.89 2,9 87.50
FED AGY DN
313588EE1 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 04/11/07 A-1+ 10/27/06 10/27/06 976,621.67 5.191 0.00 985,916.67 985,511.88
1,000,000 976,621.67 5.191 0.00 985,916.67 985,511.88
TOTAL SECURITIES $4,000,000 $3,953,654.67 5.262% $35,138.89 $3,980,342.56 $3,980,199.38
Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value
❑A-1s $965.512 24.6%
❑FF4MC $1.995.938 50.1% NAAA $2994688 75.2%
■FNMA $1,984,262 49.9% Tota
Total: $3.980.199 100.0%
B1
PFMAsset I , PROGRAM, ,
Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITYDFBURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: December 31,2006
SECURITY TYPE MATURITY FIRST CALL MARKT MARKET UNREAL G/(L) UNREAL G/(L) DURATION YTM
CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE DATE PRICE VALUE ON AMORT COST ON COST TO WORST AT MKT
FED AGY BOND/NOTE
31359MTX1 FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 1,000,000 2.625 01/19/07 01/19/05 99.875 998,750.00 100.13 9,176.00 0.052 4.805
3134A4UN2 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 99.656 996,562.50 73.51 7,494.50 0.122 5.044
3134A4NW0 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 99.938 999,375.00 87.97 984.00 0.203 5.041
FED AGY DN
313588EEI FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 04/11/07 98.551 985,511.88 (404.79) 8,890.21 0.270 5.240
SUBTOTALS $3,980,199.38 ($143.18) $26,544.71 0.161 5.032 %
ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 35,138.89
TOTAL MARKT VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $4,015,338.27
C-1
I i I i
CAMP
PROGRAM I / IA
Security Transactions & Interest: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME 0 16-00)
MONTH ENDED: December 31,2006
(Excluding Cash)
S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED
TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL
12/18/06 12/18/06 MATURITY FNMA DISC NOTE 313589T60 A-1+ 1,000,000 0.000 12/18/06 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00
1,000,000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00
TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS 1,000,000.00
D-1
PFM A sset Man ageniM
I PR
I GRA M
Cas4 Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
MONTH ENDED: December 31,2006
CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT
12/18/06 Cw Y (1,000,000.00
(1,000,000.00)
NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONS/(WITHDRAWS) ($1,000,000.00)
E-1
I i iManagement
CAMP
PROGRAM I , IA
Realized Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
(Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: December 31,2006
TRADE SETTLE PRINCH'AL REALIZED REALIZED
DATE DATE TRAN TYPE SALE METHOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSH' PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L)COST G/(L)AMORT CST
12/18/06 12/18/06 MATURITY FNMA DISC NOTE 313589T60 1,000,000 0.000 1,000,000.00 36,058.06 0.00
TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES $36,058.06 $0.00
/ F-1
PFMAsset
• I PROGRAM/ I
Cash Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00)
MONTH ENDED: December 31,2006
CASA BALANCE: $0.00
Earnings Calculation Templates
Current Month-End Book Value + Add Coupon Interest Received +
Current Month-End Accrued Interest + Less Purchased Interest Related to Coupons
Less Purchases - Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/_
Less Purchased Interest -
Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month
Add Disposals(Sales,Maturities,Paydowns,Sinks,etc.) +
Add Coupon Interest Received +
Less Previous Month-End Book Value
Less Previous Month-End Accrued Interest
Total Accrual Basis Earnings For The Month
Economic Calendar
01/03/07 FOMC Minutes 01/18/07 Consumer Price Index
01/05/07 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 01/18/07 Housing Starts
01/05/07 Unemployment Rate 01/26/07 Durable Goods Orders
01/12/07 Advanced Retail Sales 01/31/07 4th Quarter GDP
01/16/07 Empire Manufacturing 01/31/07 Chicago Purchasing Manager
01/17/07 Producer Price Index 01/31/07 FOMC Meeting
Market Commentary
2006 came to a close with a dose of stronger than expected economic data.Both existing and new home sales were better than economists predicted.Durable Goods orders and the
Chicago Purchasing Manager survey were also better than expected.In addition a key consumer confidence indicator reached its highest reading since April of 2006.The strong data
forced the Treasury market to reconsider the likelihood of future Fed interest rate cuts. The Treasury market is still counting on at least one rate cut sometime in 2007 but has discounted
the chances of additional cuts. Yields on Treasuries increased to their highest levels of the month as the year came to an end indicating the changing view of future Fed activity. Despite
the year end sell off the Treasury market turned in its best performance since 2002. Equity indexes remained near their highs as the Dow finished the year close to 12,500. There are still
many questions concerning the economy and how the FOMC will react to recent and upcoming data. The future performance of the equity and bond markets will likely be dependent on
future economic growth and rates of inflation.
G-1
@- .0mcast"', Comcast Cable
12647 Alcosta Boulevard
Suite 200
San Ramon, CA 94583
January 5 , 2007 Office: 925.973.7000
Fax: 925.973.7015
www.comcast.com
Mr. Jesus Nava
Finance Director/Treasurer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Dear Mr. Nava:
in an effort to ensure that your office is informed of the current prices for services
offered to our subscribers who reside in your community we are sending you this letter.
For your records, enclosed please find a current price list for Comcast's services.
If you should have any questions please feel free to contact your local Government
Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling at (650) 289-6794.
Sincerely,
Mitzi Givens- Russell
Government Affairs Manager
Franchise Compliance- Bay Market
Enclosure
sab638db
12 Dec 06 11:31 PM
Comcast Products and Services Price List
Effective January 1,2007•All prices exclude applicable franchise fees,regulatory fees and taxes.
Due to increasing operating expenses and other investments that we're making to bring you the best that technology has to offer,effective January 1,2007,some of our service,
installation and equipment charges will change. Please see the attached price list that identifies the rate adjustments and lists the system's service,equipment and installation rates.
If you are currently enjoying a promotion,your rate will remain in effect until your promotion's scheduled expiration date.
Serving Burlingame and portions of San Mateo County (Burlingame Hills)
Limited Basic Service...........................................................................$13.09 INSTALLATION AND REPAIR
Expanded Basic(May not be purchased separately)...........................$36.90 Standard Installations(Aerial and within 125'of cable plant):
StandardCable.....................................................................................$49.99 Unwired...........................................................................................$43.99
Family Tier(cannot be combined with Expanded Basic).....................$14.95 Pre-wired.........................................................................................$27.99
Enhanced Cable/Value Package........................................................$53.50 Additional Outlet-at Initial Installation.................................................$13.99
PACKAGE PRICES&DIGITAL TIERS Additional Outlet-Separate Trip..........................................................$18.99
Relocate Outlet.....................................................................................$18.99
The following Comcast Digital Packages do not include Standard Cable: Upgrade/Downgrade of optional services(addressable)........................$1.99
Digital Classic.......................................................................................$11.95 Upgrade of optional services(requiring separate trip)..........................$15.99
Digital Plus............................................................................................$14.95 Downgrade of optional services(requiring separate trip).....................$10.99
Digital Silver..........................................................................................$31.95 VCR Connection-at Initial Installation..................................................$5.99
Digital Gold...........................................................................................$45.95 VCR Connection-Separate Trip.........................................................$12.99
Digital Platinum.....................................................................................$59.95 Hourly Service Charge..........................................................................$28.49
Digital Premier Tier(Not available in all areas)......................................$4.99 Customer Video Service call.................................................................$17.99
Digital Sports Tier(Not available in all areas)........................................$4.95 MISCELLANEOUS FEES
Digital Additional Outlet Service(Each Additional Outlet)......................$6.99
The following Digital Packages include Standard Cable Non-Sufficient Funds Charge...................................................$25.00/Check
(no longer sold as of Feb 2003): Administrative Fee for Delinquent Payment:
Digital Starter........................................................................................$68.99 (assessed after 15 days past due)......................................................$4.49
Digital Bronze.......................................................................................$68.99 Field Collection Fee................................................................................$9.45
Digital Standard....................................................................................$77.99 Channel Guide(per month) ...................................................................$3.30
Digital Silver..........................................................................................$89.99 Service Protection Plan(monthly) ...........................................................$.99
Digital Gold.........................................................................................$102.99 Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(OCT 700).................................$96.00
Digital Platinum...................................................................................$111.99 Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(OCT 2000-
SPANISH PROGRAMMING PACKAGES Telco w/RF Return).........................................................................$175.00
Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(OCT 2000-
EI Paquete Cable Latino.......................................................................$29.99 Telco vv/RF Return&Dolby 5.1).....................................................$175.00
EI Paquete Cable Latino con HBO.......................................................$39.99 Unreturned Digital Converter(DCT2500)...........................................$167.00
EI Paquete Completo............................................................................$53.50 Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(OCT 5100).............................$336.00
EI Paquete Completo con HBO............................................................$63.50 Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(OCT 6200).............................$320.00
OPTIONAL MONTHLY SERVICES Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(HD/DVR 6208).......................$430.00
Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(HD/DVR 6412).......................$465.00
HBO......................................................................................................$17.99 Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(HD/DVR Moxi).......................$585.00
Showtime..............................................................................................$17.99 Unreturned Digital Converter Charge(SD/DVR Pace).......................$285.00
Cinemax................................................................................................$17.99 Unreturned High Speed Internet Modem..............................................$99.99
The Movie Channel..............................................................................$17.99 HSD-Gateway CHM Cable Modem..................................................$179.99
STARZ!.................................................................................................$17.99 HSD-CHN Wireless Adapter...............................................................$28.00
Encore..................................................................................................$15.99 HSD-EMTA(HSD Modem&CDV capacity).....................................$155.00
Playboy(Adult).....................................................................................$19.99 HSD-Commercial Router.................................................................$146.00
Digital Video Recorder(HD-DVR)Service...........................................$11.95 Unreturned CableCARD.......................................................................$90.00
FM RadioService(withoutLimitedBasic-Not available in all areas).........................$14.95 Unreturned Addressable Converter Charge.........................................$78.00
Unreturned Standard Converter Charge...............................................$54.00
ON DEMAND SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES Unreturned OCT Remote........................................................................$6.40
Bollywood On Demand....................:....................................................$12.99 Unreturned Standard Remote.................................................................$6.40
Unreturned DVR Remote........................................................................$6.65
Bollywood On Demand(if you subscribe to zee TV and/or TV Asia)..........................$9.99
Howard Stern On Demand(monthly)...................................................$10.99 Non-standard video installations will be charged the Hourly Service Charge for the
Howard Stern Or,Demand(yearly)....................................................$119.99 amount of time needed to complete the install.The cost of equipment and materials
WWE 24-7 On Dere`,,t�...........................................................................$7.99 necessary for a non-standard installation may apply.For customers receiving service
through commercial accounts or bulk rate arrangements,some product,pricing and
INTERNATir)•AAL PREMIUM SERVICES A LA CARTE: other information contained herein may not apply. Please refer to the terms and
conditions of the separate agreement.Where terms are inconsistent with information in
The Filipino Channal............................................................................$12.99 this Products and Services Price List, the terms and conditions of the separate
GMA Pinoy TV(Filipino).......................................................................$12.99 agreement will apply.
GMA/TFC combo(Filipino)...................................................................$19.99
Zee TV(South Asian)...........................................................................$15.99 Certain restrictions apply.Call Comcast for complete details about services and prices.
TV Asia(South Asian) """"""""""................................$15.99 Certain services are available separately or as part of other levels of service.Not all
services are available in all areas.Limited Basic Service must be purchased in order to
Zee TV&TV Asia Combo(South Asian).............................................$24.99 subscribe to any other optional video service or tier of video services.You must
RTN(Russian)......................................................................................$14.99 purchase or rent a converter and a remote control to receive certain services.
TV5(French)........................................................................................$10.99 Installation,equipment,additional outlet,change of service,programming access and
RAI(Italian)...........................................................................................$10.99 other charges may apply, depending on location and services ordered. Pricing,
Zhong Tian/CCTV-4 Chinese-Mandarin)............................................$12.99 programming,channel location and packaging may change.You must subscribe to a
TV )........................................
(Japanese) ...................................$25.99 Japan Ja Digital receiver and a Premium Service to receive the multiplexed version of that
P ( P
SBTN(Vietnamese)..............................................................................$14.99 Premium Service.
Dragon TV(Chinese/Mandarin)...........................................................$21.99 After notice of a re-tiering of our services or price adjustment,you may change your
Jade Premium .....................................................................................$10.95 level of service at no additional charge for a period of 30 days from effective date of
Selecto Total(18 Digital Spanish Channels)........................................$16.99 change.Otherwise,changes in services you receive,requested or caused by you,will
EQUIPMENT be subject to upgrade and downgrade charges listed above.
www.comcast.com
Converter-Limited Basic Only Subscribers..........................................$1.10 1-800-COMCAST
HDTV Equipment Fee............................................................................$5.00
Remote Control(all types)........................................................................$.20
Converter-All Other Subscribers..........................................................$3.80
CableCARD(TiVO Series 3-2nd Card)...................................................$1.50
(Wj K964i sab638db 8770-2100(0390,0400,0410)