Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2008.07.21 CITY C BURLJN(3AME e Roe �RnTCO�uN[C BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA - REVISED* Monday,July 21,2008 CLOSED SESSION— 6:15p.m., Conference Room A a. Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)): San Francisco Baykeeper vs. City of Burlingame, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Cal) Case No. CV-08-0895 CW b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 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 June 16, 2008 5. PRESENTATIONS a. Council recognition of Community volunteers who assisted with the City's Centennial celebration b. Presentation to two Certified Green Businesses—Modern Design and Joy's European Tailoring 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Public Hearing amending Ordinance 13.35.045 to allow motorcycles (parked in angled street parking spaces) to place either the front or rear tire within 6" of the space curb or wheel stop to comply with the law 1 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. b. Public Hearing and action on an Ordinance for amendment to Title 22 of the Municipal Code, the Sign Code, to exempt certain pole signs in the Shoreline (SL) District from compliance, amend maximum heights for monument signs in the Rollins Road (RR), Commercial C-1 and C-2 Districts, and correct a reference to wall sign area c. Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of an application for design review, hillside area construction permit, special permit for a basement and parking variance for a first and second story addition and new basement area to an existing single family dwelling on property at 1790 Escalante Way d. Introduce Ordinance amending Chapter 8.16 to require that all occupied properties have collection service and to update the solid waste collections definitions and requirements 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. Presentation of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) recommendations regarding preferred alternative for Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Consultant (Kevin Gardner& Associates) Presentation/Discussion b. Parks & Recreation Commission vacancies— Discuss/Direct c. Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission vacancies - Discuss/Direct 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Resolution approving Professional Services Agreement with Erler& Kalinowski for 2008-09 Water System Program Management and Master Plan Update b. Resolution approving Professional Services Agreement with 4Leaf, Inc. for California Drive Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvements and Rehabilitation Project c. Resolution awarding a construction contract to K. J. Woods, Inc. for the California Drive Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvements and Rehabilitation Project d. Resolution overruling the bid protest and awarding a construction contract to Gantry Constructors for the Mitten Road Sewer Pump Station Improvement Project e. Resolution approving the Broadway Farmers Market and Traffic Control Plan f. Approve out of state travel to Minneapolis for Building Official 2 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. g. Resolution approving reclassification of Fire Mechanic to 40 hour position h. Authorization to reclassify the position of Police Commander to Police Captain i. Approval of Resolution authorizing agreement for Laguna, Paloma, and "J" Lot Play Area Resilient Surfacing j. Employer Pickup Resolution—Pre-Tax Payroll Deduction Plan for Service Credit Purchases k. Approval for Captain Michael Matteucci to attend the FBI National Academy Professional Law Enforcement Command Staff Training in Quantico, Virginia 1. 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 a. Set Planning Commission Appeal Hearing for 1837 Hunt Drive b. Council interest in attending 2008 League of California Cities Annual Conference and designation of a voting delegate 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, May 8, 2008; Library, May 20, 2008; Beautification, June 5, 2008; Planning, June 23, 2008 & July 14, 2008 b. Department Reports: Police, May, 2008; Building, May & June, 2008 C. Memorandum from Police Chief concerning Smart Meter Study d. Letter from Comcast concerning programming adjustments 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 3 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. -Road, from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. 'NEXT MEETING-THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008-STORM DRAIN FEE STUDY SESSION - POSTPONED NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING-AUGUST 18, 2008 4 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. CITY O BURLINGAME AA- BURLINGAME HCITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of June 16, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Rosalie M. O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by former Mayor Bud Harrison. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Deal, Keighran, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Nagel (arrived at 7:11 p.m.) 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2008 Joint Planning/Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 28, 2008 Budget Study Session; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). One correction was made to the minutes of the June 2, 2008 regular Council meeting: Add to Study Session Item a.: The Community Development Director was directed to contact the owners of all properties included in the inventory, providing them with the pros and cons to owning a property included in the inventory, and advising them of the opportunity to submit information that can be forwarded to the historic consultant if they dispute their property's inclusion in the inventory. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the June 2, 2008 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). CLOSED SESSION: CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 City Negotiators: Deirdre Dolan, Jim Nantell, Glenn Berkheimer Labor Organization: Fire Administrators 1 Burlingame City Council June 16,2008 Unapproved Minutes b. Authorization to initiate litigation: Government Code § 54956.9(c): two items 5. PRESENTATIONS a. RECOGNITION OF OUR LADY OF ANGELS TRACK TEAM STARS: KERRY KEIGHRAN, SARAH GOGARTY, MELISSA HOLLAND AND KASSI STEPHENSON OF BURLINGAME INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL Mayor O'Mahony and Vice Mayor Keighran presented proclamations honoring Our Lady of Angels track team stars: Kerry Keighran, Sarah Gogarty, and Melissa Holland; and from Burlingame Intermediate School, Kassi Stephenson. The track team participated in this year's annual Peninsula Parish School League Track and Field Championships. All thanked their Coach, Mark Goyette, for his dedication to the team. Councilwoman Nagel arrived at the dais at 7:11 p.m. b. COUNCIL RECOGNITION OF THE VOLUNTEERS WHO CONDUCTED THE 7TH & 8 TH GRADE DANCE, THE DAY ON THE GREEN EVENT, THE CENTENNIAL GALA AND THE FIREWORKS SHOW CM Nantell stated that P&RD Schwartz spearheaded the Centennial events but was not able to attend this meeting to recognize all the volunteers of the final Centennial events. Stacey Poncia, Recreation Supervisor and staff liaison to the Youth Advisory Committee, introduced Roddy Galli and Alexis Mazzoni, both of Burlingame High School(BHS)who managed the successful Day on the Green event. Roddy expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to broaden his skills and to demonstrate that teens are responsible young adults. RS Poncia also thanked YAC members Casey Sullivan,Nicholas Martin, and Amanda Delbon for their participation. CM Nantell introduced Karen Key, Chair of the Centennial Gala,who reported on the great party the Burlingame community had with over 600 in attendance. She thanked her Co-Chair, Susan Burlison, and committee members and introduced those who were present: Dan Andersen, Gene Condon, Linda Yelnick, Dale and Evie Perkins, Mary Herman and Delores Harrison. Ms. Key then thanked Gordon Gottsche, aka Boom-Boom, for successfully managing the spectacular Fireworks event as part of the Gala. CM Nantell stated that P&RD Schwartz will provide the Centennial financial report at the next meeting and advised that photos of the Gala will be available online at www.dawdyphoto.com. C. PG&E RULE 20—UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEAD POWER LINES DPW Murtuza introduced Sidney Nickelson, Senior Project Manager at PG&E,who presented an overview of PG&E's Rule 20A, B and C programs to manage undergrounding of overhead power lines. The bayfront area had been identified previously for an undergrounding project in the future. At present according to PG&E, Burlingame has approximately$3.9 million worth of work credits to apply towards a Rule 20A proj ect. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 Burlingame City Council June 16,2008 Unapproved Minutes a. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1825 REVISING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.10 SANITARY SEWER USE REGULATIONS TO COMPLY WITH PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED SANITARY SEWER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SSMP) DPW Murtuza reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 1825 revising Section 15.10 of the Municipal Code to comply with the previously adopted Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1825 amending Chapter 15.10 of the Municipal code to clarify rights and responsibilities regarding the Sanitary Sewer System; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. FY 2008/2009 COMMUNITY GROUPS FUNDING REQUESTS FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council to finalize the community group funding awards for FY 08/09. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to approve the proposed total of$53,100 for 2008-09 Community Groups funding; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE 13.36.045 TO ALLOW MOTORCYCLES TO FACE OUTWARD WITHIN ANGLED PARKING SPACES BY PLACING EITHER WHEEL WITHIN 6" OF THE SPACE CURB OR WHEEL STOP COP Van Etten reviewed the staff report and requested Council to introduce an ordinance amending the Municipal Code to allow motorcycles to face outward within angled parking spaces. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 13.36.045 to allow motorcycles to be parked in angle parking facing out. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. C. FY 2008/2009 BUDGET ADOPTION AND GANN LIMIT RESOLUTIONS 3 Burlingame City Council June 16,2008 Unapproved Minutes FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and adopt two annual budget approval resolutions adopting the 2008-09 Budget and establishing the 2008-09 Gann (appropriation) limit. DPW Murtuza provided an overview of the 2008-09 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve Resolution No. 49-2008 adopting Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2009; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve Resolution No. 50-2008 establishing the 2008-09 Appropriation Limit pursuant to Article XIII B of the California Constitution; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SIGN CODE, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE SHORELINE (SL) DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE, AMEND MAXIMUM HEIGHTS FOR MONU- MENT SIGNS AND TO CORRECT A REFERENCE REGARDING WALL SIGN AREA CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council to introduce an ordinance amending Title 22 of the Municipal Code. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Title 22 (Sign Code) to exempt certain pole signs in the SL District from compliance, amend the maximum heights allowed for monument signs in the RR, C-1, and C-2 Districts, and correct reference for wall sign area. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. e. CONSIDER TWO APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Council discussed the various attributes of all commission candidates. Each Councilmember voted for two candidates to fill the two vacancies. Of the six candidates, Deborah Griffith, incumbent, received the unanimous votes of the Council; and Sanborn "Sandy" Towle received the majority vote of the Council. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to appoint Deborah Griffith to the Library Board; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to appoint Sandy Towle to the Library Board; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor Keighran requested removal of Item a. from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. b. APPROVAL OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROMOTIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2008/09 4 Burlingame City Council June 16,2008 Unapproved Minutes FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 54-2008 authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to provide information and promotion services in 2008-09. C. APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ATTEND GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING IN KANSAS CITY FinDir Nava requested Council approve out of state travel for the Finance Director to attend the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council Meeting in Kansas City July 14-16, 2008. d. RESOLUTION NO. 51-2008 AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR& RESURFACING CO., INC. FOR 2008 STREET MICRO-SURFACING PROGRAM DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 51-2008 awarding the contract for construction for Street Micro-Surfacing Program 2008 to American Asphalt Repair and Resurfacing Co., Inc. e. RESOLUTION NO. 52-2008 REJECTING THE APPARENT LOW BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO BAY AREA PAVING FOR THE 2007-08 STREET CUTS AND PATCH MAINTENANCE PROJECT DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 52-2008 affirming rejection of bid of Thomas Construction Company and awarding contract to Bay Area Paving for the 2007-08 Street Cut and Patch Maintenance Project. f. APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT WITH FIRE ADMINISTRATORS HRD Dolan requested Council approve Resolution No. 53-2008 approving the tentative agreement between the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough and the Fire Administrators and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Memorandum on behalf of the City. g. WARRANTS & PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #32637-33271 duly audited, in the amount of $1,824,199.01 (excluding Library checks 432772-32813); Payroll checks #171501-171815 in the amount of $3,812,038.30 for the month of May 2008. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve Items b. through g. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER(PCRC) MEDIATION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2008/09 Vice Mayor Keighran asked how many times the City had used PCRC during the current fiscal year. COP Van Etten stated that the City had used their services 30 times thus far. Also, the Police Department utilized their services for several local police issues. FinDir Nava stated that various City departments refer citizens and staff to PCRC when needed and provide their brochure to citizens as reference material. 5 Burlingame City Council June 16,2008 Unapproved Minutes Councilman Deal made a motion to approve Resolution No. 55-2008, authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to provide conciliation and mediation services in 2008-09; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Capital Improvement Program and bicycle safety. There were no further comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS Councilman Deal stated that there is information online at SafewayonCollege.com which discusses the redevelopment of Oakland's College Avenue Safeway; and Councilwoman Baylock stated that the San Francisco Chronicle had a news article on this project in their Saturday paper. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. SET APPEAL HEARING DATE FOR 1790 ESCALANTE WAY Council set July 21, 2008, as the hearing date for a Planning Commission appeal for 1790 Escalante Way. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, May 27 and June 9, 2008 b. Department Reports: Finance, May 2008 c. Letter from Astound concerning programming prices 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. in memory of Bill Dugoni, a parishioner of Our Lady of Angels. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 6 Burlingame City Council June 16, 2008 Unapproved Minutes BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 5a ITEM# MTG. 7/21/08 DATE To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suB TED -`\ BY DATE: June 29, 2008 APPOLUNTEERS FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BYYSUBJECT: COUNCIL RECOGNITION OF COMMUNITWHO ASSISTED WITH THE CITY'S CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council recognize the community volunteers that assisted in all aspects of the City's Centennial celebration. BACKGROUND: To assist the City's Centennial celebration, several committees were established to handle specific tasks. • The Events Committee, Chaired by Gene Condon, met on a monthly basis for over two years to develop and conduct each of the Centennial events. • The Finance Committee was charged with the cash handling at the events and development opportunities. Jeff Griffiths served as the Chairperson of the Committee. • The Marketing Committee, led by Dan Andersen created the Centennial logo, assisted with the souvenir merchandise and handled other public relations information. • The Executive Committee was responsible for the oversight of the budget and approval of the events, merchandise and other aspects of the celebration. The Executive Committee was comprised of the sitting Mayor and Vice-Mayor, City Clerk, Parks & Recreation Director, City Librarian and the Chairpersons of the other Committees. In addition to the persons identified above, a few other community members were extremely important to the Celebration. • Tom and Faye Dawdy of Dawdy Photography volunteered their time and costs to photograph each of the events and permanently capture the celebration. • Mihee Redman agreed to serve as the Volunteer Coordinator, found assistance for each of the events, assisted with the merchandise sales and joined the Events Committee. BUDGET IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None CITY O� BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT wcoq AGENDA �FATEC JUNE 6• ITEM# 5b MTG. DATE July 21,2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: July 21, 2008 BY Sue Harris FROM: Sue Harris APPROVED Tel.No.: 558-7208 B ` C- SUBJECT: Presentation to Burlingame Certified Green Businesses RECOMMENDATION: Present the Bay Area Green Business Program certificates to the recently certified businesses. BACKGROUND: The Bay Area Green Business Program is a successful partnership between cities, counties, environmental agencies and utility companies that assist, recognize and promote businesses and government agencies that operate in a more environmentally sound way. To be certified "Green," participants must be in compliance with all state and local regulations and meet program standards for conserving resources,preventing pollution and minimizing waste. This program was developed in 1997 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Bay Area public agencies in collaboration with US EPA, Cal EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control and the business community and is offered throughout the Bay Area. The certification process included filling out a checklist provided by the County, site visits, phone calls and emails to assist the applicants in meeting the water conservation, solid waste reduction/recycling,pollution prevention and energy conservation requirements of the program. The Green Business Program is a comprehensive program incorporating many aspects of the environment and is effective at helping to make positive changes for our businesses and community and is open to retail businesses, offices, hotels, motels, restaurants, cafes, auto repair business, dental offices, printers, garment cleaners, wineries, and remodeling contractors. Since Burlingame became a partner with the County in the Bay Area Green Business Program last July, the program certified three businesses last February and this evening we add two more; Re:Modern Design and Joy's European Tailoring. The benefits these three businesses and other program participants enjoy include saving money and resources by reducing the amount of energy and water used and garbage disposal; reducing their impact on climate change; improving employee morale and creating a healthy workplace; strengthening their bottom line through operating efficiencies and innovations; and recognition STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# Presentations MEETING DATE July_ 21, 2008 Page 2 that can allow them to market themselves as an environmental leader in our community. Additionally, these businesses will be listed on the Green Business Program websites: www.greenbiz.abag.ca.gov and www.RecycleWorks.org; and in the printed regional Bay Area Green Business Directory. They will also be able to include the Green Business logo on their materials. The Bay Area Green Business Program certificates provided by San Mateo County will be available for presentation at the City Council meeting. 4�CITY 0� STAFF REPORT �RUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6a P° MTG. ,,tee• DATE 07/21/2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED4 , BY Jack Van Etten.Chief of Police DATE: 06/17/2008 APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Etten,Chief of Police BY Jim Nantell,City Manager SUBJECT: Public hearing amending Burlingame Municipal Ordinance 13.36.045 to allow motorcycles(parked in angled street parking spaces)to place either the front or rear tire within 6"of the space curb or wheel stop to comply with the law. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and take action to amend existing Burlingame Municipal Ordinance 13.36.045,adding language that will now allow either the front or rear tire of a motorcycle to touch(or be within 6")of the curb or bumper stop when parked within an angled street parking space to be compliant with the law. DISCUSSION: At the present time, section 13.36.045 of the Burlingame Municipal Ordinance only allows for the front tire of a motorcycle to be within 6"of a curb or wheel stop within angled street parking spaces to be in compliance with existing law. Through correspondence that was brought to the attention of staff by a concerned citizen, staff discussed the safety issues and reasonableness of allowing motorcycles to park in angled parking spaces facing outward with either the front or rear tire within 6"of the curb or bumper stop. Staff felt that allowing either tire to be within 6"of the curb or bumper stop,would clarify the ordinance and allow a viable option for motorcycle operators to safely exit angled street parking stalls. As a result, staff is recommending that the existing ordinance be amended,adding language that(in addition to the front tire)the rear tire of a motorcycle can be within 6"of the curb or bumper stop when parked within angled street parking. The introduction to this ordinance amendment was held on the previous regularly held City Council meeting of June, 16, 2008. BUDGET IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of the amendment to the existing Municipal Ordinance. 1 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.36.045 TO ALLOW MOTORCYCLES 3 TO BE PARKED IN ANGLE PARKING FACING OUT 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The Municipal Code currently provides that any vehicle using an angle parking 8 space has to have the front wheel within six (6) inches of the curb or wheel stop. However, it is 9 usually easier and safer for a motorcyclist to put the rear wheel of a motorcycle to the curb or wheel 10 stop and face the motorcycle out of the space. Motorcycles are an important part of the City's 11 transportation and parking system and should be encouraged as an efficient means of transport. 12 This ordinance would expressly allow motorcyclists to place the rear wheel or the front wheel 13 within six (6) inches of the curb or wheel stop. 14 15 Section 2. Subsection 13.36.045(b) (Angle Parking) is amended to read as follows: 16 (b) On any of the streets or portions of streets established as angle parking zones, when 17 signs or pavement markings are in place indicating such diagonal parking,it shall be unlawful for 18 the operator of any vehicle to park such vehicle except: 19 (1) At the angle to the curb or wheel stop indicated by signs or pavement markings 20 allotting space to parked vehicles and entirely within the limits of such allotted space; 21 (2) With the front wheel nearest the curb or wheel stop within six (6) inches of the curb 22 or wheel stop;however, an operator of a motorcycle who parks a motorcycle with either a front or 23 rear wheel within six(6)inches of the curb or wheel stop shall be considered to be in compliance 24 with this subsection; 25 26 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 27 28 Mayor 1 l I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 2 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of June,2008,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 4 of , 2008, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 8 City Clerk 9 10 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\motorcycleparking.bpd.wpd 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2; 24 25 26 27 28 2 AGENDA ITEM NO: 6b Bt1RLINGAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 21,2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: July 10, 2008 APPROVED BY: = FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director—(650) 558-7255 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, THE SIGN CODE, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE SL DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE, AMEND MAXIMUM HEIGHTS FOR MONUMENT SIGNS AND TO CORRECT A REFERENCE TO WALL SIGN AREA. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed ordinance to amend certain provisions of the sign code. Affirmative action should be to adopt the proposed ordinance. In its action, the Council should: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. The public hearing for action was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation (San Mateo County Times) on July 11, 2008. CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCTION: On June 16, 2008, the City Council introduced the proposed ordinance to amend certain provisions of the Sign Code. The Council, by a 5-0 vote, introduced the ordinance, directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance and set the date for the second reading of the ordinance on July 21, 2008. Environmental Review Status: The proposed changes to the sign code are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states minor alterations to land use limitations are exempt from environmental review. Planning Commission Action: On May 12, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the Sign Code at a regular study session. At that meeting, the Commission asked for clarification and made suggestions for modifying the provisions regarding nonconforming pole signs (refer to attached 5/27/08 Planning Commission minutes). These suggestions have been incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. At the Commission meeting on May 27, 2008, the Commission held a public hearing on the proposed changes to the sign code and there were no comments from the public. The Commission voted 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi was absent) to recommend the proposed changes to the Sign Code to the City Council for action. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 22(SIGN CODE). July 21,2008 BACKGROUND: On May 2, 2007, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to Title 22 of the Municipal Code, the Sign Code. During the review of the proposed update, the owner of property at 1250 Bayshore Highway raised a concern regarding the status of a pole sign which now exists on his property(refer to attached letters from Mark Hudak dated January 12,2007 and April 4,2007,and from Dennis Berkowitz,Max's,dated April 3, 2007). The owner of this property,which includes Max's Opera Cafe and Holiday Inn Express,intends to file a parcel map to split the property into two parcels.The existing pole sign would then be on one of the parcels, but would advertise businesses on both parcels. Under both the previous sign code and the update adopted in 2007, this would no longer be legal because it would be considered off-site advertising for the business that is not on the same parcel as the sign. At the Planning Commission hearing on the Sign Code update, the Commission directed staff to study a possible future amendment to the sign code to address the issue raised regarding the pole sign. The attached ordinance proposes to allow an existing pole sign within the SL(Shoreline),AA(Anza Area) and APN(Anza Point North)zone districts to remain if a property is subdivided into two parcels, and to continue to advertise the businesses on both parcels. However,there are limitations proposed on the use of the sign, similar to the provisions that would apply to a nonconforming sign. In summary,the sign would be allowed to continue to advertise the businesses located on the two parcels only under the following circumstances: 1. No physical alterations of any kind may occur except for replacement of the actual face of the sign and maintenance as permitted under section 22.38.020. 2. Advertising is limited to the advertising of a person,product or service of an occupant of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel and only during the period of actual occupancy by such an occupant. 3. If the sign is removed,it cannot be replaced. 4. No other free-standing signage may be placed on any of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel so long as the pole sign remains. 5. All off-premise advertising as prohibited in 22.40.040 on the pole sign shall be removed if any of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel are redeveloped by the demolition or construction of any structure or any portion of any structure exceeding one thousand(1,000)square feet or ten percent(10%)of any structure,whichever is greater. Following removal of the off-premise advertising,the only advertising allowed on the pole sign shall be advertising of a person,product,or service located on the one parcel on which the pole sign is then located. 6. The provisions of this section are recorded in a form approved by the city attorney on the title of each of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel. Additional Amendments to the Sign Code: Since the adoption of the comprehensive update to the Sign Code in May of 2007,staff has become aware of a few inconsistencies in the regulation of monument signs in the RR, C-1 and C-2 zone districts, and an inconsistency in a reference for wall sign area in the RR, IB and APS zone districts. It is proposed that in those cases where a parcel frontage exceeds 300 feet in length,an additional monument sign would be allowed, and where the parcel frontage exceeds 400 feet in length,two additional monument signs would be allowed, for a total of three monument signs. It was also discovered that there was an inconsistency in the maximum height allowed for monument signs on certain similar streets. Following ig n sL iimmnry of the nrnnnced changes: C-1 and C-R zone districts: • Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage. • Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage. • Increase the maximum height of monument signs on EI Camino Real from 8 feet to 12 feet. -2- PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 22 (SIGN CODE). July 21, 2008 ■ Add Trousdale Drive to the list of streets in the district (Hospital property is zoned C-1). C-2 Zone District: ■ Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage. ■ Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage. ■ Increase the maximum height of monument signs on Broadway and California Drive from 8 feet to 12 feet. RR (Rollins Road) Zone District ■ Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage. ■ Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage. ■ Reduce the maximum height of monument signs on Adrian Road, Broadway and Rollins Road from 20 feet to 12 feet. ■ Reduce the maximum height of monument signs on all other streets from 15 feet to 12 feet. RR, IB and APS Zone Districts ■ Change the reference to the Section which describes the sign area limitations for wall sign area. ATTACHMENTS: ■ May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes ■ May 27, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report ■ Photos of Monument Signs ■ May 12, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes ■ May 7, 2007 and May 21 , 2007 Council Minutes ■ February 26, 2007 and April 9, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes • Letter from Mark Hudak dated April 4, 2007 ■ Letter from Dennis Berkowitz dated April 3, 2007 • Letter from Mark Hudak dated January 12, 2007 ■ Newspaper Notice of City Council Public Hearing published on July 11 , 2008 ■ Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 22 (Sign Code) to Exempt Certain Pole Signs in the SL District from Compliance, Amend the Maximum Heights allowed for Monument Signs in the RR, C-1 and C-2 Districts, and Correct Reference for Wall Sign Area S:IREPORTSICode AmendmentslAmend Sign Code 20080dopt Amend Sign Code.7.21.08.doc -3- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon 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. Vice-Chair Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Jeffrey Kaufman, 1760 Escalante Way, requested that Item 3a (1790 Escalante Way)be removed from Consent Calendar for discussion. 3b. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 —APPLICATION FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT(1226 EL CAMINO LLC,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES,ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (continued from April 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting) a. Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, and Parking Variance b. Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Combination 3c. 1425 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT TO CHANGE THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (LAURA LEFF, APPLICANT; AND GREGORY J. GORMEY, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3d. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22,THE SIGN CODE,TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE SL DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE,AMEND HEIGHTS ALLOWED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE RR, C-1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS,AND CORRECT A REFERENCE REGARDING WALL SIGN AREA. PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of Items 3b, 3c and 3d on the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by CommissionerAuran. Vice- Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi absent). VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3a. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from April 28, 2008 and May 12, 2008 Planning Commission meetings) Reference staff report dated May 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration, Vice-Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. 3 City of Burlingame Item No. Ordinance Amending Title 22,the Sign Code Consent Calendar Meeting Date:5/27/08 Proposal: Amendment to Title 22 of the Municipal Code,the Sign Code to exempt certain pole signs in the SL District from compliance,to amend the maximum heights allowed for monument signs in the RR,C-1 &C-2 Districts,and to correct a reference for wall sign area. Environmental Review Status: The proposed changes to the sign code are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states minor alterations to land use limitations are exempt from environmental review. May 12,2008 Planning Commission Study Meeting: At the May 12,2008 Planning Commission Study Meeting for this item, the Commission asked for clarification and made suggestions for modifying the provisions regarding nonconforming pole signs(refer to attached May 12,2008 Planning Commission Minutes). Following is a summary of Commission comments and how they have been addressed. • Clarify purpose of increasing the monument sign height to 12 feet. • Identify examples of 12-foot high monument signs in the Broadway Area. Planning staff would note that the increase to 12 foot high monument signs would not apply to the portion of Broadway within the Broadway Commercial area(zoned C-1),but would apply to that portion of Broadway between California Drive and U.S. 101 (zoned C-2 and RR),where the auto dealers are now located. There are no monument signs in this area now,the businesses in this area have either nonconforming pole signs or use wall signs to advertise their businesses. Attached are two photos of monument signs for reference. The Bay Landing monument sign at 1550 Bayshore Highway is approximately 10'-15"tall, and the Peninsula Hospital four-sided monument sign on the corner of EI Camino Real and Trousdale Drive is 12'tall. The 12-foot high signs are proposed on those streets with higher traffic speeds and/or where parking occurs along the street,in order to provide adequate visibility. • Concern regarding size of addition that would trigger removal of the nonconforming pole sign(issue raised by Mark Hudak from the floor). ■ Should be allowed to be allowed to be converted to a single-identity, non-conforming pole sign if desired by the property owner. The text of the proposed ordinance has been modified to address the concern raised by Mark Hudak that depending on the size of the parcel involved, a 1000 square foot addition may be minor, and suggested that the trigger requiring removal of the sign be based on an addition which exceeds ten percent of the floor area on the site. In addition,Commissioners noted that if the property which did not contain the sign were redeveloped, the nonconforming sign should be allowed to remain and advertise only the business(es)on the parcel where the sign is located. The ordinance has been amended as follows to address these concerns: "All off-premises advertising as prohibited in 22.40.040 on the pole sign shall be removed if any of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel are redeveloped by the demolition or construction of any structure or any portion of any structure exceeding one thousand(1,000)square feet or ten percent(10%)of the floor area—gross square footage of the structures on the parcel,whichever is greater.Following removal of the off-premises advertising,the only advertising allowed on the pole sign shall be advertising of a person, product,or service located on the one parcel on which the pole sign is then located." Ordinance Amending Title 22(Sign Code) May 27, 2008 Background: On May 2, 2007, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to Title 22 of the Municipal Code, the Sign Code. During the review of the proposed update, the owner of property at 1250 Bayshore Highway raised a concern regarding the status of a pole sign which now exists on his property (refer to attached letters from Mark Hudak dated January 12, 2007 and April 4, 2007, and from Dennis Berkowitz, Max's, dated April 3, 2007). The owner of this property, which includes Max's Opera Cafe and Holiday Inn Express, intends to file a parcel map to split the property into two parcels. The existing pole sign would then be on one of the parcels, but would advertise businesses on both parcels. Under both the previous sign code and the update adopted in 2007, this would no longer be legal because it would be considered off-site advertising for the business that is not on the same parcel as the sign. At the Planning Commission hearing on the sign code update, the Commission directed staff to study a possible future amendment to the sign code to address the issue raised regarding the pole sign. The attached ordinance proposes to allow an existing pole sign within the SL (Shoreline), AA (Anza Area) and APN (Anza Point North) zone districts to remain if a property is subdivided into two parcels, and to continue to advertise the businesses on both parcels. However, there are limitations proposed on the use of the sign, similar to the provisions that would apply to a nonconforming sign. In summary, the sign would be allowed to continue to advertise the businesses located on the two parcels only under the following circumstances: 1. No physical alterations of any kind may occur except for replacement of the actual face of the sign and maintenance as permitted under section 22.38.020. 2. Advertising is limited to the advertising of a person, product or service of an occupant of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel and only during the period of actual occupancy by such an occupant. 3. If the sign is removed, it cannot be replaced. 4. No other free-standing signage may be placed on any of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel so long as the pole sign remains. 5. All off-premise advertising as prohibited in 22.40.040 on the pole sign shall be removed if any of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel are redeveloped by the demolition or construction of any structure or any portion of any structure exceeding one thousand (1,000) square feet or ten percent (10%) of any structure, whichever is greater. Following removal of the off-premise advertising, the only advertising allowed on the pole sign shall be advertising of a person, product, or service located on the one parcel on which the pole sign is then located. 6. The provisions of this section are recorded in a form approved by the city attorney on the title of each of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel. Additional Amendments to the Sign Code: Since the adoption of the comprehensive update to the Sign Code in May of 2007, staff has become aware of a few inconsistencies in the regulation of monument signs in the RR, C-1 and C-2 zone districts, and an inconsistency in a reference for wall sign area in the RR, IB and APS zone districts. It is proposed that in those cases where a parcel frontage exceeds 300 feet in length, an additional monument sign would be allowed, and where the parcel frontage exceeds 400 feet in length, two additional monument signs would be allowed, for a total of three monument signs. It was also discovered that there was an inconsistency in the maximum height allowed for monument signs on certain similar streets. Following is a summary of the proposed changes: -2- Ordinance Amending Title 22 (Sign Code) May 27, 2008 C-1 and C-R zone districts: • Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage. • Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage. • Increase the maximum height of monument signs on EI Camino Real from 8 feet to 12 feet. • Add Trousdale Drive to the list of streets in the district (Hospital property is zoned C-1). C-2 Zone District: • Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage. • Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage. • Increase the maximum height of monument signs on Broadway and California Drive from 8 feet to 12 feet. RR (Rollins Road) Zone District • Allow two monument signs on parcels with at least 300 feet of parcel frontage. • Allow three monument signs on parcels with at least 400 feet of parcel frontage. • Reduce the maximum height of monument signs on Adrian Road, Broadway and Rollins Road from 20 feet to 12 feet. • Reduce the maximum height of monument signs on all other streets from 15 feet to 12 feet. RR, IB and APS Zone Districts • Change the reference to the Section which describes the sign area limitations for wall sign area. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing and consider public testimony and the analysis contained in the staff report. Following the public hearing the Commission may consider two alternatives: 1. Recommend the proposed ordinance to the City Council for action; or 2. Direct staff to make adjustments to the ordinance and refer it back to the Commission for reconsideration and action. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner Attachments: Photos of Monument Signs May 12, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2007 and May 21, 2007 Council Minutes February 26, 2007 and April 9, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Letter from Mark Hudak dated April 4, 2007 I etfer from Dennis Berkowitz dated April 3 2007 Letter from Mark Hudak dated January 12, 2007 Newspaper Notice— Published in San Mateo Times May 17, 2008 Ordinance Amending Title 22 (Sign Code) -3- W MOXe �rs,t%i �" as 3},V; 4- .. :✓a' � tS %w „ts 4"r" ..0 'Pu', s iJF �s nx. � o ti i m wi J c, + � I - pP ra^, u ry Monument Sign — Bay Landing Hotel — 1550 Bayshore Highway Approximately 10'-6' high measured from adjacent grade e dr 1 k C'IN r 1'"r 3 L � I .: yp, J�yYp'RA y6 M a C♦`�i W � �11 l v` � s � 1 dr MC c y� Peninsula Hospital Corner of EI Camino Real and Trousdale Drive 12 feet high from measured from adjacent grade CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 22, THE SIGN CODE, TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE SL DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE,AMEND HEIGHTS ALLOWED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE RR,C- 1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS, AND CORRECT A REFERENCE REGARDING WALL SIGN AREA. PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Senior Planner Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated May 12, 2008. Commission comments: ■ Clarify purpose of increasing the monument sign height to 12-feet. ■ Identify examples of 12-foot high monument signs in the Broadway area. ■ Concern regarding non-conforming pole sign referenced by Mark Hudak; should be allowed to be converted to a single-identity, non-conforming pole sign if desired by property owner. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent C endar - Items on the Consent alendar are considered to b outine. They are acted upon simultaneous unless separate discussion an or action is requested by th pplicant, a member of the public or a Com issioner prior to the time the Co mission votes on the motion adopt. Chair Cauchi asked i nyone in the audience or on the mmission wished to call any m off the consent calendar. Item 2c(145 ollins Road) was removed from t Consent Calendar by Oscar un(`Save the Bay'). 2a. 1620 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, NED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR ESIGN REVIEW AND VARI CES R FLOOR AREA RATIO AND RKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR DITION TO A SINGLE FA ILY D ELLING (SCHEINHOLTZ ASSO TES, APPLICANT AND ARC ECT; AND MARY LOU A DO MORTON PROPERTY OWNER PROJECT PLANNER: LISA ITMAN 2b. 9 CHANNG ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICAtIQN FOR CONDITIONAL USE PETS ITSFOR WINDOWS MORE THA 'TEN FEET ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE AND FOR STORAGE EXCEE �NG TEN PERCENT OF THE GROS FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN DWELLING FOR A NEW ACCESS Y STRUCTURE (JERRY KUHEL, PPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JERRY CARMINE, PROP TY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNE . ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Brownrigg ved approval of Items 2a and 2b ofthe Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings,in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolutions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner vis�ica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised., This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. y 2 permilt is issued for the existing Pitt porum hedge along the l\ag erty line o the neighbor's property at 1400 Columbus, and that t e protection measures sin place unti he occupancy permit is issued for the project; and that ndscaping shall be athe right side p erty line adjacent to th house in protected planter b s wherever possimaintain a 9'6" c ar driveway width, plant mat als shall be selected to pro 'de screening bperties; secondedCouncilwoman Keighran. The motion was appr ed by voice ay ck dissented). b. INTRODUCTION OF AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 22 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE SIGN REGULATIONS Senior Planner Maureen Brooks reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance amending the provisions of the sign code. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance adopting a revised Title 22 (Sign Code). Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. C. ADOPT ORDINANQ NO. 1806 ESTABLISHING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND KING CONFORMING CHANGES TbqHE MUNICIPAL CODE CA Anderson reviewed the staff report\and requested Council hold a public hearin n the adoption of Goinance No. 1806 to establish the commuiity development department. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There W\Xle no comments from the floor, and the h ring was closed. � Vice Mayor O'Mahonymade a motion to approve adoptionb Ordinance No. 1806 establishing the Community Development-Department and making conforming anges to the Municipal Code; seconde y -&buncilwoman Keighran. The-motion was approved unanimously voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed CC 1Vhrtensen to publish a summarX of the ordinance within 15 days oT doption. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balbo venue, stated that the t Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee eeting is on Thursday, ay 10, and that Bike to rk Day is Thursday, Ma 17. Stephen Hamilton, 105 Cresc t Avenue, spoke on unteer opportunities. Th ollowing citizens spok�ln favor of saving the Easton Euca ti, Tree: Mike -Ron, 1719 Easton; Jennife ,Pfaff, 615 Bayswater A� iue; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Cresnt Avenue; and Diane Lindon wirgler, 1536 Cyp ss. There were no fart-he"rc7s from the floor. \ 8. STAFF ORTS AND COMM CATIONS 3 Burlingame City Council May 7,2007 Approved Minutes 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 22 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE SIGN REGULATIONS CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed ordinance amending provisions of the sign code. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion that Council make the finding that the proposed update to the sign ordinance will have no adverse impact on the environment and adopt the Negative Declaration; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1807 adopting a revised Title 22 (Sign Code); 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. b. AD01' ORDINANCE NO. 1808 AFFIRMIN RDINANCE NO. 1800 T0,SPECIFY THAT ALTERAtWNS TO AN ENTIRE BUILDING Aft TO BE CONSIDERED EN CALCULAT G A REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL PRINKLERS RATHER AN A SINGLE PREMMI FC Dornell reviewed the staff er pW and requested Council hold a public paring on the adoption of dinance No. 1808 affirming Ordm ce No. 1800 applying administrative i terpretation for a trigger to ins 1 sprinklers. Councilwoman Bayl expressed concern that the geograph' al description in Section 2 of the dinance "...the Santa Cruz Mounta' s foothills..." should be changed to e San Andreas Mountains foothills. A Anderson was not present to con the correct description. Mayor Nagel opved the public hearing. There were o comments from the floor, and the aring was closed. Vice Mayor O'Mahony de a motion to approve adoption KOrdinance No. 1808 affirming Ordi ce No. 1 0 to clarify provision re rding installation of sprinklers, afitt should there be a change in Section 2 f Ordi ce No. 1808 as to the our, boundaries, that it be adde later; seconded by Councilwoman Keighr .. The motion was appro d unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. ayor Nagel directed CC Mortensen to publish summary of the ordinan e within 15 days of adoption. \ Mayor Nagel in ved to Item 13.a. due to'7ublic interest. 13. NEW BUSI SS ` a\pSET APPEAL HEARING DATE FOR PE SULA HUMANE SOCIETY/ CA OMPASSION PROD CT AT 1450 ROLLIN ROAD/20 EDWARDS COUR . Council June 4, 2007, as the h %ingate for the Plannin Commission appeal of 1450 Rollins Road/ 20 Edwards Court. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3 Burlingame City Council May 21,2007 Approved Minutes City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2007 12. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE TITLE 22, SIGNS, TO ESTABLISH NEW REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS-PROJECT PLANNER:MAUREEN BROOKS(NOTICED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES) SP Brooks briefly presented the project description,noting that the subcommittee had been working on the sign code update for two years now,had studied the existing sign environment and made recommendations on what works and what does not work. Subcommittee came up with the new regulations based on a new approach which determines the overall square footage of signs allowed based on the speed of travel of the street or public way on which the signs are located. Commissioners commented on the letter from Mark Hudak regarding the existing pole sign shared by Holiday Inn Express and Max's Opera Cafe, and asked if there is a way that this signage could be"grandfathered"under the new code. Planning staff clarified that the pole sign itself is now nonconforming and can continue to be used. However, the off-premise advertising issue would be created by the property when the property is divided and the existing two businesses are no longer on one parcel. This is not a nonconforming situation,but a new situation which would be created by the property owner's action subdividing the property. Commissioners expressed concern with the proposed regulation which would prohibit awnings from being internally lit,think it is too restrictive,is there a way to regulate so that the internal lights can illuminate only the portions of the awning where the letters are located and no more, and the rest of the awning remains dark. Planning staff noted that it is difficult to regulate the intensity of illumination, will look into various methods used for awning lighting and report back; note that there is a limit on the overall area of signage allowed on a site,is this the approach that was used for Fox Plaza;yes,the same approach is proposed in the sign code update,where with a variance, signage can be moved from one frontage to another and the number of signs can be increased,but there is a cap on the overall or total square footage allowed. Commissioners noted that there is an incentive for two sided monument signs, each counted as a one sided sign when determining is counted toward overall sign area,can we require that the copy on both sides be the same? Planning Staff noted monument signs are treated separately from other signage(wall,projecting and awning signs)and only one side of a monument sign is counted. CA Anderson noted that because the courts have restricted regulation on content, could not require copy to be the same on both sides. Commissioners asked about the use of artwork as signs,how would the new regulations restrict, do not want to discourage that kind of creativity. Planning staff noted that some artwork is not regulated by the sign code,if it does not specifically identify a business; if the art is determined to be a sign,it would be regulated in the same way it is now,by its size and location on the site,roof signs would continue to be prohibited,but a projecting sign could be designed creatively. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Chair Brownrigg noted that this item will be brought back to the Commission on the action calendar when the additional information is provided. The public hearing will be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, notices will be mailed to people who have expressed interest in the sign code update and the information will also be posted on the City's website. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER'S PORTS - There`we e no Co ssioner's Reports for review. 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 2007 6. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE TITLE 22, SIGNS, TO ESTABLISH NEW REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS -PROJECT PLANNER:MAUREEN BROOKS(20 NOTICED AND NOTICED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES) Reference staff report 4/09/07, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed the proposed sign update and staff comments. Commissioners asked how news rack signage is addressed. Staff noted that there is a separate section of the code which addresses news racks,including what can be displayed on the news rack. Clarify that off premise advertising is currently prohibited by the existing code? Yes. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak,216 Park Road, Wayne Levenfeld,representing property at 1250 Bayshore Highway, and Dennis Zell, 1800 Ashton, spoke. Issues raised: proposed sign code does not address all situations such as an existing pole sign advertising two properties when the property is divided, can no longer advertise both businesses; suggest that language be added that would grandfather such existing signs; sign at 1250 Bayshore was installed in 1960's when original hotel and restaurant were built; be sure revised sign code addresses first amendment protected speech issues. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: concerning issue of shared pole signage being limited to one business if property is divided is a unique situation; would not want to see more clutter by adding more signs, might consider expanding the area where pole signs are allowed to areas adjoining freeway interchanges;there appears to be a consensus that the work done on the sign code update is well done and the current proposal should move ahead; thank the members of the subcommittee for all the hard work they have put into this; should go forward with ordinance and send the issue of this particular situation back for more study,including whether a special area for pole signs should be considered near freeway off ramps. C.Brownrigg moved to recommend approval of the negative declaration and the proposed sign code update to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:04 p.m. 7. DETERMINATIO N THE DESIGNATION OF FR T YARD ON CORNE LOTS WHICH CAN AFFECT SETBACKS HE SINGLE FAMILY RES NTIAL AREAS ANDNPLACEMENT OF ACCESSORY STRUCT (28 NOTICED) PROJEC STAFF: LARRY ERSON AND M GARET MONROE Reference ff report April 9,2007,with tachments. CA Anderson p sented the staff report, ting two issues to resol : determine if a variance is re uired to place an accessory cture in the front setb k of a property in the are etween the main entrance to e main building and the n est lot line; and direct staff on drafting changes to e Zoning Code to more cle describe regulations rega ing accessory structures. Commission questions: v ety of approaches in diffe t cities some allow re ntrances, some allow evelopers to choose the lot t on corner lots, and on co r lots some cities make t choice on a case by Ca baS1S; fns Bi�rl;nge on a Crner lot of equal ci�leg the itial Inrnperty nwnar d_ .isles the primary entra e and front setback,cannot c ge later,on all other lots th ont is the shorter stree ontage. Why are we h e,play structure does not req 're a building permit. CA n d that this structure w bigger and triggered a essory structure requirements, as been reduced;concerne out precedent,not w a garage in the front y of a corner lot 7 feet from pro rty line,breaking the open ace line for the neighb hood on the street fro age. There were no further que ions of staff from the Co ission. 8 ATTACHMENT A-3 CARR McCLELLAN INGERSOLL THOMPSON & HORN Professional Law Corporation Mark D. Hudak mhudak@r-arr-mcciellan.com amu, L LUUNICA TION April 4,2007 CO21,AFTER PREPARTION RECEIVED OF STAFF REPORT Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Amendments to Sign Ordinance Dear Commissioners: In recent weeks,the City Council and staff have made public promises about making Burlingame more"business-friendly." There seems to be a growing recognition of the level of financial contribution made by the business community through sales taxes and transit occupancy taxes and an acknowledgement that these taxes makes it possible for the City to offer its residents many of the facilities and services that make Burlingame special. But the City needs to offer more than a slogan and a promise. Too often, a new business venture is met with a litany of reasons why something will not work. If this is a serious change in approach,the City needs to have the attitude that it will work with business owners to find a way to make their ventures succeed. The Commission has a good opportunity to put the"business-friendly"policy into action on April 9. As you will see from my prior letter to Larry Anderson, I have been working with the owners of the property that includes the Holiday Inn Express and Max's Restaurant on Old Bayshore Highway. The ownership group wants to remove the pool that is situated in front of the hotel and replace it with parking and landscaping. This will benefit both businesses and will upgrade the appearance of the property. To finance these improvements,the owners will probably need to split the lot into two conforming lots. The only holdup is signage. For years,the businesses have utilized a single sign that is visible from the freeway. If the property is split, one lot will end up having the sign. Technically,the business located on the other lot would not be able to use the sign any longer. That would be fatal for whichever business lost its signage, and so we have not been able to proceed with the project. P 650.342.9600 216 Park Road - Burlingame - California 94010 F 650.342.7685 www.carr-mcclellan.com Planning Commission April 4, 2007 Page 2 To correct this anomaly, we have proposed a simple grandfathering clause as part of the overall revisions to the sign ordinance. This provision would preserve existing signage when a property is split, so that both properties could continue to use it. It would not authorize any new signage, nor would advertising for businesses located on other properties be permitted. From the public's standpoint,this provision would do no harm: the provision would apply to very few properties and it would be difficult for anyone to tell when it had been applied. From the business community's standpoint,this small change would have significant benefits. What, then, is the objection? I hope that you will review my earlier letter in this context. I am also enclosing a letter from the owner of Max's Restaurant regarding the importance this proposed addition to the new sign ordinance. I will be appearing at the meeting on April 9 to discuss this with you. In the meantime,please call me with any questions. Sincerely Mark D. Hudak MDH:os Enclosure cc: Client (w/encl.) City Manager(w/encl.) City Attorney(w/encl.) City Planner(w/encl.) 26944.00001\BGLIB 1\1326749.1 04-04-OT 11ATsm From-Maws Accoontins 65OBT36462 7-201 P.002/003 F-468 MAX'S OPERA CAFE"•MAX'S DINER--MAX'S"•SWEET MAX'S--MAX'S MARKET"" MAX'S BAKERY&KITCHEN""•MAX'S DIAMCND GRILL''"' tam April 3,2007 Chairperson and Commissionen Planning Commission City of Burlingame Re: Sign Ordnance Changes Gentleman I am the president of Mar's Resta uants which owns and operates Max's Restaurant and Sar at 1250 Old Bayshore Highway,Burlingame,adjacent to the Holiday urn Express hotel. Our ram^t has been a popular dining and meeting spot in that location for over 20 yesn. We pride ourselves for involvement with and service to the local community and we look forward to continuing that relationship for a long time into the fimre. We have j ust recently completed a$400,000 renovation of our restaurant as a symbol of our continuing commitment to the community. It is our understanding that our hndbd.,which is also the owner of the adjac m hotel,is working on a plan to subdivide its current land parcel into two parcels,inchrfng ow for ttte hotel and one for the restaurant. We further understand that the subdivision is an eswniW part of&plan that will greatly benefit our business. One problem our business bas always faced at this location is that when both the hotel and the restaurant are busy Convenient parking is a challenge for our guests Even when the hotel lot is virtually empty the lack of patting in the front area nearest the restaurant entry forces our guests to park in away tgenerally behind the hotel)and to walk to the restaurant entry. This can bave an adverse impact on our business with both guests for whom a long walk is difacult and fur all guest on days when the weather is nasty. The landlord's plan would eliminate the swimming pool at the from of the hotel,which is almost never used and detracts from the look end stature of both the hotel and the mstaunmt by making the complex look tike in old r'oaftda motel- The pool aro&would then be redeveloped into parking spaces with a total inerease of 32—35 spaces. Landscaping in the Brant arca of both lots would also be expanded and enhanced which we understand is consistent with the City's coals. From Max's standpoint these now spaces would be extremely valuable since they would alleviate the occasional parking shortage issue and wound more than double the nt>mbe z of spaces near the front door entry to our restmnant_ it is our uW=tanding that the landlord's plan may not be able proceed as a result of current code regulations for property Identification signs. Our restaurant business and the 120 East Grand Ave.,South San FrarrJsco,CA 94080 TEL:0.50.673.MAXS(6297) FAX:650.873.6461 04-04-07 I1:1Tam Fran-Mar's Accountins 6506736452 T-20t P.D03/003 F-469 hotel etmently share a large structtne that contains separe2e'signs for mo hotel and for Merle's. We are told that if the land is subdivided a problem will arise since the ordinance does not allow a sign on one parry's land to serve as the property identifteWon sign for an adjacent parcel. Further,if Max's or the hotel were to bond a new sign on its own land parcel the sign would head to be considerably smaller. This would not be ameptable for either the hotel or the reslummt since a Smaller sign Would dearly have a negative Impact on whichever business was forced to have it. Unless this problem is solved the subdivision will not occur and neither will the important perking and landscaping additions,and removal the unamr x;nve pool. It is our umamtending that the commission is considering changes to the ordinance. We urge that you approve a change that will allow for existing signs that amen ly service more than one business to remain in plane in a gtaadfighered status whether the btrsiaasta are all on lire same parcel or are on adjacent posvels. This change would allow our landlord's very beneficial project to proceed. We see abwlummly no wiry in which the city of Budingame or any of its residents and guests would suffer any negativa impact from this,but,as disclosed above,our beaiums,otrt ewers,and community members driving past the site and sexing the arddibon d landscaping and iraproved look,would all benefit In fact,since our restaurant busaess would likely iucrewe due to the improved look and parking availability,the city would 13mly earn additional revenue dire to hocressed sales levels al the reataureat I thank you for your consideration of this issue that is of great importance to Max's. Please do not hesltart to call me directly if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely s World r Dennis Berkowitz President i- CARR McCLELLAN INGERSOLL THOMPSON & HORN Professional Law Corporation - Mark D. Hudak mhudak@carr-mcclellan.com January 12, 2007 RECEIVE® Larry Anderson, Esq. JAN 12 2007 City Attorney CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPT. 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Silnt Ordinance Revisions Dear Larry: I understand that a committee of the Planning.Commission is studying amendments to the sign ordinance. One area of concern for my clients is the treatment of existing signs that serve two or more businesses when the property is subdivided. Under the current ordinance, a sign may advertise only the businesses that are located on the same property as the sign itself. Advertising off-site businesses is not permitted. There are several instances where existing signage advertises.two or more businesses that are located on a single large property. If the property is subdivided or undergoes a lot line adjustment, the sign will inevitably end up on one parcel and will be in violation of the ordinance if it continues to display advertising for the business located on the split-off parcel. One particular instance involves the signage for Max's Opera Cgel.and the Holiday Inn Express on Old Bayshore Highway. The property owner wants to make some improvements to the property(primarily, to increase parking). To do so,he proposes to split the existing large parcel into two parcels that could be sold or financed separately. One parcel will have Max's and the other will have the hotel. Both parcels would be conforming under the new Bayfront Specific Plan: No matter how this lot split is accomplished,the sign will end up on one parcel and the business located on the other parcel will forfeit its signage. This sign is critical to both businesses,given its visibility from Highway 101. Unless there is some relief, we cannot move forward with the lot split and improvements that would benefit both businesses and their customers. In short,the proverbial tail is wagging the dog. P 650.342.9600 216 Park Road Burlingame • California 94010 F 650.342.7685 www.carr-mccielian.com Larry Anderson, Esq. January 12,2007 Page 2 We could avoid this dilemma by creating an exemption for existing signage in the new ordinance. I would ask that the committee consider the following approach: "Nothwithstanding any other provision herein, a sign that advertises two or more businesses located on a single property may be maintained following a subdivision, lot split, lot line adjustment; or other division of the property. In such situations,the sign may continue to advertise businesses that are located on the parcel or parcels that were part of the property served by the sign prior to the property division, including any successor or new businesses located thereon. Such signs may be maintained,repaired, and replaced but may not be increased in size or height beyond the dimensions in existence prior to the property division." This exception would apply in only a limited number of cases throughout tfie city, so its impact on the public health, safety and welfare would be minimal. On the other hand, the flexibility would be an enormous benefit to the properties and businesses affected. The exception could not be used to create new,nonconforming signs; only existing signs would be affected. Please let me know if you have any questions about our position. I would be happy to meet with the committee if that would be helpful. I would ask that you pass on this letter to them for their consideration and let me know when the amended ordinance will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for study. Sincerel Mark D. Hudak MDH:os cc: Clients 04050.000011BGLiBl11317556.1 �S CITY OF BURLINGAME SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND TITLE 22 (SIGN CODE) TO EXEMPT CERTAIN EXISTING POLE SIGNS IN THE SHORELINE DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE, AMEND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS ALLOWED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE RR, C-1, AND C-2 DISTRICTS, AND CORRECT REFERENCE FOR WALL SIGN AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Burlingame will consider adoption of a proposed ordinance on Monday, July 21, 2008, at a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, that would amend Title 22 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to: 1) allow existing poles signs to continue to advertise businesses on adjacent parcels that are subdivided from the parcel on which the pole sign is located under certain conditions; 2) amend the maximum heights for monuments signs in the RR, C-1, and C-2 districts; and 3) correct references regarding wall sign area. Anyone interested in signage in the City should read the entire ordinance. The City Council will receive testimony on the proposed ordinance from all interested persons who appear at the Council meeting. To receive additional information about the proposed ordinance and a complete copy of the proposed ordinance, or to provide written comments, interested persons may contact the City Clerk, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010,phone (650) 558-7203. A complete copy of the ordinance is available for review at the City Library at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. U:\FILES\ORDINANC\Summary\signrevisions-2008-I.pin.wpd I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 22 (SIGN CODE) TO EXEMPT CERTAIN POLE SIGNS IN THE 3 SL DISTRICT FROM COMPLIANCE, AMEND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS ALLOWED FOR MONUMENT SIGNS IN THE RR, C-1, AND C- DISTRICTS, AND 4 CORRECT REFERENCE FOR WALL SIGN AREA 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. 7 In 2007, the City adopted a comprehensive revision of the City's Sign Code (Title 22). 8 Since adoption, the City has identified some inconsistencies in the regulation of monument signs 9 in the RR, C-1, and C-2 Districts. This ordinance addresses those inconsistencies. The 10 ordinance also corrects references for wall sign area in the RR, IB, and APS Districts. In 11 addition, property owners with existing pole signs in the SL District are faced with irregular lot 12 lines and patterns of development that often require lot line adjustments or splits in order to 13 properly develop or finance the properties. This ordinance would allow off-site advertising of 14 the adjacent businesses on an existing pole sign following such a lot line adjustment or split, but 15 only under very specific circumstances and conditions. 16 17 Section 2. Subsection 22.14.050(a) (C-1 & C-R Districts) is amended to read as follows: 18 (a) One two-sided freestanding monument sign shall be permitted on a parcel frontage of 19 one hundred (100) feet or greater based on the following criteria and subject to the standards in 20 chapter 22.34. Two two-sided freestanding monument signs shall be permitted on a parcel 21 frontage of at least three hundred (300) feet based on the following criteria and subject to the 22 standards in chapter 22.34. Three (3) two-sided freestanding monument signs shall be permitted 23 on a parcel frontage of four hundred (400) feet or greater based on the following criteria and 24 subject to the standards in chapter 22.34. 25 26 27 28 1 I Street on which Maximum Maximum Sign Area per Monument Sign forr 2 Parcel Frontage Height Parcel Frontage is Located 3 Broadway 8 feet 50 square feet per side 100 square feet total sign area 4 California Drive 12 feet 100 square feet per 200 square feet total sign 5 side area 6 El Camino Real 12 feet 100 square feet per 200 square feet total sign side area 7 Howard Avenue 8 feet 50 square feet per side 100 square feet total sign 8 area 9 Rollins Road 8 feet 50 square feet per side 100 square feet total sign area 10 Trousdale Drive 12 feet 100 square feet per 200 square feet total sign side area 11 All Other Streets 5 feet 30 square feet per side 60 square feet total sign 12 (local) area 13 14 Section 3. Subsection 22.16.050(a) (C-2 District) is amended to read as follows: 15 (a) Monument Signs: 16 (1) One two-sided freestanding monument sign shall be permitted on a parcel frontage of 17 at least one hundred-fifty (15 0) feet based on the following criteria and subject to the standards in 18 chapter 22.34. Two two-sided freestanding monument signs shall be permitted on a parcel 19 frontage of at least three hundred (300) feet based on the following criteria and subject to the 20 standards in chapter 22.34. Three (3) two-sided freestanding monument signs shall be permitted 21 on a parcel frontage of four hundred (400) feet or greater based on the following criteria and 22 subject to the standards in chapter 22.34. 23 Street on which Maximum Maximum Sign Area for a 24 Parcel Frontage Height Monument Sign is Located 25 Broadway 12 feet 50 square feet 100 square feet 26 per side total area ( Califnrnia Drive 12 feet 50 square feet lnn .Curve_, feet 27 � de I total area per side 28 2 I Rollins Road 8 feet 50 square feet 100 square feet 2 per side total area 3 All other Streets 5 feet 30 square feet 60 square feet (local) per side total area 4 5 (2) Monument Sign Incentive: In order to promote monument signs in this district, 6 two-sided monument signs are considered to be a single sign and in measuring total sign area, 7 only one side of the sign is included in the calculation. 8 (3) Freestanding monument signs are prohibited on a parcel frontage of less than one 9 hundred-fifty (150) feet in length. 10 I 1 Section 4. Section 22.20.020 (SL, AA &APN Districts) is amended to read as follows: 12 22.20.020 Prohibited signs, including pole signs. 13 (a) In addition to the signs specified in chapter 22.40, Prohibited Signs,pole signs are 14 prohibited. 15 (b) However, a pole sign lawfully existing on March 31, 2008, may continue to exist so 16 long as it conforms to the provisions of chapter 22.38. Further, notwithstanding section 17 22.40.040, if the parcel on which a pole sign lawfully existing on March 31, 2008, is located is 18 subdivided in accordance with title 26 of this code, the advertising on the existing pole sign may 19 advertise the businesses that are located on the resulting parcels but only under the following 20 circumstances: 21 (1) No physical alterations of any kind may occur except for replacement of the actual 22 face of the sign and maintenance as permitted under section 22.38.020. 23 (2) Advertising is limited to the advertising of a person, product or service of an occupant 24 of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel and only during the period of 25 actual occupancy by such an occupant. 26 (3) If the sign is removed, it cannot be replaced. 27 (4)No other free-standing signage may be placed on any of the parcels created by the 28 3 1 subdivision of the original parcel so long as the pole sign remains. 2 (5) All off-premises advertising as prohibited in 22.40.040 on the pole sign shall be 3 removed if any of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel are redeveloped by 4 the demolition or construction of any structure or any portion of any structure exceeding one 5 thousand (1,000) square feet or ten percent (10%) of the floor area—gross square footage of the 6 structures on the parcel, whichever is greater. Following removal of the off-premises advertising, 7 the only advertising allowed on the pole sign shall be advertising of a person, product, or service 8 located on the one parcel on which the pole sign is then located. 9 (6) The provisions of this section are recorded in a form approved by the city attorney on 10 the title of each of the parcels created by the subdivision of the original parcel. 11 12 Section 5. Subsection 22.22.040(a) (RR District) is amended to read as follows: 13 (a) In addition to the total sign area allowed under section 22.22.030, one two-sided 14 freestanding monument sign shall be permitted on each parcel frontage of at least one 15 hundred-fifty (150) feet in length based on the following criteria and subject to the standards in 16 chapter 22.34. Two two-sided freestanding monument signs shall be permitted on a parcel 17 frontage of at least three hundred (300) feet based on the following criteria and subject to the 18 standards in chapter 22.34. Three (3) two-sided freestanding monument signs shall be permitted 19 on a parcel frontage of four hundred (400) feet or greater based on the following criteria and 20 subject to the standards in chapter 22.34. 21 Street on which Height Maximum Sign Area of Monument Sign 22 Parcel Frontage is Located 23 Adrian Road 12 feet 75 square feet per side 150 square feet of total 24 sign area Broadway 12 feet 75 square feet per side 150 square feet of total 25 sign area 26 Rollins Road 12 feet 75 square feet per side 150 square feet of total 27II sign area All other streets 12 feet 40 square feet per side 80 square feet of total 28 (local) sign area 4 1 2 Section 6. Subsection 22.22.050(a) (RR District) is amended to read as follows: 3 (a) Wall signs shall be permitted on any designated frontage subject to the sign area 4 limitations listed in Section 22.22.030 and the placement requirements listed in Chapter 22.48. 5 6 Section 7. Subsection 22.24.050(a) (IB & APS District) is amended to read as follows: 7 (a) Wall signs shall be permitted on any designated frontage subject to the sign area 8 limitations listed in Section 22.24.030 and the placement requirements listed in Chapter 22.48. 9 10 Section 8. This ordinance shall be published as required by State 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 meeting of the City Council held on the 16`h day of June, 16 2008, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 17 , 2008, by the following vote: 18 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 22 City Clerk 23 24 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\SignCoderevision2008-2ndDraft.wpd 25 26 27 28 5 OYR AGENDA ITEM NO: 6c STAFF REPORT kJ MEETING DATE: July 21,2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: May 21, 2008 APPROVED BY: sem/ FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director— (650) 558-7255 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW BASEMENT AREA TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, ON PROPERTY AT 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should conduct a public hearing on the appeal of the application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for a basement and Parking Variance for a first and second story addition and new basement area to an existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action regarding the appeal should include specific findings supporting the Council's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the City Council. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. The City Council may consider two alternatives: 1. deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action approving the application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for a basement and Parking Variance for a first and second story addition and new basement area to an existing single family dwelling; or 2. uphold the appeal, and modify the Planning Commission's decision by providing specific direction to the project applicant regarding further changes to be made to the project. BACKGROUND: Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached, undersized two-car garage (18'-10" wide x 18'-4" deep, clear interior dimensions) contains 3,070 SF (0.37 FAR) of floor area and has five bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 446 SF on the first floor along the right side of the house, to add 226 SF on the second floor at the front of the house and to build a new 614 SF basement area with a 9'-0" ceiling height (which requires a Special Permit). With the proposed first and second story and basement additions, the floor area will increase from 3,070 SF (0.37 FAR) to 3,742 SF (0.45 FAR) where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 3,756 SF (0.45 FAR). Planning staff would note that the entire basement area, 614 SF, is exempt from the FAR calculation). The proposed project is 14 SF below the maximum allowable FAR. With the addition, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from five to six (new library counts as a potential bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing attached two-car garage will be reconfigured to accommodate one covered space with clear interior dimensions of 9'-5" x 20' and another covered space with clear interior dimensions of 9'-5" x 18'- 8". A Parking Variance is required for the second covered parking space (18'8" deep proposed, where CITY COUNCIL MEETING—July 21,2008 Public Hearing—Appeal RE:1790 Escalante Way 20'-0"is the minimum requirement). Please note that the zoning code allows an existing 18'-wide attached garage to count as two covered parking spaces. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway(9'x 20'). All other zoning code requirements have been met. The following permits were approved by the Planning Commission on May 27,2008: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling(CS 25.57.010); • Hillside Area Construction Permit for a proposed addition in the hillside area(CS 25.62.020); • Special Permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than six and one half(6%) feet(9'-0"proposed)(CS 25 28.035 f);and • Variance for substandard covered parking space length(18'-8"proposed on one of the two covered spaces,where 20'-0"is the minimum requirement)(CS 25.70.020 b). The latest Planning Commission staff report(dated May 27,2008)is attached to this report and contains a detailed analysis of the proposal. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),per Section 15301 Class 1(e)(1)of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50%of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Prior Planning Commission Action: Planning Commission Approval:At its meeting of May 27,2008,the Planning Commission approved the property owner's request for Design Review,Hillside Area Construction Permit,Special Permit for a basement and Parking Variance for a first and second story addition and new basement area to an existing single family dwelling on property at 1790 Escalante Way(see attached minutes). The Commission approved the applications on a vote of 5-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi absent)with standard conditions of approval. The Commission also added the following condition to address one of the neighbor's concerns about parking in the neighborhood: Condition#3)that during demolition and construction of the proposed addition,the debris box shall be placed within the driveway of the subject property. Appeal of Planning Commission's Action: On June 5,2008,Jeffrey and June Kaufman,1760 Escalante Way,Burlingame,appealed the Planning Commission's action(see attached letter),identifying view obstruction and parking as the basis for the appeal. The appellant's concerns focus on the height and location of the proposed first floor addition,and includes a request to see how the proposed first floor addition would look if the height were dropped by an additional 8 inches. Attachments: Appeal Letter from Jeffrey and June Kaufman May 27,2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 27,2008 Planning Commission Staff Report Minutes from the May 12,2008,Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting E-mail from the City Arborist,Steve Porter,concerning the neighboring trees at 3130 Atwater Drive Minutes from the April 28,2008,Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Story Pole certification letter and plan from Kavanagh Engineering—dated April 24,2008 Story Pole Plan from applicant—date stamped April 21,2008 Minutes from the April 14,2008 Design Review Study Meeting Application to the Planning Commission 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING—July 21, 2008 Public Hearing—Appeal RE: 1790 Escalante Way Special Permit and Variance Forms Survey from Kavanagh Engineering Photographs of streetscape Aerial Photo Notice of Appeal Hearing— Mailed July 11, 2008 City Council Resolution (proposed) 3 R E C iV E '�. JEFFREY AND JUNE KAUFMAN '`M -) 70 .1TY C:L.rRr:'S OFF2E:. 1760 ESCALANTE WAY 1.�Y `.}4 1i�ft�lE�Ct��4�1�: BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 692-0505 FAX (650) 692-1087 Email: kaufmaniinvahoo.com Hdnc cable Mayor and City Council : June 4, 2008 Please schedule an appeal hearing for 1790 Escalante Way to be heard at the Burlingame City Council July 21 , 2008 Council meeting . City of Burlingame City Clerk 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 RE: Appeal of the Planning Commissions motion to approve 1790 Escalante Way Application Dear City Council Members: My name is Jeffrey Kaufman and I have lived at 1760 Escalante Way, Burlingame, CA 94010 for over 30 years. I also had my CPA practice in Burlingame. My wife June and I live next door to 1790 Escalante Way where they intend to build a new basement, a first story addition and a second story addition. The owners of the property purchased it approximately one year ago and to this date have not occupied it. The first story addition will affect our view toward the bay. At present we have a filtered view through some beautiful trees of the bay on a clear day and the room is where I do my exercise on a treadmill. The proposed addition will not only block part of our view, but will be an eye sore. The proposed addition is also going to the limit of the allowed setback of 7' from our fence, which makes the obstruction that much more prevalent. 1790 Escalante Way property has virtually no parking around it, since it is the middle house in the circular cold-a-sac. We are concerned that access to our garage will be impacted by the vehicles servicing the construction. We are also concerned of possible water, drainage and erosion affecting our property. On May 12, 2008, the planning commission first suggested the roofline of the addition be brought down by 12 to 18 inches and the motion failed. Then a motion was passed directing the applicant to reduce height of the roofline by a minimum of 18-inches, with 24-inches preferred. The Architect lowered the Story Polls by 16-inches which was not incompliance with the Planning Commissions directive and then submitted revised plans reflecting a reduction of only 16-inches. We feel that 16-inches is not enough of a reduction and would like to see how it would look with a reduction of 24-inches. There is a difference when looking thrn„gh the Story Polls and having a building in front of you. We commend the work of the Planning Commission and appreciate their coming to our house and seeing for themselves the impact of the project. We appreciate their support during the process,but do not agree with their conclusion. We humbly request your review of the project and its impact on us and the homes around it and hopefully you will agree with our concerns and approve our appeal. I have enclosed copies of the pertinent sections of the minutes of the Planning Commissions meetings of May 12, 2008 and May 27, 2008. Also enclosed is my check#1606 in the amount of $280.00 the required fee for filing an appeal. Sincerely, Jeffrey Kaufman CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION- Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3a. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from April 28, 2008 and May 12, 2008 Planning Commission meetings) Reference staff report dated May 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. John Lee, project architect, 711 San Miguel Lane, Foster City; presented the project. Commission comments: ■ Discussed roof pitch. Public comments: ■ Jeffrey and June Kaufman, 1760 Escalante Way; still concerned that view will continued to be impacted by the blocky appearance of the addition. Architect noted that the ridgeline was lowered 16-inches; but Commission wanted it reduced by 18-to 24-inches; could further reduce the impacts. Commission comments: ■ Is a good effort; an improvement in the design addressing the Kaufman's concerns. ■ No Variances are being requested. ■ The design is a reasonable compromise to address view concerns. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 15, 2008, sheet A4 and A5, date stamped April 16, 2008, sheet A3, and date stamped March 28, 2008, sheets Al, A2, A6 and A7, 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 September 20, 2007, October 18, 2007 and January 31, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's September 24, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 24, 2007 and October 22, 2007, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 24, 2007, memo shall be met; 3. that during demolition and construction of the proposed addition, the debris box shall be placed within the driveway of the subject property; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. 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; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure,interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer,or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. 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; and 12. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ The new basement is an effort on the applicant's part to move the additional floor area below grade. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 27, 2008 ■ The reduction in the pitch of the porch roof is the maximum that could be achieved. ■ Uncertain if the space could still be useable with further reductions in plate heights and roof pitch. ■ Majority of the addition impacts views of trees. ■ Commissioner Vistica feels the design is fundamentally flawed, doesn't keep with the existing vocabulary of the house; will not support. Vice-Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. Item No. Consent Calendar 10, PROJECT LOCATION 1790 Escalante Way City 9 of Burlingame Item No. Consent Calendar Design Review,Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Parking Variance Address: 1790 Escalante Way Meeting Date:May 27,2008 Request: Application for Design Review,Hillside Area Construction Permit,Special Permit fora Basement and Parking Variance for a first and second story addition and new basement area to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Architect:John C.Lee APN:025-352-030 Property Owner:David Zhang Lot Area:8,299 SF General Plan:Low Density Residential Zoning:R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),per Section 15301 Class 1(e)(1)of the CEQA Guidelines,which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50%of the floor area of the structures before the addition. May 12,2008,Regular Action Meeting:At the Planning Commission RegularAction meeting on May 12,2008, the Commission had concerns with potential view blockage caused by the ridgeline of the library addition(May 12,2008,Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission voted to continue the item to the Consent Calendar with direction to the applicant to reduce the height of the library roofline by a minimum of 18 inches,24 inches preferred,and to install story poles to reflect the revised height of the library ridgeline. Revised plans were submitted on May 15,2008,to address the Commissions and the neighbors concerns. The revised plans include a reduction in the proposed plate height of the library addition from 9'-1"to 7'-6"and a change to the pitch of the library addition from 4:12 to 2.5:12. These two changes lowered the overall height of the library ridgeline by a total of 1'-4". The story poles have been revised to reflect the lowering of the library ridgeline. Project Description:The existing two-story house with an attached,undersized two-car garage(18'-10"wide x 18'-4"deep,clear interior dimensions)contains 3,070 SF(0.37 FAR)of floor area and has five bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add approximately 446 SF on the first floor along the right side of the house,to add 226 SF on the second floor at the front of the house and to build a new 614 SF basement area with a 9'-0"ceiling height(which requires a Special Permit).With the proposed first and second story and basement additions,the floor area will increase from 3,070 SF(0.37 FAR)to 3,742 SF(0.45 FAR)where the Zoning Code allows a maximum of 3,756 SF(0.45 FAR).Planning staff would note that the entire basement area,614 SF,is exempt from the FAR calculation). The proposed project is 14 SF below the maximum allowable FAR. With the addition,the number of bedrooms will be increasing from five to six(new library counts as a potential bedroom). Three parking spaces,two of which must be covered,are required on site. The existing attached two-car garage will be reconfigured to accommodate one covered space with clear interior dimensions of 9'-5"x 20'and another covered space with clear interior dimensions of 9'-5"x 18'-8". A Parking Variance is required for the second covered parking space(18'8"deep proposed,where 20'-0"is the minimum requirement). Please note that the zoning code allows an existing 18'-wide attached garage to count as two covered parking spaces. One uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway(9'x 20'). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling(CS 25.57.010); • Hillside Area Construction Permit for a proposed addition in the hillside area(CS 25.62.020); • Special Permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than six and one half(6%)feet (9'-0"proposed)(CS 25 28.035 f);and • Variance for substandard covered parking space length(18'-8"proposed on one of the two covered spaces,where 20'-0"is the minimum requirement)(CS 25.70.020 b). Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Parking Variance 1790 Escalante Way 1790 Escalante Way Lot Area: 8,299 SF Plans date stamped: March 28, 2008 and April 16, 2008 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS .............---....._........._......_._..._........._.........__._....- -- -..__._......._................--- ----...__.__ _ - ... ... ---- --�—- --..._...- ---.._._............._._._.._.............. - Front (1st fir): 20'-6" (to garage)' 30'-6" (to porch) 15'-0" (2nd fir): 36'-0". 20'-4" 20'-0" _ ................................-...._........._.........................._.._._............................._................................................._.......-- ........., ..__......._......_..............._....._......_.__....-._._._.._..._.__.-. .._..............._...._........._.._._.._...._._...-.---..__..._-- ......_......................._._.......__............................._..._................. Side (left): i 10'-4" 13'-0" (to 2"d story) 7'-0" (right): ! 11'-2" (to porch) 7'-0" 7'-0" -- -----._....................---..._........_._.._....:--- ._......._.._............__..----- --._.........- -- � - ---- --- ...---._...__._.._._._._.....---._..._._.._....._....----- - Rear (1st fir): 15'-0" 15'-0" 15'-0" (2nd fir): 15'-0" no change 20'-0" ............_...._..._............_.....__.-...._...........................................................__;_................-----......._..._......._.__._._... --._.- i _._..__..._..... ---- - __...__.........--- - - — ----- -........................- -----......... Lot Coverage: 1 ,922 SF 2,174 SF 3,320 SF 23% j 26% 40% Floor Area Ratio: 3,070 SF 3,742 SF 3,756 SF 0.37 FAR 0.45 FAR 0.45 FAR 2 _._..._................._..................................--....._.............................._.._..........-- — _...... - ---- ---- ------------ ---_T--......-- ---._.....--— --.... Basement: none basement with 9'-0" ceiling Special Permit req'd for heights basement _................................._......._.....__._........................---......._....._.-................_....._.......------....._._..._.............._..............__._............---....-I._.----.................-......_......._......._..... --._.._... ------ .-...._......._................_..----.._.._.._............._.........._........- --- # of bedrooms: 5 j 6 --- ....._...__........_.....----...__................_...................__........... -- i Parking: 2 covered 2 covered j 2 covered (18'-10" x 18'-411) (9'-5" x 20' & 9'-5" x 18'-8")4 (18' x 20')5 1 uncovered ! 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') ..._..........__................_..._._......__.................._......._._.............._.......__._........................................._......_............. .............--....!_.__..._..........._..._....�d_..............__.................._......---- .._.__............_._._...._._..__... --.._......._........ Building Height: 26'-6" 25 -4 (to 2 story addn.) 30 -0 DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.28.075 Front setback to the garage is an existing nonconforming condition, a new single door two-car garage requires a 35' front setback. 2 (0.32 x 8,299 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,756 SF (0.45 FAR) 3 Special Permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than six and one half(6 '/2) feet (9'-0" proposed) (CS 2528.0350. 4 Variance for substandard covered parking space length (18'-8" proposed on one of the two covered spaces, where 20'-0" is the minimum requirement) (CS 25.70.020 b). 5 An existing garage not less than eighteen (18) feet wide and twenty (20 feet deep shall be considered to provide two (2) covered off street parking spaces (CS 25.70.030). Staff Comments: Staff would note that Condition number three (3) has been added to address the placement of the debris box in the driveway during construction of the proposed addition. See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES Coordinator. April 28, 2008, Regular Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission Regular Action meeting on April 28, 2008, the Commission heard testimony from neighbors concerning view blockage, parking during construction and impact to adjacent trees (April 28, 2008, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission voted to continue the item to the May 12, 2008 agenda, in order to allow the opportunity for Planning Commissioners to visit the neighbor's property to observe view blockage. The Commission also asked that the City Arborist review the plans to determine if there is a potential impact upon the neighbor's trees. No revised plans were submitted and the story poles remain as were originally installed and surveyed. The City Arborist visited the site and determined that there will be little or no construction impact to the neighboring trees at 3130 Atwater Drive (see attached e-mail dated May 7, 2008). Please refer to the copy of the April 28, 2008, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of the neighbors who spoke and the Planning Commission's -2- Design Review,Hillside Area Construction Permit,Special Permit and Parking Variance 1790 Escalante Way concerns. Design Review Study Meeting:At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 14,2008, the Commission had several comments and suggestions concerning the proposed second storywindow over the garage,the proposed bay window in the library addition and placement of the debris box during construction and voted to place the item on the consent calendar when the plans have been revised as directed and story poles have been installed(April 14,2008,Planning Commission Minutes). The designer submitted revised plans, dated stamped April 16,2008,to address all the changes requested by the Commission. Design Review Criteria:The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No.1591 adopted by the Council on April 20,1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties;and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for Design Review: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 14,2008 Design Review Study Meeting,April 28,2008,RegularAction Meeting and May 12, 2008,Regular Action Meeting,that the addition is straightforward and well organized,that the architectural style is consistent throughout the house,and that the project is consistent with the pattern in the neighborhood,the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five Design Review Guidelines. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit:Review of a hillside area construction permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec.25.61.060). Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit:Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 14,2008 Design Review Study Meeting,April 28,2008,Regular Action Meeting and May 12,2008,Regular Action Meeting,and because the ridgeline of the proposed library addition has been lowered by 1'-4", the placement of the proposed addition will not have a substantial impact on the view from the adjacent properties or on the distant views in the neighborhood,and the project is found to be compatible with the Hillside Area Construction Permit criteria listed above. Findings for a Special Permit:In order to grant a Special Permit,the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass,scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line,facade,exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city;and (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. -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Parking Variance 1790 Escalante Way Special Permit Findings for Basement Ceiling Height: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 14, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting, April 28, 2008, Regular Action Meeting and May 12, 2008, Regular Action Meeting, that the basement provides additional living area below grade that does not add to the mass and bulk of the structure and that does not intrude on the neighboring properties, the proposed basement is found to be compatible with the Special Permit criteria listed above. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance 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; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Findings for Parking Variance: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 14,2008 Design Review Study Meeting,April 28,2008,Regular Action Meeting and May 12, 2008, Regular Action Meeting, that the existing house was built with a garage that has an existing covered parking space length of 18'-4"which does not meet current code requirements(20'-0"required length)and which is being improved to better accommodate two covered parking spaces, and that the deficiency in covered parking space length will not affect the ability to use the garage for parking a second vehicle, therefore the project is found to be compatible with the Variance criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action:The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 15, 2008, sheet A4 and A5, date stamped April 16, 2008, sheet A3, and date stamped March 28, 2008, sheets A 1,A2,A6 and A7, 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 September 20,2007,October 18,2007 and January 31, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's September 24, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 24, 2007 and October 22,2007,memos,and the NPDES Coordinator's September 24,2007, memo shall be met; 3. that during demolition and construction of the proposed addition,the debris box shall be placed within the driveway of the subject property; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors, or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or -4- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Parking Variance 1790 Escalante Way changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. 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; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. 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; and 12. 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. Erica Strohmeier Planner c. John C. Lee, applicant and architect. Attachments:' Minutes from the May 12, 2008, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting E-mail from the City Arborist, Steve Porter, concerning the neighboring trees at 3130 Atwater Drive Minutes from the April 28, 2008, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Story Pole certification letter and plan from Kavanagh Engineering—dated April 24, 2008 Story Pole Plan from applicant—date stamped April 21, 2008 Minutes from the April 14, 2008 Design Review Study Meeting Application to the Planning Commission -5- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Parking Variance 1790 Escalante Way Special Permit and Variance Forms Survey from Kavanagh Engineering Photographs of streetscape Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed April 4, 2008 Aerial Photo -6- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 4. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 28 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008,with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. John Lee, 711 San Miguel Lane, Foster City; represented the applicant. • Visited 1760 Escalante and saw that the ridge is below eye level, and view requires a sharp angle and is blocked by trees. Commission comments: • Concern regarding integration of roofline of addition and clipped off corners of library addition; doesn't fit with architecture of property, or neighborhood;these concerns haven't been addressed in the revised plans. • Library addition protrudes into the neighbor's distant view; could the roof be at a lesser pitch to reduce view impacts; consider changing roof pitch on addition to 3:12 pitch. • Bringing ridgeline down is difference between approving and denying the project. Public comments: • Dana Wemple, 3130 Atwater Drive and Jeff Kaufman, 1760 Escalante Way; concerns about trees impacts on property at3130 Atwater Drive have been relieved somewhat; remaining concern is that excavation for basement is limited to only where the story poles are located; encouraged bringing down the ridgeline will reduce view impacts. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: • Could be comfortable with a reduction in the height of the addition. Commissioner Terrones moved'to approve the application by resolution, with the conditions included in the staff report, and the additional condition that the ridgeline of the roof of the addition be brought down by 12 to 18-inches. Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion by Commission Brownrigg to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to reduce height of roofline by a minimum of 18-inches, 24-inches preferred, and install story poles to reflect the revised height of the ridgeline. The item may be placed on the Consent Calendar when it returns to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008 • Commissioner Vistica noted that he can't support the motion because there are more fundamental problems with the project design. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 5. 2707 MA INEZ DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPL\APLICANTS FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONST UCTION PERMIT, FRONTS ACK AND LOT COVERAGE VS FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDI N TO A SINGLE FAMILY RE ENCE (GILL AND JANE YEAND PROPERTY OW RS; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, SIGNER) PROJECT PLANBEN HURIN(CONTINUED FROM PRIL 28,2008 PLANNING CO ISSION MEETING Reference staff repo ated May 12, 2008, with attach nts. Community Development Direc r Meeker presented the report, r iewed criteria and staff comme s. Seven (7) conditions were sugg ted for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the pu 'c hearing. C mission comments: • None Michael indl, JD &Associates, 875 ahler Road; represented the a licant. • With proposed removal of tree 60% of additional view will beg nted to adjacent property once the add ' n is completed. • Homes fu er up the hill will also ben it from tree removal. Commission comme • Clarified that the uble-trunk Eucalyptus tre and Black Acacias are to be moved as called out in the tree removal rmit. Asked if the applican as explored excavating t front entry piece; it will app r quite massive as designed currently an ill be 15-20 feet closer t treet. • Concerned with the type f roofing material to be u d; need to eliminate the pat work effect that urrently exists. • e is difficult to work with; ere are places on the sit here addition could be pro osed with no im ct to neighbors; the prop al is currently problemati due to view blockage. • Wou like to visit 2716 Martine to determine view obstru ion. • Would a to see a design that bri s the entire addition dow 3-4 feet; the proposed Ioc 'on is the right loca for the addition. • The setbac ariance is supportable. The addition c Id be stepped back to duce impacts on neigh rs, and eliminate the setback Variance. • Consider a design 'th lower plate lines, Brent roof pitches, etc. reduce or eliminate view acts. Public com nts: 7 From:PARKS-Porter,Steve Sent:Wednesday,May 07,2008 9:25 AM To:CD/PLG-Strohmeier,Erica Subject:1790 Escalante Way Erica, Upon inspection at 1790 Escalante Way,It appears that there will be little or no construction impact to the neighboring Pine Trees at 3130 Atwater Dr.. The construction will be at least 15 feet away,and outside of the neighboring Pine Trees dripline. Steve Porter CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3c. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. John Lee, 711 San Miguel Lane, Foster City; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ None Public comments: ■ June Kaufmann and Jeff Kaufman, 1760 Escalante Way; and Dana Wemple, 3130 Atwater Drive; expressed concern regarding the basement and the height of the addition. The addition could block views of the Bay; were story poles required? Also concerned regarding the impacts during construction; doesn't want construction vehicles parked in front of their home; concerned regarding the potential placement of a portable toilet. Story poles were to go up, were story poles needed near the library; were provided; lies adjacent to their house. Expressed concern regarding impacts to trees located on a bank along the rear of the property due to construction of the proposed basement. Additional Commission comments: ■ Asked how the view from the neighbor is blocked; by the ridgeline? ■ A condition of approval could address the protection of the neighbor's trees; a soils report will be required prior to construction to assess potential impacts due to the basement's construction. Additional public comments: ■ John Lee (project architect), 711 San Miguel Lane, Foster City; noted that the basement will be approximately 20-feet from the property line and quite some distance from the neighbor's trees. Any roots will be far below the basement. The view from the neighbor's property is at a sharp angle to the property. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigq moved to continue the item to the May 12, 2008 agenda, requesting that the Planning Commission visit the neighbor's property to observe view blockage. The City Arborist is also to review the plans to determine if there is a potential impact upon the neighbor's trees. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0- 1 (CommissionerAuran absent). This item concluded at 7:38 p.m. 4 APR-24-2003 11:10 FROM:KAUANAGH ENGINEERING 650 579 1960 TO:96963790 P.1 co�T;- cErr�� KAVANAGH ENGINEERING AFIi. 1rc�w 708 CAROLAN AVENUE•BURLINGAME, CA 94010-2711 OF S _ % n TEL: (650)579-1944• FAX:(650)579-1960 kaveng(&rcn.com 0755 Zhang cal.doc FAX 08.0424 00 O Erica Strohmeier Fax: +1 (650) 696-3790 06 M City of Burlingame O E m RE: 1790 Escalante Way, Burlingame- STORY POLE CERTIFICATION ♦(1),, t0 Dear Erica: M W On 4-22-08 we surveyed the story poles for the subject site as shown on the attached sketch a O (1) O SK-3 "Story Pole Diagram" dated 4-23-08 with results as follows: Ch F.- ELEVATION—TOP OF POLE [feet] a POLE SURVEYED P#101 122.30 P#102 126.36 P#103 122,39 P#104 110.62 P#105 11594 P#106 118.07 P#107 116.18 P#108 113.48 Very truly yours, QROf�ESs!H 2 ��� F`' L K4L f � `�v PSV q Charles L. Kavanagh RCE 20858 U No. 20858 s * Exp. 9-30-09 cc: David Zhang slgjf OF CAL E�`'�P 1790 Escalante Way Burlingame, CA 94010 John C. Lee office 650-345-6663 Architect cell 650-200-8400 711 San Miguel Lane fax 650-345-8338 Foster City, CA arcNcl a,gmait.com CIVIL DESIGN.SURVEYING•UTILITIES SINCE 1983 Page 1 of 2 A P R 2 '1 2 008 ITY AN Bi�P, rfE -1ANhJING DEPTO=FT APR-24-2005 11:10 FROM:KAUANAGH ENGINEERING 650 579 1960 TO:96963790 P.2 .•r : r.. r-••vr v rvr.u. vvnn rte.. ItVtYVV 1 • 1 PC Meeting 04.28.08 COMMUNICATI( 'CEIVED Agenda Item 3c: P# 101 AFTER XRE1-)A;,:i7ION OF STAFF R�:,, R T 1790 Escalante ' �t 17-2-30 _ _ , l errs P:w Io2 � D r EL 12Gt 3G -v 1 v 6 \'•1 � :tib,';�y'v'',r - � -J �^ �•��(C�1 rT�jy � •.1'.''1 t 1 �.— t 1'r 1 1 1 t•f'1 X1'1 ILI'1L11'+. 1 1 I 't} f'f A P# 103 4 ,0.7 a( 1 t +''.1`` . •'1•i 1...'1�,,+'r'1'r`L+:.'• •'` Lr�L� Z2 may//� �y � 1 • I,r, , ' •. V LJ d l�. ; .1 1+�+1 '`'••r•' •''L'1'I+1 r,t,r r'L•L t'('1 '•;,;•9•• Fk � •,'L,1+1'1 f + •'• '.f '1� � . � r't 1'• 1 1 1 'I'r'11•r•r' .!tr•: � ::[. f 1 f •1'I'e'I•/' •�—��.1. ._— , t'I`,1+.'r'r r•(1•+•1•1'f'•i^1'1'.'•l +' �1,�.h.'111'1 �, 8 ..•' .rl r—— i � .'L 1 1.1 1 1 r 1 .... .'•If�::�'.''• ',, ,,T, ... ,� —(��' ; � r''.f Lftl:'L''.'L:'1•.. '`,1'i r'1.1 311..L• �l8(jfl •Q� .r •rl• L:I'. 1,1 L L r'1 r L f'e'1'!1 1 .:(3 r f' '+ly+',f•LI..t r,L.,r++11•'L,1+. '�'•y �:',',i/ ~ .,r''1'•,IL,''L"�I.L `J �� r � 1'+'Ltr,,•+.,.,.'rf l'. r'1'll• VG 1 1 1 r Y •l l t'1 i'r'''''r' ' i !� 1'1 1 1 r f �( .,rrf�,//1 ,1 1t 1,111'1+,.(,,,•,•, P# 10 ••1+r1<t�'1•:+111•� r� 0) 11 r1+• ,1f' ' 1 94 •i +;1'I{iV/f11,111.'+*'+;` : El_ I I 5 ,L/t'1'1,,,•' .f 11•fe 0 rL rL. 1• , ; LI.I ILL11 IVt1. .p Q .q - '�'( Itl •f1r11 •{1 -; P# ioq- ,•����� Ploa � 107 P# tC� ."�' �L 116•IS r tL19�/ ' J y Z,:' o to z z r - o o psy �0sf� p�p� M (/J (/�Q x T P !)t�']A1 Afi O� AA� a ° r" '•� Z 4121 311 n � ^' z -u m 0 X 1.. � "G-t-!_!_1_i_J�T 4- Z•3 - O �C�7"_---�-r--------.�...._ t KAVANAGH ENGINEERING -DAVID ZHANG 13URLI W"WIE, G4 708 CAROLAN AVE. (650)579-1944 1790 E&','A..N4TE: W?4,Y BURLINGAME•CA. 94010-2711 ` 3 K- 07 S B ha17 STORY POLE 1 IAC-:,P A� IJ J i' ti 1 E) lc 13�S PZ �-��_ rr PROJECT DATA ._I�acw RiYUIffi `✓ :,�W'W'�j `i c� :.o..c.nnr9 _ f�M35o�"E�E tR+ crc -qCj=,ADDRESS `XAY /� h- , hr r 3URLINGAME.0 r ,JY'N SME. :25-352.D30g ?v'e4• Oo «�"-r _ - "-- - --�s-� M •'__._ 5.29980.FT Tram , •�•�` i " E`-' W1X PLD^u.:2@A ACCOIM: MW8.2851-1•.5.7-3.756 SO.FT ___'_J��{••�'- - - E7GSTIN9FIRS':+f1,. yam.-"�� __-__:'.-_- `- _ _ fl�"--- _`"-•-,- `' d 7CISTING"RACE � Q- : T � 5SECOND FLOOR 1.223 S0.' P /`�X _ - •_- -_•--•'., �1-- _-_..- `fl aR0?OSEO 71R8T iLOOR 2.87/80.F? - .. +,_ - �• aROPp,5E08ECOND FLOOR 251 80 FT ' 2(n a d OR _ 593 SO FT. s9s PROP OSED BASEMENT 8 9 SO.F7. 16 b0.FT V TOTAL FIRST-Look {W-• N C— _ ,Q1p. ?OTAL SECOND FLOOR IAG 30.FT. _ `-OTILL 1.484 S0-FT. Zye d 3,25>S (E)GARAGE Q FT. (� _ • TOTAL PROPOSED BLDG.AREA 449 SQ�; �1 SNC,S7Fp W CaNG PAVF. u1 PROPOSED PORC-4 D.4'"6 SOFT. Q 180 SO.FT _ ?E1PL-ME/ ` 34RKf 79.11 ; -- -', DRAWING INDEX �,CICBOARD � a KETe LL 1;4 COURT ''1� M'4iNEuup—rWELL Al PLOTIROOF PLAN ` A2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN o a r A3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN �= A4 ELEVATIONS A5 ELEVATIONS a a - A6 SECTIONS I r _ A7 LANDSCAPE PLAN VICINT4, MAP S` " -' ,: z y.. LLI - i, •stir .. .-____._" -_ - .J - __- ___ _' _- '��'._ - `'�' '- SY. ;1. I PRDPERT UNE co IAV 70CGRIOO22 - - _PROPOSED sl `' �•' _ TElROOF PLAN ESCA!-+4NTE WAY -_ :y: s�.le:ylr.l,a• �,.- �, aa� APR1s,C8 EG, 1 2008 �:ITY OF.-�'URLINGAME PLANNING F1�';PT,. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 14, 2008 13. 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW BASEMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN C. LEE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID ZHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 14, 2008, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. David Zhang, 1790 Escalante, property owner, and John C. Lee, architect represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Nice job on this house, application is straight forward and well organized, typical pattern we see in this area. ■ Would like to see new second storywindow over garage centered,or there could be two windows as another option for symmetry. ■ A structural report and soils report will be required at time of building permit. ■ There is a benefit to adding a basement, it allows owner to add living space without intrusion on neighbors, allowance that doesn't count toward overall FAR. ■ Project will make the garage more usable by removing intrusions. ■ Add a condition of approval that the debris box shall be kept on site during construction. ■ The bay window on the library will look better if it comes down to the ground. Public Comments: June and Jeff Kaufman,1760 Escalante, Leslie Hornstein, 1793 Escalante, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, has been a lot of construction on our street,which is a cul de sac with no parking, don't understand basement, will they be digging underneath, concerned about excavation;the addition will be close to fence,can we see story poles so we can see how massive addition will be. Excellent use of the basement space, , library is counted as bedroom may or may not be used for one, two cars will fit in garage plus two cars will fit in driveway. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when requested revisions have been made and story poles have been installed for second story addition and library addition. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: ■ Cannot support the motion, because there are some things about the design don't work. ('.hair raiirhi rrallari fnr a iintg on the mntinn to n/ar.P this itp nn the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:58 p.m. 40 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT•501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 BURLINGAME p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: K Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Other: ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Parcel Number: PROJECT ADDRESS: 7q D 1_::SC ., T� l�X APPLICANT project contact person PROPERTY OWNER project contact person❑ l, OK to send electronic copies of documents❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents❑ Name: C!I�4 �' �F' Name: � � _Z " Address: I l Addr6ss: 1790 City/State/Zip: City/state/Zip: �� Phone (w): � Phone (w): (Home): 2 Q� �y (Home): (Fax): 6 7 - U�'j�� C��j� U (Fax): (E-mail): t (E-mail): ARCHITECT/DESIGNER v project contact person OK to send electronic copies of documents❑ Name: J o� vi (4e .` Please mark one box Address L l I u With 0 City/State/Zip: G 4/_+ to indicate 11� n �,I the contact person Phone (w): IJ ✓ — �t' for this project. (Home): (Fax): (E-mail): rc k^G < PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��� � a LI "y-a 41 D trbl�' �5UffAt b �, -tel P ►te n P�►� /. ?_ r' i P 1 5:F J correct L.� the AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and coi ect to is best of my knowledge and belie . Applicant's signature: Date: I am aware of the propose appliAatioand her by authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature:` Date: Date submitted: S:\Handouts\PC Application 2007.handout Special Permit Application 1790 Escalante Way, Burlingame, Ca 94010 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. This Special Permit is to build a below grade basement. This basement has no physical mass, scale to affect neighboring properties 2. Explain how 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. The proposed basement has no roof line, fagade, exterior finish materials and elevations that can be seen above grade. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed basement is consistent with city's design guidelines as follows: 1) It is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2) It is respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood. 3) It is interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties. 4) It is proportion to mass and bulk of the structural components in its landscaping 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements.What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No trees to be removed within its proposed footprint. 1790 Escalante Way Sp Permit Variance Application For existing garage does not have legal size space for one parking stall 1790 Escalante Way, Burlingame, Ca 94010 a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The existing garage depth does not have the required 20'in length to meet the current zoning code for one parking space in the garage. The front of the garage is located at the front yard set back line does not have space to extend and the rear is the existing utility space. 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. To meet the current zoning requirement to have 20'depth garage, the garage must enlarge to add 18"'in length. The additional length will create unnecessary hardship. The existing garage is functional to meet compact auto stall. C. Explain why 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. This garage is an existing condition. It was built with the original residence. It will not change with this variance. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, build and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? This garage will remain the same as it was. It will not alter the aesthetics, mass and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. N41,A R 4 2008 Project Comments Date: September 20, 2007 To: a( 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 design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 9/24/2007 ........... Project Comments Date: January 28, 2008 (Revised Plans Dated January 22, 2008) 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 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for a basement with an interior ceiling height of 9'-0", for a 1St and 2 d story addition at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: N/A Comments: 1) All previous conditions apply. 2) All construction must comply with the 2007 California Building Codes. Reviewed b}c:-- ---- Date: / Com---- / Project Comments Date: October 18, 2007 (Revised Plans) 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 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 *** Although the basement has been revised the comments of 9/20/07apply and must be addressed before this project can move forward to the Planning Commission. 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. NOTE: Projects for which Building Permit applications are received on or after January 1, 2008 must comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. Projects that have been approved by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission on or before December 31, 2007 may use the 2001 California Codes. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 4) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 5) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential ildings. Go to http://www.energy,ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Include the windows for the Library. ( vide a second means of egress from the basement area. 8) 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 i if ym it nrniPrt entails landinas_ more than 30" in heiaht. 9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 10) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 11) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. 12) NOTE: Plans that specifically address items 6 and 7 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Project Comments Date: September 20, 2007 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 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 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. NOTE: Projects for which Building Permit applications are received on or after January 1, 2008 must comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC),the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other state and Federal requirements. Projects that have been approved by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission on or before December 31, 2007 may use the 2001 California Codes. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 4) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 5) 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. 6) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Include the windows for the Library. 7) Provide a second means of egress from the basement area. 8) 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. 9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 10; Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 111 The fireplace chimnev must terminate at least two feet above anv roof surface within ten feet. 12i NOTE: Plans that specifically address items 6 and 7 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. �C Project Comments Date: October 18, 2007 (Revised Plans) To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official d 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 design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly— Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. 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:; ---7 � Date: Project Comments Date: September 20, 2007 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official of 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 design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly— Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. 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: Z4.1���� Project Comments Date: September 20, 2007 To: 00' City Engineer Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 00, Chief Building Official Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 00' City Arborist NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and hillside area construction permit for first and second story addition to existing single family dwelling at 1790 Escalante Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-352-030 Staff Review: September 24, 2007 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 runorr; • 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- 1790 Escalante Way, 1st and 2nd story addition. 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. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls: 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 arount 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: Date: 09/24/07 WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION? ter= _. - Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as _..._.. rr: �:::,�.;��� ���... :_-' construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times ..;;:;.�::�s;�•�r;.�^=;_: :_;;�__':;: �=:�:;;:�t�;;:�;:;;-�:::,.:::::t-=:�. that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that _:�- _�.::..:�5. • �. �: ,,:;::;:,.;::;:::�: .: hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The Ioss 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 akpublic cost of$750,000. 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. ABAG 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. ssocienoN I EAST BAY REGIONAL OF BAY AREA GOVERnMENTS PARK DISTRICT PROTECTING YOUR z PROPERTY : PROM5�y :t55: •tEti•. EROSION :? - EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT FUTURE HEADACHES Es,:�ev.►.� Vegetation-stabilized Bare Slope: Headaches , and Liability Slope: Security mudslide danger soil in place g ' • minimum of loss of topsoil erosion • clogged storm • fewer winter clean- drains, flooding r (� up problems problems r� '� \t • protection for expensive house foun- cleanup f' ,L dations • eroded or 1 � buried house foundations i':%>D ./'•.T�,✓sem+-��:- •{ •i O C= .. TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNER A "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." Atypical 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. and seeds on protection quickly that will last all during the wet - Use netting• Check with t your local soilnursery for dvice.ep slopes. season. 5^ - rc 6K 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 ar-e 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. 9 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 - Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol 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, Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, channels, lakes and the Bay. restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel- ing access roads and driveways. You can protect your prop- erty and prevent future headaches by following these guidelines: TEMPORARY MEASURES TO STABILIZE THE SOIL b BEFORE AND t : Grass provides the cheapest and most ef- DURING fective short-term.ero- CONSTRUCTION sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the best seed mix- • Plan construction activities during spring and summer, I, / 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 U.S. Department of Ag- • Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of ; ; riculture Soil Conserva- the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site .. •i _ 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 k_ removal to the areas Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection under current construc- = : tM. 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 m property, and reduce the Straw mulch is nearly 100%"effective when held in place 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 tackif+-er should n bonrhing ferrgrin6 nr be done in two constructing diversion separate appli- . z , 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 tackifier. CDmmer- appearance. dal 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 lr�/ �— protect channel banks from erosive water flow y. �w..::;... Sediment trap—to t stop runoff carrying sediment and trap the ( r•_ _� ur-i - _ sediment ' Mats of excelsior,jute netting and plastic sheets can be ef- fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with Storm drain outlet the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. _ • —� protection—to reduce the speed of water flow- ing from a pipe onto Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con- ;_' v 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 A_ • 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 swaie—to divert doesn't cause erosion. runoff from a disturbed area y or to contain runoff within To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump- a disturbed area 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 iy .1ti.iIi4[ir)' .� landscaping �r+1fl, hydraulic mulch plastic sheeting ? �i:'.I ij1� uu — a-,'.�2;i.: `''` ;:. •.:, iia' diversion'v ditch •�' perimeter dike — — _ -=�� . w.' ':... > _Y `I bench Cj .-. - - straw mulchsediment trap ` outlet protection 4W C servafree � ,,.;,,, e•,.... "�� lit N x ,y I it( tti YY'r, IN uj �� I i pogl 3 4 �rwt �3 « r� � rilu if r,.l x a IRE, � 25 aG. Z i r CITY OF BURLINGAME awww.burlingarne.org COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD016Ht5504325 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 %,PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650 0 �iR, 1r �a;esi grozra 9401-0 Site: 1790 ESCALANTE Us POST-AGE The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public PUBLIC HEARING hearing on MONDAY, JULY 21,2008 at 7:00 P.M. in the City NOTICE Hall Council Chambers,501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA: Appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision on an application for Design Review,Hillside Area Construction Permit, Parking Variance and Special Permit for a new basement for a first and second story addition to a single family residence at 1790 ESCALANTE WAY zoned R-l. APN 025-352-030 Mailed: July 11,2008 (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 Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, DENYING THE APPEAL OF JEFFREY AND JUNE KAUFMAN, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MAY 27, 2008, APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW BASEMENT AREA TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1790 ESCALANTE WAY, ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, the Planning Commission approved applications for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for a basement and Parking Variance, and adopted a Categorical Exemption, related to a first and second story addition and new basement area to an existing single family dwelling on property located at 1790 Escalante Way (APN: 025-352-030), and owned by David Zhang, 1790 Escalante Way, Burlingame, California; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's May 27, 2008 approval was appealed by Jeffrey and June Kaufman, and the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal on July 21, 2008; denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301 Class 1(e)(1), which states that additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Parking Variance and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Parking Variance and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Mayor 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. City Council Agenda—July 21, 2008 APPEAL— 1790 Escalante Way I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21St day of July, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 2of2 EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval—1790 Escalante Way Approved by the City Council on July 21,2008 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 15,2008,sheet A4 and A5, date stamped April 16,2008, sheet A3, and date stamped March 28,2008, sheets Al,A2,A6 and A7, 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 September 20,2007,October 18,2007 and January 31, 2008 memos,the City Engineer's September 24,2007 memo,the Fire Marshal's September 24, 2007 and October 22, 2007, memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 24,2007,memo shall be met; 3. that during demolition and construction of the proposed addition,the debris box shall be placed within the driveway of the subject property; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal, 7. 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; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2007 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval — 1790 Escalante Way Approved by the City Council on July 21, 2008 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled, 11. 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; and 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. 2of2 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM # 6d MTG. 7/21/08 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBM�TTED BY = c DATE: July 8, 2008 �-- APPROVED FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.16 TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OCCUPIED PROPERTIES HAVE COLLECTION SERVICE AND TO UPDATE THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 8.16 to require that all occupied properties have collection service and to update the solid waste collection definitions and requirements by: A. Requesting the City Clerk to read the proposed ordinance. B. Waiving further reading of the proposed ordinance. C. Introducing the proposed ordinance and directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 5 days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: The solid waste collection in Burlingame has undergone a number of significant changes in the past ten years, particularly with regard to recycling. This ordinance is intended to update the City's requirements regarding the handling of solid waste, and in particular, to clarify that all occupied property in the City must have a collection agreement with a City franchisee. In preparation of this amendment, staff has met on several occasions with representatives of Allied Waste, San Mateo County's Environmental Health Department and local merchants. Copies of the proposed ordinance were also sent to the local merchants for review. If the ordinance is amended as recommended, staff will continue to work with Allied Waste, the County and the merchants associations to ensure compliance. At the July 21, 2008 meeting, Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing regarding the proposed changes. Staff will also be inviting representatives from Allied Waste to address the Council regarding their new Cameras in Action program and other issues associated with the solid waste collection. BUDGET IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: A. Ordinance amending Chapter 8.16 ATTACHMENT "A" 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 8.16 TO CLEARLY REQUIRE THAT ALL OCCUPIED PROPERTIES HAVE COLLECTION 3 SERVICE AND TO UPDATE THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION DEFINITIONS AND 4 REQUIREMENTS 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. Solid waste collection in the City has undergone a number of significant 8 changes in the past ten years, particularly with regard to recycling. This ordinance is intended to 9 update the City's requirements regarding the handling of solid waste, and in particular, to clarify 10 that all occupied property in the City must have a collection agreement with a City franchisee. 11 12 Section 2. Chapter 8.16 is amended to read as follows: 13 Chapter 8.16 14 SOLID WASTE 15 8.16.010 Definitions. 8.16.020 Solid waste accumulations. 16 8.16.030 Exemptions. 8.16.040 Obligations of customers. 17 8.16.050 Recyclable materials. 8.16.060 Special provisions regarding method of disposal. 18 8.16.070 Health officer to settle disputes. 19 8.16.010 Definitions. 20 Whenever the following defined words and phrases are used in this chapter,they shall 21 have the definitions or meanings established by this section, unless it is clearly apparent from the 22 context in which the word or phrase appears that a different definition or meaning is intended. 23 (a) "Animal waste" tneans manare, fettilizer o, atry form of solid exciemen 24 pioduced by any and all fmms of domestic or commercial animais. 25 " 26 colvered by' Section f 4500 et seq. of the Public Resources eode, and excluding household and 27 kitehen eontainers such as drittking glasses, eups and cookiT19?md serving dishes. 28 (e) "eardboard" n1emis post-consnmer waste paper grade corrugated cardboard(0 1 f 7/9/2008 -1- I kTaft(brown) paper bags or solid fiber boxes which have served their packaging parposes an 2 3 (a) f dj- "Collection" means the scheduled pick up of solid waste but does not include the 4 random picking up of loose litter from public places or places open to the public. 5 (b) "Commercial and/or industrial property" means property upon which business 6 activity is conducted, including but not limited to hotel, motel, trailer court,restaurant, cafeteria, 7 market, hospital or any educational, professional, commercial or industrial establishment of any 8 nature whatsoever where there is generation of solid wastes. 9 (c) (e) "Composting" means the controlled biological decomposition of organic wastes 10 that are source separated from the solid waste stream. Such organic wastes include vegetable, 11 animal, yard and wood wastes which are not hazardous wastes. 12 (d) (f) 'Demolition and construction debris erste" means discarded materials the-Mbble 13 resulting from construction, remodeling, repair and demolition activities on housing, 14 commercial or governmental buildings and any other structure and pavement as defined in 15 chapter 8.17 of this code. 16 (e) (g) "Franchisee" means any solid waste collector authorized by the city 17 council pursuant to the procedures established in this chapter. 18 (f) (h) "Garbage" includes, but is not restricted to, every accumulation of animal, 19 vegetable or other matter: 20 (1) Resulting from the preparation and consumption of edible foodstuffs; or 21 (2) Resulting from decay or the storage of meats, fish, fowl, or vegetables, including 22 the cans, containers or wrappers of such materials; or 23 (3) Industrial, domestic and organic solid wastes or residue of animals sold for meat; 24 or 25 (4) Vegetable and animal matter from kitchens, dining rooms, markets, food 26 establishments or any other place using, dealing in or handling meats, fish, fowl,vegetables or 27 grains; or 28 (5) Offal, animal excreta or carcasses of animals, fish or fowl; or 7/9/2008 -2 1 (6) Any waste 2 material for which there is not currently a feasible collection system available. 3 (g) " Hazardous waste" means all substances defined as hazardous waste, acutely 4 hazardous waste or extremely hazardous waste by the state of California, or identified as 5 hazardous waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under applicable laws or 6 regulations. 7 (h) 0) "Non-combustible rubbish" means ashes, bottles, broken crockery, glass, tin cans, 8 metal and metallic substances which will not incinerate through contact with flames of ordinary 9 temperature. 10 (i) (j) "Owner or occupant" means and includes every owner of, every tenant or person I I who is in possession or an inhabitant of or has the care and control of a residential property or a 12 commercial and/or industrial property located in the city. 13 0) (-k) "Person" means any individual, form, corporation, association or group or any 14 combination thereof acting as a unit. 15 , 16 .. ' 17 nature whatsoever where there is a generation of solid wastm. 18 (k) (m) "Recyclable materials" or "recyclables" means solid waste which may be reused 19 or processed into a form suitable for reuse through reprocessing or remanufacture consistent 20 with the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, including, 21 without limitation, paper, newsprint, printed matter, pasteboard, paper containers, cardboard, 22 glass, aluminum,PET, HDPE, and other plastics, beverage containers, compostable materials 23 (including yard waste), and wood, brick and stone in reusable size and condition. Recyclable 24 materials shall include those items of construction debris and demolition debris which are 25 described in this definition. means materials that are recyclable ancFor reusable, including 26 , alt"nittam and tit 27 and bi-metal cans. 28 (n) "Recycle" or "reeyeling" means the process of eolleeting, sorting, cleansing, 7/9/2008 -3- I treating mid reconstituting materials that would otherwise be%lotre solid waste and returnmg 2 them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, rettsed or reconstitute 3 produets which meet the quality stmidards necessary to be used in the tnarketplace. 4 (1) (o) "Recycling operator"means a person or persons, firm, partnership,joint venture, 5 association or corporation engaged in the collection and recycling of recyclable materials. 6 (m) (p)r 'Residential property dwelling unit" means property used for residential 7 purposes, irrespective of whether such dwelling units are rental units or are owner-occupied. 8 A structure may have one 9 or more residential dwelling units. No place used primarily for commercial or industrial business 10 purposes shall be considered as a residential dwelling unit. I 1 (n) (q) 'Rubbish" includes,but is not restricted to, all non-recyclable waste or debris 12 , wood or Vrood produ 13 . 14 (o) (r) "Solid waste" means all putrescible and non-putrescible solid, semi-solid and 15 liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, paper, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, 16 demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vtthicles mid parts thereoff,-discarded home and 17 industrial appliances, dewatered,treated or chemically fixed sewage sludge which is not 18 hazardous waste, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semi-solid wastes and other discarded 19 solid and semi-solid wastes. "Solid waste" does not include abandoned vehicles and parts 20 thereof, hazardous waste or low-level 21 radioactive waste, medical waste, recyclable materials, source-separated plant materials, or 22 source-separated organic materials. 23 (p) (s~) "Solid waste collector" means any person or persons, firm, partnership,joint 24 venture, association or corporation engaged in the collection,transportation or disposal of solid 25 waste generated in the city. 26 (q) (t) "Solid waste disposal" includes the collecting, transporting and disposal of solid 27 waste generated within the city. 28 (r) (-a) "Solid waste facility" means any licensed recycling center, materials recovery 7/9/2008 -4- 1 I facility, intermediate processing center, incineration facility or landfill where solid waste may be 2 taken for immediate processing or final disposal. "Solid waste facility" includes a solid waste 3 transfer or processing station and a composting,transformation or disposal facility. 4 (s) (v) "Streets"means the public streets, alleys and right-of-ways as the same now or 5 may hereafter exist within the city. 6n of the following. the placement of recyclables in separat: container ,the binding of recyclable material separateiy fioin other vvaste material, the physi 8 separation of recyclabies ftom other waste materiai- 9 , VM 10 tieated with chemicals and pressure-treated vmod- I (t) (y) "Yard wastes" means leaves, grass, weeds and wood materials from trees and 12 shrubs. 1 J 14 8.16.020 Solid waste accumulations and disposal. 15 (a) All occupied premises within the limits of the city shall have solid waste removal 16 service as specified in this chapter. 17 (b) No person shall, for another, collect, remove or dispose of any solid waste within 18 the city, nor transport the same over any public street or right-of-ways, unless a franchise to do iy so has first been obtained firom.t he city; provided,that any person who collect, removes, or 20 disposes of only recyclables shall only be required to obtain a city business license. 21 (c) (fir) It is unlawful for any person to permit, allow or enter into any agreement 22 whatsoever far the c3liect�on or tra sport I of soli d waste yr r�cyciab e mcZter ii with u:a y 23 person who does not possess a franchise or business license. 24 (d) fe) It is unlawful for any person to store or accumulate the following material for 25 any length of time in violation of the following requirements other than as fbfiows: 26 (1) Solid waste shall be removed a minimum of at least once a week pursuant to this 27 chapter, or more often as necessary or mandated by the San Mateo County Health Department; 28 and Solid waste, in exeess of that aflowed by the San Mateo eounty Heal+Department or 7/9/2008 -5- I week, whichever is less; 2 (2) eombustible or non-combustible rabbish or rabbish combined with recyclable 3 material in excess of one week,, ol- 4 -(3) Recyclable materials separated for coliection shall be removed a minimum of at 5 least once every thirty (30) days pursuant to this chapter, or more often as necessary or mandated 6 by the San Mateo County Health Department in ; 7 (d) No person shall place or cause to be placed any solid waste generated upon any o pritl`ieriy or by any residential, vvi23nierc,iai or Jindustriall use iiity any container utjtel than ulvsc 9 owned or controlled by such person, unless permission for such use is granted by the 10 commercial, industrial or residential customer owning or controlling the container and approved 11 by the city and its franchisee. 12 (e) It is unlawful for any person owning, occupying or having control of any premise 13 to Set out of cause to be set out for collection any so iu waste other tllanl that orlginCltilig on the 14 premises. 15 (f) It is unlawful for any person to dispose of solid waste in or near litter or recycling 16 containers placed by the city, or any other agency in public places fer incidental use by 17 pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or in recycling containers or enclosures maintained by the city in 18 commercial zones. 19 (al It is unlawfill for any person to accumulate, keep or (deposit solid waste in such a 20 manner that a public nuisance is created, including, but not limited to, allowing €Ht-�,—insects, or 21 rodents to breed therein. 22 (h) Other than as herein set forth. it is unlawful for any person to dump, bury, burn; 23 incinerate or otherwise dispose of or store or accumulate any garbage, combustible or 24 non-combustible rubbish, miscellaneous debris or combined rubbish or solid waste on any 25 private or public property within the city;; provided, however, that leaves, grass clippings and 26 the like may be composted but only in accordance with State and County regulations governing 27 composting. 28 (i) No person shall cast, place, sweep or deposit any solid waste on any street, 7/9/2008 -6- I sidewalk, alley, sewer, storm drain, creek, parkway, or other public place or into any occupied 2 premises within the city except in an appropriately designated solid waste container. 3 0) No commercial, industrial or residential customer owning, occupying or having 4 the control of any premises or vacant lot or any person occupying a dwelling within the city shall 5 permit any solid-waste to be%virc or reiiaiil offensive, uilslghny or ul'isaLc to ciic public hcarcii or 6 safety or to deposit, keep or accumulate or permit to cause any solid waste to be deposited, kept, 7� (or accumulated, upon 1 any property, lot, or parcel of land or upon any public or private place, Q street,'lane, all- '�V'1 dtive Y�i'Ay, -except,as aflo ��eu ftn this chapter. 9 10 8.16.030 Exemptions. I I Ttae follow ng typez of collection or transt»,ortation..of soliri waste are exem_YtP j from.the 12 requirements of this chapter: 13 (a) Yard waste removed from a premises by a gardening, landscaping or tree 14 trimming contractor having a city business license and as an incidental part of a total service 15 offered by that contractor rather than as a disposal service, and tree trimmings, clippings and all 16 similar materials generated at parks and other publicly maintained premises; 17 (b) Demolition debris removed from a premises by a licensed contractor as an 18 incidental part of a total service offered by that contractor rather than as a disposal service; 19 (c) By-products of sewage treatment, including sludge, grit and screenings; 20 (d) The collection of hazardous or dangerous waste as part of regular services, 21 including, without limitation, liquid and dry caustics, acids,bio-hazardous, flammable or 22 explosive materials, insecticides and similar substances; 23 (e) Solid waste, Recyclable materials and yard wastes which are generated at any 24 residential, dwelling tntit or place of busittess commercial, or industrial property and which are 25 transported personally by the owner or occupant of such premises (or by his or her full-time .. 11_ ._.�. _a _Dial 1:.,..,,r_.i.. _: ..,... •.tefit-With at_ cv ciiipiuycca j cu a ilacil��u��iu �vd��c ui ic�y�iug iacrii�y ri a i'riaiucr�vii�i��cilc wl�h ui 27 chapter and other applicable laws. 28 (F) Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a person or the person's employees from 7/9/2008 -7- I transporting to a licensed transfer station or materials recovery facility any solid waste, garbage, 2 rubbish, or yard waste that is incidental to the conduct of the person's individual business within 3 the city or to the maintenance of the person's individual residence, so long as there is no spillage 4 on city streets and the transport is conducted pursuant to applicable laws governing the transport 5 of materials. However, any such transport does not relieve the person from the ongoing 6 obligation to contract with a city franchisee pursuant to section 8.16.040 above. 7 (g) ff) An exemption to the mandatory disposal requirements set forth hereinabove may 8 be applied for under the condition that the individual or property owner shows proof of use of a 9 city-approved solid waste collection alternative, including, but not limited to, on-site 10 composting. S-aid Any such exemptions may shall be subject to approval of approved by the city 11 manager or the city manager's designee. 1G 13 8.16.040 Obligations of customers. 14 (a) Unless otherwise expressly excepted by this chapter,the owner, occupant or other 15 person responsible for the day-to-day operation of an\ aft residential, commercial, or industrial 16 property properties in the city shall contract with a city franchisee for the removal and disposal 17 of solid waste generated from the use of the property. , /L\ Ili fta- ichi..,., aL...IZC;.] a., L...,ger.._ LI .. 1ICCLiVI .1 1 BUJ 111E haul-111JGG is i7.lAL1IV11GGlI LV llualgc CLlI llIAJW111G1J CL 1GG 1V1 LUG VV11Gl.L1V11 GLllu 19 transportation of solid waste, subject to the approval by the city council of the fee. Such fees 20 may include charges for collection, landfills, recovery or recyclables, composting and may 11 ;-1-4-+1 n i._c4 n"A nro _ -Ar­-1;­ &..- VVJ.VL rll Vl./a.11115"..l llllr/1V111V11....5 JV ulVV 1.,4uV.1Vll, avvJ'vllll�,V1V111V11.J uuu 22 integrated waste management plans. 23 (c) All solid waste shall be kept free of all hazardous materials and placed in a closed 24 container or containers unless other acceptable arrangements are made with the franchisee. 'lG /AN n,..,.a,.:.-.._,. ..L-11 L.......-A- -r..., -. -1 --...1....� .. .7 ,.r GJ ku) VV1ILa111G1J shall UG IilaUG Vl 111GLa1 Vl piaJLic, f _ IJ, " - 1,.1astic, 11 bags, anu Vl 26 sufficient strength to prevent them from being broken under ordinary conditions. 27 (e) Containers containing any solid waste except recyclable materials shall be 28 maintained in a clean, safe, sanitary condition, and water-fight condition continuously enclosed 7/9/2008 -8- I by a solid tight-fitting cover secured from access by insects, animals and rodents, except when 2 solid waste is being dumped into or removed from the container. 3 (f) Garbage or other refuse containing water or other liquids shall be drained before 4 being placed in a container and the drainage properly disposed of to the sanitary sewer. 5 (h) Animal waste shall not be placed directly in a container for regular collection and 6 disposal, but shall be placed within a secondary containment(i.e.,plastic bag)within the 7 container for regular collection and disposal, as required by the franchisee and the San Mateo 8 County Health Department. Animal wastCll shall not be placed in eorftiner fbr regular colle 9 and disposal, but shall be removed by,the ovmer or occapaii IV Ii� vili��S -rvviSiviia tv "IeVCn4 'lucr ar�'vtlic w ��"'rv`vided no peimin-shall 3v till 11 any container with garbage or rubbish above the top of the container to such extent as to permit 12 the contents of any container to be blown or otherwise strewn about. 1✓ Vl Y uYV1 vasa u11u vuiuwt4u vviYu4lnvas 111c411 uvc vV uuvu as vi iuV 14 disposal of garbage or rabbish but may be used fbr rceyelables. 15 If solid waste rubbislz either from either iesidenees or from plaees of business 16 residential, commercial, or industrial property properties is of such a nature that it cannot be 17 placed in a container, it shall be carefully placed beside the container in securely tied bundles 18 , 19 . Solid waste 20 which exceeds size or type limitations set by the franchisee shall be scheduled for special 21 collection, and special collection charges may be assessed by the franchisee for this service. 22 (k) (1) Any containers placed for collection along a street, roadway, or alley shall be set 211) .. .a .,...1_. .._ aL„ ..1.._. .,..a.,L i:..L..,] 1,...a1L,. ,...11....a:.... .._ a__ �..1 ___.�.. .._ .._a__ G.7/� � ._� .._. aL,. ..Y VUL Vllly VII L11G uay GJLaVllbllriu 1V1 UIG WIIC;1iUVII V11 L11G jJa1L1L.UIar rVULG Vl Qil.cl J.JV p.jll. vjl C11G 24 day immediately prior to such collection, and shall not remain thereon for more than eighteen 25 (I8) hours after it has been emptied. L.rV \111J 1111',' 'VV1144:4111V1 10 11 V4 -1V1 'V VIYV V11V11 WJ A-n1 K JF1VV4 V1 1V{4\t'YY44�' J11K1Y VV 1;/114VV�4 27 40 e e- t i'll%: C n irb 11 Ji I I%: U.t i fine as close to the cuTh line or edge of the street or 28 roadway as practicable. 7/9/2008 -9- a i 1 (l) (rt) Any container placed for collection in any alley shall be placed as close to the 2 property line as practicable. 3 (m) (e) No person, including a solid waste collector, shall place or cause to be placed 4 any solid waste or solid waste container in any public street or roadway without an 5 encroachment permit from the city or in any place or in any manner inconsistent with the 6 regulations of this chapter. 7 (n) (p) Each owner or occupant of a residential, dwelling unit, or place of business 8 commercial, or industrial property shall maintain supervision and surveillance over the solid 9 waste containers on the premises and shall maintain the same in a sanitary condition. If the 10 containers are shoulel not be emptied and the contents removed on the date and time scheduled 11 by the franchisee, fhey the owner or occupant should immediately notify the franchisee and it 12 shall be the duty of the franchisee to, within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter, arrange for the ij lilJflcllLlUll &itu uiSjn»ai vi nuc sviiu waste. 14 (o) (q) Solid waste which exceeds the limitations hereinabove set forth may, in the 15 discretion of the franchisee, be scheduled for special collection upon the application of the ti 11sr r ^r �nmir�n n4 ^F4Iko r�rom�nnn Qr�tan�n� n���nn4��r� nti+nrnnn mnv "v nnnonnnA Uv 41,0 ern nn� noc iv vvvuvi vX wvu uia� vi 1"i tsi viiu:T.a. vYvviwi vviivv�ivia vuui va uica� vv u�u�: uvu v' - uv uuiiviiiuv� 17 for this service. 18 (p) (r) No person, other than the owner thereof, owner' s agents or employees or an nfficer 19 nr Pmnlnvee of the cite nr nnv nercnn hn1dina n frnnchicP or licence frnm the city fnr the --- -- - -r-�--7 -- -- ---- ---_T -�- ----.7 r---- -----a -- --------- -- ------ - -- -�--- ---- ---> - ---- 20 collection or disposal of refuse or recyclables shall remove any materials set out for recycling 21 collection or tamper or meddle with any solid waste or recycling container or the contents 22 thereof or remove the contents of any such container; or remove any such container from the 23 location where the same shall have been placed by the owner thereof or owner's agent. 24 25 8. 16.050 Recyclable materials. 26 (a) Recyclables placed at the curb of residential properties shall be separated from 27 other solid waste in a manner approved by the city and shall be placed for collection in the 28 container provided by the recycling operator for such material. 7/9/2008 _10- I I(b) Recyclables placed at the curb of residential properties or placed for collection at 2 other recycling locations for pick up by a franchisee or licensee shall become the property of the 3 franchisee or licensee at the time of their placement in the recycling containers or otherwise set 4 out for coiiection. 5 6 8.16.060 Special provisions regarding method of disposal. 7 (a) Highly flammable or explosive or radioactive refuse shall not be placed in a 8 container for regular collection and disposal but shall be removed under the supervision of the 9 Central County Buringame-Fire Department at the expense of the owner or possessor of such 10 material. 11 (b) No hazardous waste battery aeid, , anstte or toxic material or othe 12 substmice capable of dainaging clothing or eattsing injtvy to persons shall be mixed or placed 13 with any rubbish, garbage or other solid waste which is to be collected, removed or disposed of 14 by the city's franchisee. Hazardous waste or household hazardous waste may only be disposed of 15 in a manner allowed by Federal, State, and County regulations. 16 17 8.16.070 Health Officer to Settle Disputes. 18 In all case of disputes or complaints arising from or concerning the place where 19 receptacles for refuse shall be placed awaiting the removal of their contents,the quantities to be 20 removed, and the times for removal,the Health Officer shall designate the place, the estimated 21 quantity,the frequency and manner of removal. 22 �� �c��rvn�. rur� vruivarr��wart uc puurr�ncu a� r�yuncu uy raw. 24 25 Mayor 7A 27 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 28 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council held on the day of 7/9/2008 -11- 1 , 2008, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2 day of , 2008, by the following vote: 3 e vFc• CnT n rrrr T, Q: 4 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: A 7 City Clerk_ 8 9 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1L GV 27 28 7/9/2008 -12- 0 AA IF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL ]ULY 21, 2008 ALLIED WASTE OF SAN MATED COUNTY Camera's in Action Program I Today's Discussion AA YF ➢ Background of the program ➢ Camera's in Action Process , w 1 ➢ Our Perspective ➢ Example Letters ➢ Benefit's to the City ➢ Program Challenges & Next Steps ➢ Questions z Background ➢ Cameras in Action (CIA) is a web-based tool that allows drivers and customer service personnel to document and record service issues and communicate with customers when circumstances prevent or hinder regular waste or recycling collection services ➢ Designed to enhance proactive customer service. It provides an effective tool to generate leads, document healthand safety issues, and notify customers when service adjustments are necessary ➢ Provides Drivers with digital cameras to take digital photos at customer locations where containers are blocked, overloaded, damaged or when other unusual circumstances have occurred ➢ Digital pictures have minimal cost that can provide maximum results and can easily be transferred and stored in an electronic database ➢ Developed by Allied this program is used to varying degrees across the country and was implemented in San Mateo County in early May 2008 with great success 3 i r CIA Process AAWK ➢ Equipment • Digital cameras are provided to Commercial Recycling and MSW Drivers each day • There are a total of 31 camera's in operation in the field each day ➢ Driver • Each Driver is asked to take pictures at ten different accounts each day • Each picture is date and time stamped • 310 pictures collected each day with approximately a 60% yield • Driver's turn their camera into Dispatch at the end of their shift ➢ Dispatch • Collect the camera's and remove the loaded memory card • Loaded memory card is taped onto the Driver's route sheet • Empty memory card inserted into camera in preparation for following day • Download pictures from memory cards • Match pictures with accounts • Produce letters to customers ➢ Recycling Coordinators/Customer Service • Customer follow-up and recommendation 4 40 05/05/2008 ,, a x qvilapqppil kv 111097 OR V - N � M n �0 Y & 9 �. ��., ��: �� es`ussa•xair � 07/1.6/2008 • . � 06/12/2057 d Example Letters AA 7#7 RE:3 09259036484 RE.3-0925-900,'112 ' YLl1lD WF[iE[OAV1E[[ FU [EE F[[41<xf BAYW,AtCH -BURl1P1GAA4E HEALTH CARE CENTER 1841 EL CAMINO REAL7100 TRDUBDAiE IX2 - BUR N:>AM (,.A S4JI17 3202 BUR INGAME CA.94010 3207 IldfnlffllLffrf IIIL frdL rLlllfrff LII Lll lLlfffhfllL �dlllffrfdlf�.I.IILrfIff.IfLrll Dear`Valued Customer: Deal Yawed Customer. Allred Waste Services is pleased to be your provider of safe and trey disposal of solid waste By working together,We are Allied Waste Services is pleased to be your provider of safe and timely disposal of solid waste. By working together,we are able to provide the high level of service that you expect and deserve. 'able to provide the high.level of SeMce that YOU expect Ono deserve We hove rnplernenled a system for use by our drivers to ensure we are working together to achieve our goal of excellent We have implemented a system for use by our drivers to ensure we are working tog=the•to achieve our goal of excellent service.'Enclosed Is a digital photo(s)taken by Out driver on Wednesday July 16,2D08 a'6:59 AtA during service of the trash Service. Enclosed Is a digital photos)taYen by our dryer on Monday J.ily 14,2008 at 10'24 AM,during service of the lash container at 1841 EL'CAMINO REAL. container at 11 Em ROUSDALE DR Onforlunofely,your container was overoaded An overloaded container is beyond the scope of regular service and may Unfortunately,you container was overloaded.An overloaded container is beyond ttp scope of regular service and may cause safely problems Garbage that is not property contained can also create public health Issues.We car collechyour ;cause safety problems Garbage that is not popery contained can a so create public health Issues.We did collect your trash on this date,and,this time,we hclvc valved air normal charge in the amount of SO,which represents the lee for the rhash on this date.and,this time we have wnived our normal charge In the amount of SO,which represents the fee for the seMces provided outside of the regular serilce defined In your Customer Service Agreement. semces provided outside of the regular service defined In your Customer Service Agreement. Please consider contacting us to explore increasing your container Sze or posslb y the frequency of your service Please SPlease consider contacting us to explore Increasing your container size Or possbiy the frequency of your service,Please contact Elizabeth Ricard Of(650)596 6464.Thune YOU.We apprecate your bus ness '..contact Elizabeth Ricard at(650)596 5464.Thank you,We appreciate your business Sincerely, Sincerely, Elizabeth Ricard -:Elizabeth Ricard tyao �t N 9' h t f �I r RM-iin-July I4 200R iY 10:24 AM tAa tlav..HtN 14 2008 W 10:24 Ah-0 V;edx=iia✓�u'y 16,2"'SS d 6..0 AM 225 StvJrswap Na 225 Shoreway Rd San Galas,CA 94070 2112 San Carlos CA94070 2712 (650),696-6464 (650)596-6464 6 Benefits to the City g of Burlingame AA WK MZIRM w Benefits ➢ Increased Diversion E ■ 172 accounts increased or added recycling se Vice ■ Increase of approximately 838 cubic yards or 15 tons/month ➢ Improved Health & Safety ➢ Supports Code Enforcement and documents ordinance violators ` !�r��r4r 3 �� r � ,r X ➢ ly i Deters scavengers 5 � �F ➢ Helps keep Burlingame beautiful , � t1! Ff roro t d Y i { & Next Steps AIA Program Challengesp Challenges Next Steps ➢ Customers do not like the ➢ Begin direct mailing letters "watchdog" approach Work with City of Burlingame Code ➢ Viewed b customers as a way to Enforcement to incorporate our y y increase revenue program into their process ➢ Difficult toersuade repeat ➢ Work with City of Burlingame on a offenders p P process for notifying repeat offenders ➢ Perception of the business ➢ ` Contact our Recycling Coordinator community y g for the City of Burlingame: ■ Elizabeth Ricard ➢ Sustainability (650) 670-0688 ➢ Contact Customer Service: 0 (650) 592-2411 A C m O Z V) .y AGENDA ITEM NO: BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 21,2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: July 16, 2008 APPROVED BY: FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director— Phone No. (650) 558-7255 SUBJECT: PRESENTATION OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN BY SPECIFIC PLAN CONSULTANT (KEVIN GARDINER & ASSOCIATES) RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is asked to receive a presentation from the Downtown Specific Plan consultant, Kevin Gardiner & Associates, regarding the Citizens Advisory Committee's (CAC's) recommendations regarding the preferred plan alternative that is intended to serve as the basis for drafting of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, and the accompanying environmental analysis. At the conclusion of the presentation, the City Council should provide input to the consultant regarding any other information that should be considered as part of the plan alternative. BACKGROUND: In 2007, the City of Burlingame hired the consulting firm "Kevin Gardiner &Associates" to work cooperatively with the community to prepare the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. When completed, the Specific Plan will provide a framework guiding the future of Downtown Burlingame; building upon the successes of the already vibrant Burlingame Avenue commercial area. Generally, the study area for the planning effort encompasses an area bounded by Peninsula Avenue on the south, Oak Grove Avenue on the north, EI Camino Real on the west and California Drive and Anita Road on the east. During the summer of 2007, the consultant team conducted interviews with citizens, business owners, property owners, community groups and developers to gain a sense of the interests of each of these groups relative to Downtown Burlingame. A survey was also sent out, and was made available on-line, to elicit input from a broad base of the community. A Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), consisting of representatives from all of these interest groups, was appointed to assist in the development of the vision for Downtown Burlingame that will arise from the new plan. Visioning workshops were held in fall of 2007 where citizens were provided further opportunity to put forth their ideas about the future of our downtown. JULY 21,2008 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING PRESENTATION-Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan CAC Recommendations Working from the information gathered from the community workshops and CAC meetings,the consultant team prepared a series of alternative approaches to future planning in the Downtown area that were reviewed with the community at a third community workshop held on Saturday, March 15,2008. At that meeting,the community was presented with alternatives that present options for including residential development downtown,differing height and density limits, possibilities for increasing downtown parking to accommodate new downtown development,and development of new open space areas in the Downtown area. Over the past few months,the input received from this meeting has been discussed and evaluated by the consultants,staff and CAC and has been formed into the CAC's recommendation regarding a preferred alternative. These recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission on July 14th and to the City Council on July 21st. Attached is a summary of the key points of the preferred alternative that will be presented by the consultant team on behalf of the CAC. The CAC's recommendations were presented to the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 14,2008. The Consultant's memorandum outlining the preferred plan alternative has been modified, inserting(in underlined format)the Commission's comments into the text. Additionally,an excerpt of the draft July 14,2008 Planning Commission minutes is attached for your review. Following presentation of the alternative to the City Council,the consultant team will proceed with preparation of a draft plan during the upcoming summer months. The plan will serve as the basis for the environmental analysis that must accompany the document and be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to plan adoption. Successful implementation of the adopted plan will require significant funding commitments(e.g.for streetscape improvements,structured parking or other improvements). For this reason, a key component of the final plan will be an assessment of costs attributable to proposed improvements and a discussion of potential sources for funding. This additional information will be included in the plan as it proceeds through the public hearing process prior to adoption. Public hearings regarding the draft plan and environmental analysis will be held in late 2008 or early 2009. Please note that the presentation of the alternative is only another step in the process of preparing the Specific Plan. As the Plan is vetted through the public process later this year and early next year,changes are likely to occur based upon additional public input that will be incorporated into a final,approved version of the Plan. Attachments: • Preferred Plan Alternative document from Kevin Gardiner&Associates(incorporates CAC recommendations and Planning Commission comments) • Excerpt—draft July 14,2008 Planning Commission minutes 2 PREFERRED PLAN ALTERNATIVE Citi.zens'Advisory Committee and Planning Commission recommendations In March 2008 the City held a community workshop to consider major policy decisions that would need to be made to support the goals of the plan that had been established earlier. Alternative plan scenarios with variations in elements such as land use, building form, open space, and streetscape were presented. More than fifty people attended the meeting and provided input. During the Spring of 2008, the CAC had a series of meetings to further evaluate the alternative plan scenarios. More extensive research was conducted and presented on each aspect of the Specific Plan. On July 1, 2008 the CAC completed its recommendations of the key elements of a preferred direction for the Specific Plan. The results of this process is termed the "Preferred Plan" and is intended to provide the basis for a draft Specific Plan. On July 14, 2008 the Preferred Plan Alternative was presented to the Burlingame Planning Commission for comment. Several items have been added to this description following the Planning Commission meeting in response to comments at the meeting. Most of these items had been discussed previously by the Citizens' Advisory Committee, and all are compatible with the rest of the preferred plan alternative. The additions are shown underlined in the text. This document provides a summary of the recommendations for elements of the Preferred Plan. HOUSING • Housing throughout downtown; • Housing allowed on upper levels in commercial areas (including Burlingame Avenue core) with conditional use permit; • Specific plan to outline conditions required for conditional use permits; • Ground floor retail (or office, depending on street) required in all commercial areas; • Small neighborhood-serving commercial allowed as a conditional use in R-3 and R-4 zones in southern portion of Downtown. Discussion Whether or not to allow residential uses in the commercial areas of downtown, including Burlingame Avenue, has been a matter of differing opinions through the planning process. Ultimately CAC members felt residential uses over the retail in commercial areas would be fine, especially in places where there is existing upstairs office space that could be converted to residential. New residential uses could be fine, although it could be challenging to accommodate the parking for the residential uses. Typically residential uses demand on-site parking, which can be challenging on small downtown parcels. There can also be compatibility issues because of smells and noises related to ground floor retail, but given the generally quiet and orderly nature of Burlingame's commercial districts, this could be managed. Residential uses could be allowed with a conditional use permit, with specific findings related to downtown housing and compatibility. Housing would only be allowed on upper floors; ground floors would need to be commercial in order to maintain the commercial character of the downtown core. 1 CAC members were also intrigued with the potential for small neighborhood-serving retail uses within the R-3 and R-4 residential zones south of the downtown core. Portions of these zones appear to have good potential for housing,and while these areas should remain predominantly residential,the addition of some small corner stores serving local residents could be an enhancement. BUILDING HEIGHT • Maintain 35'base height limit throughout downtown • On Burlingame and Howard Avenues,retain the conditional height limit of 55 feet to accommodate 4-story residential+retail mixed use or 3-story commercial+retail mixed use • On Chapin Avenue,raise the conditional height to 75 feet to accommodate 5-story residential+retail mixed use or 4-story commercial+retail mixed use. • Retain the R-4 conditional height limit of 75 feet and the R-3 conditional height limit of 55 feet. • In Auto Row,maintain the current conditional height limit of 55 feet. • In the Anita Road area,reduce the conditional height limit from 55 feet to 45 feet. Discussion By many accounts,the existing permitted and conditional building heights have worked well for Downtown Burlingame in creating an intimate scale but with the variation of some larger buildings mixed in. However there are a few areas that CAC members felt had potential to be intensified,and another that needs protection,so variations have been proposed. Chapin Avenue has particular potential for intensification with taller buildings because there are no single family neighbors and the north part of the street abuts the existing multifamily R4 district,which allows buildings up to 75 feet with a conditional use permit. The street is very wide,with a right-of-way of 98 feet. Maintaining the office type uses on Chapin and allowing residential above could work well,since office and residential uses are very compatible. Taller building heights could be situated on Chapin between El Camino Real and Primrose, except for the properties facing Primrose which should be treated more like Burlingame Avenue. While Howard Avenue also has potential for intensification and its width could accommodate taller buildings, some CAC members felt the combination of many smaller buildings and the nearby single family neighbors warranted retaining existing building heights. The existing conditional use height of 55 feet would allow two stories of office over retail, or three stories of residential over retail. For the R4 district, CAC members agreed that the district around Floribunda should retain its exist- ing height limits. There were differences of opinion regarding the R4 district to the south of Howard Avenue,however. Burlingame needs to provide more housing,and this is a good location close to downtown,but some of the area is characterized by many single family homes, duplexes and four- plexes with a lower scale. Care will need to be taken through the conditional approval process to ensure neighborhood compatibility. In the Anita Road area,lowering the conditional height limit from 55 feet to 45 feet would be consistent with the existing neighborhood scale of small streets and existing small single family homes. This would treat the area as a buffer between the downtown commercial district and the single family neighborhoods to the east. 2 ��\� I lK, 35 Feet R3 DISTRIK 35 Feet W* 75 Feet 45 Feet wl com&tionalpermmit 35 Feet 55 Feet S gg ,,0���_``,`,��,` '• Qui �1,� �� ���D�` ��j♦I,���`���j'' 0 AUTO ROW ►Pipop. 35 Feet fir,.,. . � r ♦� ��� ♦� • ♦ � • �►��� � owl' 35 �ect ��� ���♦� ♦ �� �♦tet ���. ♦j . ' �1 w � . MW ISTRICT ILI 35 Feet PARKING • First Phase: Expansion of Lot A structure - additional level, expansion to Lot A3 • Possible future structures at Lots C, J, F and/or G as depending on future demand, development of other parking lots, etc. • Joint development w/ parking and mixed use at Lot W or sale of lot for revenue • Re evaluate the boundary between Subareas A & B with regards to parking and land use Discussion Parking Lot A (next door to the library) and the adjacent Lot A3 would be the preferred location for expanding the downtown parking supply, should that be needed or desired. The existing structure on Lot A was designed to accommodate an additional parking level, and the structure could be expanded onto Lot A3 without needing additional ramps. A possibility would be to include retail space on the ground floor of the garage along Donnelly Street. Other potential lots identified for future structures include either Lots C,J, F and/or G. Development of structures on any of these lots would depend on future demand and possible changes to other lots. For example, if Lot E were to be converted into an open space (see open space section), it may be desirable to build a parking deck or structure on Lot J nearby. If Howard Avenue were to intensify, Lots F or G could be appropriate for structures, and conversely structures on those lots could encourage Howard Avenue development. 9 a E A NORTH ONOT TO RALE CHAPIN AVE Y AVL LOT' oRn+ EN V BURL.INGANE AVE M i TH LN a 1 z pl 31 0 y 9 pd 4 OH PVE L LEGEND HOWARD AVE Burlingame Avenue Commercial Core C, o • F r Downtown parking lots 4 There is also the concept of selling or creating a joint development arrangement with one of the lots in order to generate revenue for other downtown projects such as a streetscape. Lot W on Howard Avenue is a suggested location where a new mixed use development(perhaps with provision for public parking)could generate revenue for the City and serve as a catalyst for further development in the area. Additionally,there is interest in re evaluating the boundaries between Subareas A and B and developing a mechanism such as a parking district to reduce or elimuiate on-site parking requirements on Howard Avenue The mechanism could be further developed for Burlingame Avenue to allow a greater range of uses above the ground floor,and could also be considered for Chapin Avenue o P, y\�G <°RT �NG90 OS 9LF PJB S 40 'F•po -OSP 0 F A mixed use project on Lot W on could generate revenue for the City through joint development and serve as ARS P�� <° a catalyst to spur further 'NO R�4� °iFP6Pyy�P�p Pte°9` revitalization on Howard e F Avenue. HOWARD AVENUE • Promote more active retail on Howard Avenue and side streets by re-evaluating the uses allowed on the street and the on-site parking requirements. Diss fission The 2006 Downtown Burlingame Economics Study identified Howard Avenue and the side streets as having potential to accommodate additional retail growth in downtown Burlingame and this interest was explored with a range of interesting concepts in the SOBA Charrette Additional retail space could complement the existing mix of locally serving and regional retail uses downtown,creating additional diversity and opportunities. One way to encourage Howard Avenue to become a more vibrant street is to reconsider the uses that are allowed on the ground floor,both on Howard and on the connecting streets between Howard and Burlingame Avenue Uses which do not encourage pedestrians and street life such as office-type uses.may be better located either on Chapin Avenue or above the ground floor. The existing parking policies for Howard Avenue present a challenge for promoting new retail uses.as well as other uses such as restaurants and offices Although the ordinance limiting the number of restaurants on Burlingame Avenue does not apply to Howard Avenue restaurants must meet a higher parking standard to locate there. Developing a mechanism such as a parkindistrict to reduce or eliminate on-sIlLparking requirements on Howard Avenue would make it more feasible to develop new retail and commercial uses and invigorate the area. 5 MYRTLE/ANITA ROAD AREA • Create mixed use district in C2 area east of train tracks by Myrtle (Anita Road area) and adjust zoning district boundary • Designate uses allowed on each block to ensure auto-related uses do not encroach on blocks that are predominantly residential • Evaluate strategies to ensure orderly,paced development Discussion Creating a mixed use zone in the Anita Road area would rectify the existing situation of nonconforming uses by allowing a zone where both the existing residential and commercial properties could be improved and expanded. However,the plan should also set up some safeguards to keep auto uses from creeping further towards Anita Road into the blocks more residential in character. The area could be regulated block by block, with the existing auto uses in the area staying,but the blocks towards Anita Avenue emphasizing uses more residential in character. Concerns over rapid redevelopment of the area could be evaluated to ensure changes are orderly and occur over time. ♦ ' Existing land uses in ♦� ` the suggested mixed use � district in C2 area east Parcel with existing 4 of train tracks by Myrtle ;.♦ c commercial (Anita Road area) businesses P try ...... �"'�" suggested to be j ::' ''• included in the mixed use zone - 4LEGEND 0 P Multi-Family Residential Retail/Personal Service P ® Office ♦ ED Auto-related uses Existing zoning in �♦ �♦ Boundary suggested mixed use �♦ adjustment '2 district in C2 area east 4 of train tracks by Myrtle Suggested (Anita Road area)with mixed use boundary adjusted .• �.` R- ` district in to include existing C2 area commercial use in R3 • �o `D zone C-2 C Su ea 6 AUTO ROW • Auto-row with housing,offices,or hotel uses allowed upstairs as a conditional use; • Auto showrooms or small-scale retail required on ground floor; • Minimum and maximum floor area standards to be established for non-auto showroom commercial uses. Discussion There have been interests expressed on the part of some of the auto dealerships to allow mixed use development along the California Drive auto row. The concept would be to continue to have auto showrooms on the A ground floors but allow other uses such as .� housing to be built on upper levels. While the adjacency of auto retailing and service with residential uses may seem odd,there are examples where it has been done recently such as Santa Barbara. However, thought needs to be given to future ground floor uses if the current number of auto showrooms is no longer viable and vacated + ' showrooms need to be converted to other - uses. Minimum and maximum floor areas` could be incorporated into the plan to favor the continuation of auto showrooms but not -� encourage other large floorplate uses such as big-box retail that would be incompatible Recently built mixed use residential project in with downtown. Santa Barbara auto service zone. STREETSCAPE • Single streetscape approach for all streets in downtown commercial area, but with variations to respond to specific conditions, and subtle distinctions between streets if desired. • Maintain existing wide sidewalks on Howard& Chapin but add bulb-outs,improve the placement and species selection of street trees,consider alternative configurations for on-street parking, and adding other enhancements. • Evaluate parking&open space median for Chapin. Dismssion There is tremendous interest in improving the quality of the streetscape in Downtown Burlingame,with a preference for a relatively consistent design approach through the downtown commercial areas. There could be some subtle variations to respond to specific conditions,and a few unique elements to define different streets (such as different street trees) but overall the approach should feel consistent and unified. Both Howard and Chapin Avenues currently have wide sidewalks which could be enhanced with bulb-out extensions,landscaping,street furniture,and other design elements,but there does not appear to be a need to further widen the sidewalks. 7 Given the very wide width of Chapin Avenue,an idea that merits further evaluation would be to create a center island with either parking and/or open space. The open space could have some kiosk retail spaces that could generate revenue for the City from rents or joint development,and could create a unique element for the street. There is also interest strengthening connections across California Avenue and the train tracks to Washington Park,and also along California Avenue to Broadway. While California Avenue from Oak Grove Avenue to Broadway is outside the Downtown Specific Plan area,its treatment within the downtown area could establish the framework for subsequent city police. OPEN SPACE • Signature open space,preferably located at Lot E. • Provide increased open spaces in the downtown at City Hall circle,California/Lorton, and Highland Avenue. Discussion There is a strong desire for open space in Downtown Burlingame,particularly a"signature" focal point akin to the town squares and greens seen elsewhere. The concept of developing one of the downtown parking lots into a signature open space is intriguing given the central location of the lots and that the City controls them. Parking could be relocated nearby structure in conjunction with the development of parking structures. Lot E is a favored choice for creating a signature open space because of its central location between Burlingame and Howard Avenues and its adjacency to the post office. If the post office operations were to ever move elsewhere, the post office building could be adaptively reused as a civic use. Even if the post office were to stay,there may be possibilities to make an arrangement to swap its parking lot with its relatively unused lawn area so that a park on Lot E could be enlarged. Building facades facing the former parking lot/new park would be improved over time to enhance the appearance of the open space. �. Creek/ Water G Feature O �e o � 4 Diagram showing concept for Post Office a signature community open space at Lot E. 8 Iw II There are also possibilities for creating smaller,more intimate open spaces as part of reconfigured street patterns within City rights-of-way. Possibilities include the circle on Primrose Road in front of City Hall and the Library, the intersection of Lorton Avenue and California Dive next to Stack's, and last block of Highland Avenue between California Drive and Howard Avenue. The advantage is that each project could improve traffic circulation and make better use of land area to create an open space amenity. ,p Concept illustrating reconfiguration of Primrose/Bellevue/Douglas intersection to create open space Aamenity. i r $$L Concept illustrating reconfiguration of Lorton/Bellevue/California intersection to create open space amenity. C�jFO Concept illustrating closure of last block of Highland Avenue at California Drive to create open space amenity. j9d NV 9 DESIGN REVIEW, COMMUNITY CHARACTER,AND HISTORIC RESOURCES • Require design review for all facade changes in downtown area,with smaller projects reviewed by staff and larger ones by the Planning Commission. • Develop incentives for preserving,rehabilitating or renovating historic resources including adaptive re-use. Discussion Currently the Planning Commission reviews projects which include changing more than 50% of any facade facing a street or parking lot,and changing any portion of a facade facing a street or parking lot in Subarea A. However, there is a desire to increase the level of design review to ensure community character is maintained and design quality is high. CAC members would like to ensure that all downtown projects go through a design review process either on the staff or Planning Commission level, and the Planning Commission expressed an interest in having design review for more downtownroj�cts. On smaller projects, staff may be able to carry out more of the review, following design guide- lines specific for Downtown. They could alternatively review a project, send it to the Planning Commission as an informational or study item, and use the Commission for appeals. All projects would be subject to design review,whether identified as an historic resource or not. The intent would be to promote design quality for all downtown projects. The plan will also recommend incentives for property owners to preserve,rehabilitate or renovate historic resources. These incentives could include use of the California Historical Building Code, as well as modifications to development standards such as on-site parking requirements and setbacks. In addition, the plan can lay the framework for participation in the Mills Act. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 ■ None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of adoption of the proposed ordinance to the City Council. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). This item concluded at 9:04 p.m. 8. PRESENTATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN — STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker introduced Kevin Gardiner and Matt Flynn of Kevin Gardiner&Associates, and described the purpose of the presentation; an update to the Planning Commission regarding the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) regarding the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Mr. Gardiner presented the CAC recommendations. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; John Root, 27 Crossway Road; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Charles Voltz, 755 Vernon Way; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue; Joe Putnam, 3 California Drive; and Sarah Mahorter, 816 Peninsula Avenue spoke: ■ Thanked citizens for their input. ■ Applauded the idea of housing downtown. ■ A 75-foot height limit allows a lot of building. Feels that 75-foot heights start to say"small city"; we are a small town. Once we begin approaching 55-feet, we will start to look like parts of San Mateo and Millbrae; will start to lose some of the human scale that currently exists downtown. Feels 55- feet should be the maximum height allowed. This has, in theory been allowed since 1955, however, very few buildings of this height have been built. If other development standards are revised, this could encourage taller developments. ■ The north end of the City is the appropriate place to add more people. If we build opportunities, more people will come. ■ Noted that high-speed rail ballot measure may pass; if it does, there will be grade separation that could affect commercial uses on the east side of the railroad; this must be taken into consideration. Noise is an issue; when electrification arrives, CalTrain is planning to run up to twelve trains per hour during peak time; where housing is placed should take into account this change. • The plans for California Drive open space(near Stacks)would improve traffic conditions in the area. ■ It should be easier for future development to occur since there will be a current vision of how we wish to have development proceed. • Design review downtown is important; need to have some oversight. The proposed Building heights have existed for years (in most instances), will not raise height limits except for a small portion of Chapin Avenue. ■ The specific plan process has been a good process. • Expressed concern regarding the City's separation of the Safeway Working Group and the Downtown Specific Plan processes. Has resulted in a"no man's land"; underground parking is not being addressed by either group. The Safeway site will encompass the largest development in the downtown. Parking is a nexus that must be addressed. The current configuration of parking lots could not accommodate a single large structure,with the possible exception of the lots adjacent to the Library. It is conceivable that the Safeway site could accommodate an underground lot of a sufficient size. There is no place for this approach to parking to be evaluated in either of the 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes July 14,2008 processes. Encouraged the Commission to look at the issue. Look at values of existing parking lot assets that could be sold,or otherwise leveraged to obtain funds for a large underground parking lot. • Regarding property at 1100 Peninsula Avenue(vehicle storage for Putnam Volvo). Pointed out that it is currently used for storage purposes,but is zoned for residential use. Seems inconsistent and perhaps unfair to limit height to 55-feet on this property. Financial institutions are more thorough than in the past,and are looking at the value of assets much more closely,if the height limit changes for this property,it will affect its value. Need the 75-foot height limit,will affect the ability for the business to function financially. Encouraged changing the 75-foot height limit to encompass the property in question. Supports placing housing uses over auto showroom uses. • Encouraged policies to ensure that Burlingame is a safe place for bicyclists. Commission comments: • Noted that CAC looked very closely at each of the subject areas presented by the consultant;height limits weren't arbitrarily recommended,but were thought through. All issues that were addressed by CAC necessarily must work within the framework of other aspects of the planning for the downtown area,all issues must work together to meet the overall requirements of the specific plan. • With respect to streetscape;the CAC looked closely at tree placement and species selection,this needs to be addressed in the plan. • Evaluation of line between Subareas A and B; need to capture a potential re-evaluation of this dividing line,or whether such a differentiation needs to exist. • Neighborhood serving commercial uses,needed in area south of downtown,but also why not in the other areas. Mixed-use in the Anita Road/Myrtle Road area should also be an option. • Not particularly supportive of having the post office eliminated as a use downtown,thinks it is a good,walkable downtown use,but site could use some reworking. • Very little has happened with past planning efforts in the City. The Plan needs to also focus on how investment/development in the area can occur and be encouraged;particularly with City assets such as the parking lots. • Howard Avenue does not appear to be fully analyzed;what is the vision for Howard Avenue,this must be addressed;how will it be enlivened. • With respect to parking,the recommendations don't appear to specifically support underground parking;the CAC should go on record as stating a position regarding this issue. Don't leave things off the table because the CAC doesn't think it can be done. Where do the employees park;where is long term parking. The parking scheme is not revolutionary. Make certain that adequate parking exists. Be more aggressive with parking solutions to ensure adequate parking exists and to promote investment in the downtown. • Encouraged housing downtown, but provide affordable opportunities. Consider ownership; condominiums versus rental. • Should the guidelines be continued along California Drive northward,outside of the study area. • Design review should be required for all projects within the Downtown area. • Need to identify funding sources and cost for improvements. • With respect to Howard and Chapin,the CAC did discuss connections between the areas;amenities (e.g.open space opportunities,etc.)that keep you moving through the area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. No action was required. All comments are noted by the consultant team and will be included with the information presented to the City Council on July 21,2008. 12 CITY 0 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 8b l ITEM# HDD' 9D MTG. DARTED JUNE 0 DATE July 21 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED 4L,___ DATE: July 14, 2008 BY FROM: Ana Silva APP VED �--- - Tel.No.: 558-7204 By +� SUBJECT: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION VACANCIES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill Commissioner Peter Comaroto's unexpired term on the Parks and Recreation Commission, as well as the three-year term that would begin when Commissioner Comaroto's term was due to expire on October 7, 2008. The recommended due date for applications is August 15, 2008. In order to avoid having to go through the appointment process again shortly after this appointment, it is also recommended that the Council consider interviewing to fill Commissioners Laura Hesselgren's and Michael Shanus' seats on the Commission which are also due to expire on October 7, 2008. This would avoid having interested candidates having to apply and interview twice in the space of a month or so. BACKGROUND: Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. Commissioners Hesselgren and Shanus would be invited to reapply if they wish to serve again. In addition, all past applicants on the two-year wait list will be informed of the vacancies. July 3, 2008 Madam Mayor 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Madam Mayor, . It has been with great pleasure and gratitude that I have served, The Council and Community, over the last 1 '/a years as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner. The Commission and Council have accomplished many things together. My vigorous work schedule has increased and will be doing so over the next year or so. It is very important to me that our Parks and Recreation Commission is not adversely impacted, as I feel it is a cornerstone of our community. After thoughtful consideration and effective immediately, I am submitting my resignation. If you would like me to stay until a replacement is found, I am happy to do SO. I anticipate my work schedule to become more open in the future. As such, I would appreciate the opportunity to continue working with Council and its various commissions. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Peter G. Comaroto Parks and Recreation Commissioner Cc: city council jim nantell randy shwartz CITY C BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT " = i' .- m AGENDA 09A ITEM # 8c DAATED JUNE 0 MTG. DATE July 21 , 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: July 16, 2008 BY FROM: Ana Silva APP VED Tel. No. : 558-7204 By I —� SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SAFETY PARKING COMMISSION VACANCIES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill Commissioner Stephen Warden's unexpired term on the Traffic Safety Parking Commission, as well as the three-year term that would begin when Commissioner Warden's term was due to expire on November 6, 2008. The recommended due date for applications is August 15, 2008. In order to avoid having to go through the appointment process again shortly after this appointment, it is also recommended that the Council consider interviewing to fill Commissioner Michael Bohnert's seat on the Commission which is also due to expire on November 6, 2008. This would avoid having interested candidates having to apply and interview twice in the space of a month or so. BACKGROUND: Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. Commissioner Bohnert would be invited to reapply if he wishes to serve again. In addition, all past applicants on the two-year wait list will be informed of the vacancies. Stephen Warden 1317 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame,CA 94010 650-348-7997 July 15, 2008 EGEIV > JUL ! 5 )O Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony City of Burlingame CLERK'S rJ1iGL 501 Primrose Road CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame, CA 94040 Dear Mayor O'Mahony: It is with a great deal of personal sadness that I must submit my resignation to you as a member of the City of Burlingame's Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission effective August 15, 2008. I have thoroughly enjoyed my nearly six years as a Commissioner and was honored to have served one term as the Chairman of the Commission. In the next several months, I will be relocating to EI Dorado Hills just east of Sacramento. It is my sincere hope and desire to be able to serve the County of El Dorado in a similar capacity that I served Burlingame. Let me close with my sincere thanks to you and the other Council Members for the opportunity to serve the citizens of Burlingame. It was an honor and a privilege. Sincer y, ephen Warden cc: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer Dan Conway, TSP Chair Agenda 9a Item n Meeting BURLINGAME Date: July 21, 2008 STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED BY A APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 8, 2008 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. FOR FY2008-09 WATER SYSTEM PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE, CITY PROJECT NO. 82300 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for a professional services agreement with Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI) for water system program management and master plan update in the amount of $300,000. BACKGROUND: In July 2002, the Council approved an accelerated water system Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to upgrade the 100 year old deteriorating water system. The CIP program represented a 900% increase in the budget for water system improvements over previous years. Administering this size of program required consultant support so that staff would continue to have the capacity to administer the remainder of the CIP program. In July 2002, EKI was selected to provide program management services through an extensive consultant selection process and has been successfully providing professional services for the last five years. DISCUSSION: Staff has negotiated the scope of services in the amount of $300,000 for the FY2008-09 Water System Program Management. The fee amount represents approximately 6% of the overall $4,500,000 water capital improvement program and is within industry standard of 5-7% range for this type of work. The scope of professional services includes the following: • Evaluate the water system operations and update the hydraulic model. • Update the water system CIP master plan to reflect recent changes in fire flow requirements. • Assist in managing CIP Projects. • Negotiate and manage consultant and construction contracts for the CIP program. • Assist the City in negotiating with San Francisco Public Utility Commission for to avoid impacts from Crystal Springs # 2 replacement project. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\82300 EKI .doc Staff believes that utilizing EKI as a program manager is in the best interest of the City for the following reasons: • EKI has successfully provided program management services for the previous five years and their fee continues to be within industry standards. • EKI has gained significant institutional knowledge of the City's water system needs. • As a multi-disciplinary engineering firm, EKI brings multiple technical resources to the program. • EKI's management of the program has resulted in successful replacement of over 20 miles of deteriorated water pipelines with minimal disruption to affected residents. BUDGET IMPACT: There is sufficient funding available in the FY2008-09 CIP budget for this effort. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Professional Services Agreement C: City Clerk,City Attorney, EKI, N Philip .Monag n E. Senior Civil Eng neer S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\82300 EKI.doc RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH ERLER & KALINOWSKI, INC. FOR FY 2008-09 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OF WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE CITY PROJECT NO. 82300 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I, 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 , 2008 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH ERLER&KALINOWSKI,INC.FOR FY 2008-09 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OF WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO.82300 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 2008,by and between the City of Burlingame,State of California, herein called the "City",and ERLER&KALINOWSKI,INC.engaged in providing PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT consulting services herein called the"Consultant". RECITALS A. The City is considering undertaking professional program management consulting services for the FY 2008-09 Capital Improvements Program Water System. B. The City desires to engage a professional consultant to provide program management services, because of Consultant's experience and qualifications to perform the desired work,described in Exhibit A. C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW,THEREFORE,THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide all services as set forth in Exhibit A of this agreement. 2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement with completion of the program by June 30, 2009. 3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes,ordinances,and regulations of governing federal,state and local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses,permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall,at its sole cost and expense,keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses,permits,and approvals Page 1 of 9 which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Burlingame business license. 4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. 5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports, information,data,and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public,and the Consultant shall not make any of the these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a defined project,and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk,unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant. 6. Compensation. The scope of work necessary to perform the requested Services cannot be fully defined at present. As a result,the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A of this Agreement reflects the current understanding of the scope of work anticipated by both parities. Inasmuch as the exact scope of work and effort is not yet determined,compensation for the Consultant's Services shall be on a time and expense reimbursement basis in accordance with the Consutant's Schedule of Charges,dated 2 January 2008,contained in Exhibit A. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed $300,000.00 without prior written notice. Exhibit A contains a preliminary breakdown of costs for the Scope of Work covered by this Agreement. The costs presented in Exhibit A for individual program elements and tasks are for the purposes of determining an overall budget for the currently anticipated Scope of Work under this Agreement and do not represent individual task budgets to which Consultant will be limited in order to satisfactorily perform individual tasks. The total overall budget amount shown hereinabove may be allocated among individual tasks as needed to reflect actual project conditions. Billing shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Page 2 of 9 7. Payment Schedule. Payment shall be based on City approval of progress toward each program element. City will render payment within thirty (30) days of receiving Consultant's invoice in satisfactory form. City agrees to pay for the Services provided in accordance with the attached Schedule of Charges, and such payment shall be considered as full compensation for all personnel, materials, supplies, and equipment used in performing Consultant's Services. If City questions any portion of an invoice, City shall inform the Consultant of such question and shall pay the balance of the invoice that is not disputed within the time established in this paragraph. 8. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. 9. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this Agreement shall be Matthew Zucca. 10.Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City. 11.Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: To City: Philip Monaghan, P.E. City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Consultant: Matthew Zucca, P.E. Erler& Kalinowski, Inc. 1870 Ogden Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as Consultant designates in writing to City. 12.Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an Page 3 of 9 independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. 13.Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or wrongdoing. 14.Standard of Care. Consultant agrees that, in connection with its Services to be performed under this Agreement, such Services are performed with the care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Consultant's profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and in the same or a similar locality. City recognizes that the state of practice is changing and evolving. While Consultant will perform in reasonable accordance with standards in effect at the time its Services are performed, it is recognized that such standards may subsequently change because of improvements in the state of practice. When the findings and recommendations of Consultant are based on information supplied by City and entities engaged by City, Consultant shall have the right to rely on the accuracy and completeness of such information. No warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is made or intended by providing of consulting Services or by furnishing oral or written reports of the findings made. 15.Cost Estimates. Any statements of estimated construction costs or future operation and maintenance costs furnished by Consultant are projected costs based on available information and professional opinions and judgment. Consultant is not responsible for fluctuations in construction costs due to bidding conditions and other factors that could not reasonably be anticipated at the time of preparation of the particular estimate. 16.Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest Page 4 of 9 itself of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship. 17.Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. 18.Insurance. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance: i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO "Occurrence" Form CG 0001. ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement. iv. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and Page 5 of 9 volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. B. General and Automobile Liability Policies: i. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. C. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees. D. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. Page 6 of 9 E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California. F. Verification of Coverage. Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 19.Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant shall save, keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, agent, employees and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, that may at any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which may be occasioned by willful misconduct or negligent act or omissions of the Consultant, or any of the Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision shall not apply to the extent the damage or injury is caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. 20.Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 21 .Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo or Santa Clara. 22.Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen (15) days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work Page 7 of 9 delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. 23.Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant. 24.Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed $7,500 in total. 25.Force Majeure. Any delay or default in the performance of any obligation of Consultant under this agreement resulting from any cause(s) beyond Consultant's reasonable control, shall not be deemed a breach of this Agreement. The occurrence of any such event shall suspend the obligations of Consultant as long as performance is delayed or prevented thereby, and the fees due hereunder shall be equitably adjusted provided that no time extension because of Force Majeure shall ever be allowed unless: (a) promptly upon the occurrence of a Force Majeure, the party whose performance delayed thereby shall provide the other party with written notice of the cause and extent thereof as well as request for a time extension equal to the estimated duration thereof: and (b) within seven (7) calendar days of the cessation of the Force Majeure, the party whose delay shall provide the other party with written notice of the actual delay incurred, upon receipt of which the time of the delayed performance shall be extended for the time actually lost by reason of the Force Majeure. 26.Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party. Page 8 of 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one(1). City of Burlingame By City Manager Stephen A.Tarantino, P.E. Jim Nantell Vice President Erler&Kalinowski, Inc. ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk-Doris J. Mortensen City Attorney-Larry Anderson Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work for Program Management of the Water System and Capital Improvements Program Fiscal Year 2008-2009 The City of Burlingame ("City") is retaining Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. ("Consultant") to continue services as Program Manager to assist the City with implementing a multi-year potable water system improvement program ("Program") and to update the 2004 Water System Master Plan ("WMP") as described below: BACKGROUND Much of the City's current water system infrastructure is reportedly reaching the end of its useful life, such that approximately 50 percent of the distribution system is at least 50 years old. As a result, the City is improving or replacing portions of its water distribution system. Under a separate Scope of Work, EKI prepared a WSMP that presents an approach to infrastructure improvements over a 30 year planning horizon. These improvements include distribution system mains, storage facilities, transmission mains, pumping stations, and SCADA systems. To address the aging water system, the City has been implementing a Capital Improvements Projects ("CIP") for improvements to the City's water system (see below for project updates). The Program addresses the tracking, planning, and implementation of the CIP projects. The WSMP was prepared in 2004 and several of the recommended improvements have been implemented or construction is planned for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Now that the several of the WSMP recommended improvements have been implemented the City has determined that the 2004 WSMP should be updated to review the remaining infrastructure improvements to be implemented, review and revise the goals and objectives of the current CIP, and identify any new improvements that may be required as a result of changes to federal and state laws and regulations. COMPLETED AND ANTICIPATED CIP PROJECTS The following is a summary of the completed and in-progress CIP projects managed by EKI as part of ongoing program management services. CIP Projects Completed to Date As part of program management services provided by EKI to date, the following CIP projects have been successfully completed. Page 1 of 14 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 2 of 14 Total Completion CIP Project Project Cost Date Burlinghome/Easton Main Replacement—Phase 1 $3 M May 2004 Burlinghome/Easton Main Replacement—Phase II $3.1 M June 2005 Burlinghome/Easton Main Replacement—Phase III $1.7 M December 2006 Mills Tank Seismic Retrofit $1.0 M January 2007 Mills Transmission Main $1.6 M April 2007 Trousdale Drive Transmission Main $0.9 M April 2008 Trousdale Pump Station Design $1.0 M May 2008 CIP Projects In-Progress or to be Commencing during FY 2007-2008 Projects that are already in progress or are anticipated to be commenced during the 2007-2008 fiscal year include the following project. Total Project Anticipated CIP Project Cost Completion Date Trousdale Pump Station Construction $3.1 M July 2009 Trousdale Drive Supply Transmission Main Design $0.15 M July 2008 Trousdale Drive Supply Transmission Main $1.4 M March 2009 Construction Los Robles Main Replacement Project $0.7 M March 2009 Burlingame Gate/Grove/Village Main Replacement— $1.5 M March 2009 Phase 1 Burlingame Gate/Grove/Village Main Replacement— $1.5 M March 2010 Phase 2 Burlingame Gate/Grove/Village Main Replacement— $1.0 M March 2011 Phase 3 SCOPE OF WORK The following describes Consultant's general scope of work under this Agreement. Program Element A- Program Management EKI will provide general engineering management and consulting services to assist the City in its management of the Program. The tasks covered by this program element are anticipated to include the following tasks. 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 3 of 14 Task 0—Program Communications EKI will meet monthly with City staff to review the progress of the Program. These meetings are anticipated to include summary reports on individual projects and updates of budgets and schedules for individual Program elements. Task 1 —Finance and Budget Trackingand nd Updates EKI will update the overall CIP budget cash flow on a quarterly basis with current project expenditures and will track the progress of project expenditures relative to the estimated budget. Updated budgets will be distributed to appropriate City staff. Task 2 - Project Documentation As EKI has done for the previous program management contracts, EKI will maintain the City's files on water system CIP projects being program managed by EKI. The project documentation will be stored on behalf of the City at EKI's office in Burlingame until the end of the completion of the various projects. At that time, the project files will be forwarded to the City for storage. Task 3 - 2009-2010 CIP Budget As done for the 2008-2009 fiscal year CIP budget, EKI will prepare an estimated budget for the anticipated 2009-2010 fiscal year CIP projects. The 2009-2010 CIP budget will be based upon the then current understanding of anticipated project costs for remaining CIP projects and will be prepared in the same format as the 2008-2009 fiscal year CIP budget. Program Element B—Project Management of CIP Projects On behalf of the City in connection with the ongoing tasks identified above, EKI will assist the City with daily project management of individual projects within the CIP Program. It is anticipated that EKI's efforts will consist of the following elements: 1. Coordinating the implementation of the communications plan prepared by CirclePoint for informing the City Council and citizens of the Program and potential disruptions that might be experienced during the implementation of various Program projects, 2. Reviewing consultant designs for general conformance with City standards and project goals, and 3. Generally overseeing construction review by other consultants during construction of the Program projects. 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 4 of 14 The scope of anticipated project management efforts on each of these tasks is described below: Task 0—Project Communications EKI will oversee the implementation by the City's consultant, CirclePoint, of the communications plan for the CIP Program. Based upon experience during the previous year, EKI estimates a budget of 0.5 hour per week for a Staff Engineer and 0.25 hour per week for an Associate Engineer(Jeffrey Tarantino) for the duration of the Agreement to assist the City with communications. Task 1 —Trousdale Pump Station Construction Assistance EKI understands that M&E has been retained by the City to provide construction management services for the Trousdale Pump Station project and Proven Management has been selected as the contractor. Task 1 — Trousdale Pump Station Construction will be managed by Phil Monaghan, P.E., of the City. Mr. Monaghan will be responsible for all communications with the consultant, contractor, and other project administrative tasks. EKI will assist Mr. Monaghan with the overall project to help ensure the project meets the goals of the WSMP and fits within the budgetary constraints of the CIP program. EKI will review M&E's construction management services during construction of the Trousdale Pump Station project. Tasks performed by EKI will include: • Assisting with the negotiation of a construction management agreement, • Attending weekly construction meetings, • Assisting in Submittal Reviews, RFIs, and other construction documentation, • Assisting in Change Order negotiations, • Reviewing construction manager's invoices and contractor's requests for payment, • Coordinating of public outreach during construction, and • Coordinating final payment and project acceptance including preparation of as- builts,Notice of Completion, and punch list. In addition, EKI will retain CirclePoint as a subconsultant to provide public outreach assistance for the pump station construction project. Services included are: • Develop and maintain mailing lists, • Develop and mail up to five construction notices, • Monitor the project information line during normal business hours including maintain a call log, coordinating with the project team, and responding to questions/complaints as appropriate, • Participate in the weekly meetings by teleconference, and 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 5 of 14 • Develop and mail an end of project survey. Task 2—Trousdale Pump Station Supply Transmission Main Design Assistance M&E has been retained by the City to perform the design of the pump station and associated transmission main. Task 2—Trousdale Pump Station Supply Transmission Main Design will be managed by Phil Monaghan, P.E., of the City. Mr. Monaghan will be responsible for all communications with the consultant and other project administrative tasks. EKI will assist Mr. Monaghan with the overall project to help ensure the project meets the goals of the WSMP and fits within the budgetary constraints of the CIP program. EKI will assist the City in conducting design reviews. For purposes of preparing a budget for this task, it was assumed that EKI will conduct one design review in coordination with City staff during each design. The design reviews are intended to: • Compare the consultant's proposed design to City standards and project goals, • Identify constructability issues, • Review general clarity and consistency of design documents, and • Evaluate the design consultant's construction cost estimate. EKI's design reviews are not intended to validate or verify the design consultants design. The design review is anticipated to occur at about the 95 percent completion stage of each design. It is anticipated that modified project construction cost estimates will be made at both of these levels of completion. Once the final pump station transmission main design is completed and approved by the City, EKI will provide bidding support services and will coordinate with the design consultant during the preparation of bid packages and addenda. EKI understands that the City will construct the Trousdale Pump Station Supply Transmission Main project beginning in fiscal year 2008-2009. Task 3 —Trousdale Pump Station Supply Transmission Main Construction Assistance EKI understands that M&E will be retained by the City to provide construction management services for the Trousdale Pump Station project,therefore EKI has not included budget for the implementation of a construction manager selection process. Task 3— Trousdale Pump Station Construction will be managed by Phil Monaghan, P.E., of the City. Mr. Monaghan will be responsible for all communications with the consultant and other project administrative tasks. EKI will assist Mr. Monaghan with the overall project to help ensure the project meets the goals of the WSMP and fits within the budgetary constraints of the CIP program. 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 6 of 14 EKI will review M&E's construction management services during construction of the Trousdale Pump Station project. Tasks performed by EKI will include: • Assisting with the negotiation of a construction management agreement, • Attending weekly construction meetings, • Assisting in Submittal Reviews, RFIs, and other construction documentation, • Assisting in Change Order negotiations, • Reviewing construction manager's invoices and contractor's requests for payment, • Coordinating of public outreach during construction, and • Coordinating final payment and project acceptance including preparation of as- builts,Notice of Completion, and punch list. Task 4—Burlingame Gate/GroveNillage Main Replacement Phase 1 Design Assistance Kennedy/Jenks Consultants ("K/J") has been retained by the City to perform the design of the Burlingame Gate/GroveNillage Main Replacement project. Task 4—Burlingame Gate/Grove/Village Main Replacement Design Phase I will be managed by Phil Monaghan, P.E., of the City. Mr. Monaghan will be responsible for all communications with the consultant and other project administrative tasks. EKI will assist Mr. Monaghan with the overall project to help ensure the project meets the goals of the WSMP and fits within the budgetary constraints of the CIP program. EKI will assist the City in conducting design reviews. For purposes of preparing a budget for this task, it was assumed that EKI will conduct one design review in coordination with City staff during each design. The design reviews are intended to: • Compare the consultant's proposed design to City standards and project goals, • Identify constructability issues, • Review general clarity and consistency of design documents, and • Evaluate the design consultant's construction cost estimate. EKI's design reviews are not intended to validate or verify the design consultants design. The design review is anticipated to occur at about the 95 percent completion stage of each design. It is anticipated that modified project construction cost estimates will be made at both of these levels of completion. Once the final main replacement Phase 1 design is completed and approved by the City, EKI will provide bidding support services and will coordinate with the design consultant during the preparation of bid packages and addenda. EKI understands that the City will construct the Burlingame Gate/Grove/Village Main Replacement Phase 1 project beginning in fiscal year 2008-2009. 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 7 of 14 Task 5 —Burlingame Gate/Grove/Village Main Replacement Phase l Construction Assistance EKI understands that K/J will be retained by the City to provide construction management services for the the Burlingame Gate/Grove/Village Main Replacement Phase 1 construction project,therefore EKI has not included budget for the implementation of a construction manager selection process. Task 5—Burlingame Gate/Grove/Village Main Replacement Phase I Construction will be managed by Phil Monaghan, P.E., of the City. Mr. Monaghan will be responsible for all communications with the consultant and other project administrative tasks. EKI will assist Mr. Monaghan with the overall project to help ensure the project meets the goals of the WSMP and fits within the budgetary constraints of the CIP program. EKI will review M&E's construction management services during construction of the Trousdale Pump Station project. Tasks performed by EKI will include: • Assisting with the negotiation of a construction management agreement, • Attending weekly construction meetings, • Assisting in Submittal Reviews, RFIs, and other construction documentation, • Assisting in Change Order negotiations, • Reviewing construction manager's invoices and contractor's requests for payment, • Coordinating of public outreach during construction, and • Coordinating final payment and project acceptance including preparation of as- builts,Notice of Completion, and punch list. Task 6—Miscellaneous Technical Support EKI has provided technical support to the City during the previous contract for several small CIP projects including: • Review of design of hydropneumatic tanks replacement projects prepared by others, and • Evaluation of potential operational impacts due to planned San Francisco Public Utilities Commission maintenance of the Hetch Hetchy System. EKI understands that the City requests EKI to continue to provide technical support of the projects listed above. EKI will provide technical support to City staff including evaluation of water system operations using the City's hydraulic model, review of consultants technical evaluations,prepare technical emails and memoranda, meet with City staff as needed, and participate in teleconferences. EKI will retain a hydraulic modeling firm to assist in the evaluation of the fire flows and operational impacts analysis. 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 8 of 14 Program Element C—Water System Master Plan Update EKI has prepared this scope of work to update the 2004 WSMP, which will define and document infrastructure improvements. EKI is assuming a 30-year planning period for this study. Water demand associated with projected population growth and zoning changes as well as other factors that were used when preparing the 2004 WSMP will be reviewed and confirmed. A computer model,previously calibrated to current system operating conditions under a separate scope of work and then modified for the projected demand and future infrastructure,will be used to evaluate alternatives that are identified during the master planning process. EKI intends to utilize the results of the updated WSMP to prepare the 2009—2010 fiscal year budget as described in Task A.3 above. The following describes the EKI team's scope of work. • In Task 1, EKI will meet with appropriate parties of the City to agree upon appropriate assumptions and parameters for use in the development of the updated WSMP. • In Task 2,the EKI team will review and confirm calculations prepared for the 2004 WSMP to assess the City's water demand. EKI will also confirm that all improvements that have been constructed as of July 2008 have been incorporated into the hydraulic model to document existing conditions. • In Task 3, the EKI team will use the calibrated hydraulic model, which was developed and calibrated under a separate scope of services,to evaluate the behavior of the existing and planned future water system infrastructure under fire flow demand conditions. • In Task 4, the EKI team will use the hydraulic model to evaluate water movement alternatives within the system with the goal of identifying projects to replace the older portions of the existing distribution system as wells as areas with significant operational problems. Fire flow improvements will be used as secondary criteria for ranking improvement projects. • In Task 5, the EKI team will prepare a WSMP document that presents the results of the evaluations conducted as part of Tasks 1-4. Task 1 —Planned Project Meetings EKI proposes to utilize the process of updating the WSMP to integrate the collective water system infrastructure and operations goals of City staff. As such, EKI intends for the WSMP to reflect the input and consensus of multiple City departments, including Engineering and the Water Department and, to a lesser extent, the Planning and Finance Departments. The WSMP will incorporate known and assumed City plans over planning horizons comparable to those of other departments, such as the City General Plan,the Urban Water Management Plan, and the 2004 WSMP. EKI anticipates one meeting with the July 2008 Exhibit A Page 9 of 14 City Engineer and City Planner to identify known or assumed growth or development plans within the City's planning horizon that differ from the 2004 WSMP assumptions. EKI anticipates the WSMP will assume a 30-year planning horizon, and will take into account known growth in hotels, housing, industry, and population identified in the City General Plan. EKI anticipates a series of three planned meetings with engineers, supervisors, operators, and water quality personnel familiar with the water system from the Public Works Department("Water Systems Group"). These meetings, planned at the pre-study, 50%, and 90%milestones of the draft WSMP and associated calculations, modeling, and evaluations (described in Tasks 2 through 4 below), are intended to review progress during the development of the WSMP. The pre-study meeting will be consolidated with a regularly scheduled monthly status meeting, and no budget is specifically allocated for this meeting. The monthly review meeting will also be used to keep the City apprised of ongoing project progress. Task 2—Demand Assessment and Model Verification Task 2 focuses on gathering data needed to estimate current water system parameters, confirming calibration the existing model to the current system and operating conditions, and then modifying the model to reflect planned water system infrastructure conditions at the end of the planning horizon. EKI will review population estimates and water demand estimates prepared as part of the 2004 WSMP effort to confirm that no significant changes to the estimates are required. EKI understands that the City will provide historic water usage and billing information to facilitate demand calculations,which will be projected into the future based on applicable projection factors. Based on available current billing information and GIS databases provided by the City, the EKI team will confirm average daily demands, and maximum day and peak hour peaking factors. These demands will be assigned to appropriate nodes in the distribution system based on residential or commercial use. If information available from the City is insufficient to confirm maximum day and peak hour peaking factors,then the maximum day and peak hour peaking factors developed for the 2004 WSMP will be utilized. The five largest water users in the City will be identified and represented as point demands in the model. To verify and adjust as necessary the existing hydraulic model prepared and calibrated under a separate scope of work, EKI assumes the City will provide a full set of the most current plats showing pipeline alignments, diameters; valve locations; pump station 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 10 of 14 facility configurations; reservoir locations and yard piping; and Hetch Hetchy turnout configurations. EKI understands the existing hydraulic model that has been used to develop the Initial Distribution System Evaluation Plan reflects the actual conditions of the existing water distribution system and has been calibrated. Therefore, EKI has not included in this scope of work any effort to calibrate the existing hydraulic model. Task 3 —Distribution System Analysis of Existing and Future Conditions In this task the EKI team will utilize the calibrated model to evaluate the flow conditions of the overall storage and distribution system under existing and future conditions. These evaluations will take into consideration known demands, system losses, requirements for fire flow, and storage requirements. Potential emergency water demands, including a qualitative evaluation of earthquake and other emergency response scenarios are also considered in this Task. A written summary of the work completed under Task 3 will be included with the documentation prepared under Task 5 described below. Subtask 3.1 -Evaluation of Existing Distribution System The EKI team will evaluate water demand, system losses, peak daily flows, requirements for fire flow, and other factors to identify infrastructure needs to meet anticipated water demand throughout the system. This will include developing performance criteria for reservoirs and pipelines in accordance with typical, industry-accepted standards. Using the model, we will analyze the water system for compliance with appropriate velocity, head loss, pressure, and emergency preparedness design criteria. Areas failing to comply with performance criteria will be cataloged. Potential improvements identified in this task such as inter-ties, parallel pipelines, additional storage, and expanded pump stations, will be incorporated into the model and carried forward for future condition scenarios. The potential need for other pump stations throughout the distribution system will also be considered in this task. Additional pump stations may be necessary to improve water movement and to provide redundant pumping capacity for the water system such that single pump station failures to not cause extended water outages. The information generated from this subtask will include necessary pump station capacity head, flow, and other general sizing requirements, such that a pump station(or group of pump stations) can be designed to meet projected future demands. Subtask 3.2 -Evaluation of Future Built Out Distribution System Similar to Subtask 3.1, EKI will evaluate water demand, system losses, peak daily flows, requirements for fire flow, and other factors at the end of the planning horizon. The team will update the existing hydraulic model to incorporate planned growth or zoning changes, as well as projected demands. Based on this model of future conditions, infrastructure needs can be identified to meet anticipated water needs throughout the system in the future. 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 11 of 14 Task 4—Evaluation of Water System Operations EKI understands that the City's goal for the water system is to be able to move water within the system to meet demand while maintaining a high level of water quality. A secondary goal is to provide fire flow. Finding a balance between storage requirements to meet anticipated demand for fire flow currently and in the future (from Task 3) and the need to have adequate water turnover in the reservoirs is also one of the focuses of this task. This task includes four main evaluations of components that influence water movement and storage throughout the City's system. These include • Evaluation of existing pressure zones and pump stations and alternatives to improve water movement; • Evaluation of additional storage in the Aqueduct Zone; and • Evaluation of transmission main alternatives to move water within and between the zones. These evaluations are discussed in more detail below. Each of these evaluations will include computer-modeling simulations to evaluate the performance of the proposed new infrastructure. Based on the evaluation of the model output, specific recommendations will be developed and included in the WSMP. A written summary of the work completed under Task 4 will be included with the documentation prepared under Task 5 described below. Subtask 4.1 -Evaluation of Pressure Zone and Pump Station Alternatives The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether modification of existing pump station operations, pressure zone limits, and storage tank operations will improve the movement and reduce the age of water in the system. Of particular interest is the Hillside Reservoir and its service area. Alternatives to be evaluated include the expansion of the Hillside zone by gravity or pumping, particularly to the Aqueduct zone. In addition, changing the operation of the Easton Turnout to fill the Hillside Reservoir, such that it is controlled by the level on the Hillside Reservoir with potential modifications to the fill/draw cycle,will also be evaluated. Subtask 4.2 -Evaluation of Storage in the Aqueduct Zone This task focuses on the need for storage alternatives within the Aqueduct Zone, which is currently served solely by the SFPUC Sunset Supply Pipeline and Crystal Springs Pipelines 2 & 3. The Aqueduct Zone includes approximately 85 percent of the services within the City and all of the large hotels and industrial areas that are major water 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 12 of 14 customers of the City. All water in this area is supplied directly from the aqueduct; there is currently no storage for this zone and no way to move water from existing storage tanks in the Upper Zone into the Aqueduct Zone. Peak demands from the Aqueduct Zone are met from the SFPUC pipelines. However, SFPUC is working toward requiring its wholesale customers to eliminate peaking from the SFPUC pipelines. The 2004 WSMP recommended modifications to the Hillside Reservoir including construction of a dedicated transmission main to the Aqueduct Zone to provide storage. Since the 2004 WSMP, a preliminary design of a new Hillside Reservoir to meet the goals of the 2004 WSMP has been prepared and the cost of the proposed project is substantial. The WSMP will re-evaluate the 2004 WSMP recommended project and develop potential alternatives for providing storage of the Aqueduct Zone including construction of new storage tanks and pump stations in locations to be determined. Information generated from this subtask will include potential locations, storage volume requirements, and possible connections to the distribution or transmission system, such that storage tanks can be designed to meet projected future demands. Subtask 4.3 -Evaluation of Transmission Mains This task will focus on developing alternative alignments for new transmission mains within existing pressure zones and between pressure zones. In particular, EKI will evaluate potential transmission mains within the Aqueduct Zone to allow the City to provide redundancy in water deliver across El Camino and Highway 101 to serve the hotels. EKI understands that currently the City has two main transmission mains that to deliver water east of Highway 101. The 2004 WSMP did identify locations for potential additional transmissions mains, which will be reviewed and re-evaluated. Task 5 —Prepare Water System Master Plan Document EKI will document the assumptions, calculations, hydraulic model parameters, scenarios, and evaluations (either quantitative or qualitative) from Tasks 2 through 4 in an update to the 2004 WSMP. The WSMP is a document that provides the City with a roadmap for anticipated growth and demand, potential water system needs, and alternatives to meet the identified needs through the planning period. The plan is anticipated to facilitate the City's future approach to identifying, scheduling, and budgeting capital improvements to the water system. The document itself will mention existing facilities and features, but will not provide significant detail on the features of individual items. For example, the current and planned capacity of a tank may be mentioned, but the details of construction or current maintenance issues are not within the scope of the plan. The plan will focus on how the overall system should function in order to accommodate anticipated growth and changes. 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 13 of 14 Specifically excluded from this WSMP scope are opinions of probable cost and implications for water rates. The WSMP is by its nature too general to provide sufficient detail regarding the proposed alternatives to calculate associated costs accurately. EKI will develop rough costs for comparing potential alternatives but will not prepare detailed costs estimates for selected alternatives. It is anticipated that subsequent detailed studies will include detailed cost estimates. EKI anticipates providing eight copies of the draft WSMP to the City for review and comment. EKI will meet with the City to discuss comments and incorporate the City's comments. EKI will then submit ten final copies of the Water System Master Plan, and retain three copies for the EKI team files. EKI will also produce an electronic version of the WSMP in a *.PDF format readable with Adobe®Acrobat®. The electronic version will be a simple scanned version of text,tables, and figures; no hyperlinks or bookmarks between text and tables or figures are included in this scope. Program Element D—As-Needed Services The purpose of Program Element D is to provide budget for as-needed services. EKI, at the request of the City, will prepare scopes of work and budgets for as-needed services. EKI will not expend any budget under Program Element C without prior authorization from the City. SCHEDULE The schedule for implementation of this scope of work shall be upon a mutually agreeable timeframe. COMPENSATION FOR CONSULTING SERVICES The scope of work assumed herein and the estimated budget identified in Table 1 are an estimate of the anticipated tasks, level of effort, and costs to manage the currently anticipated CIP projects during the 2008-2009 fiscal year and prepare the updated WSMP. Both the City and EKI recognize that it is impossible to accurately determine the complete scope of work and level of effort required to manage the anticipated projects. Some tasks may actually require more effort than assumed herein and from time to time additional tasks beyond those contemplated herein may arise. Therefore, this scope of work and the estimated budget in Table 1 reflect the City's and EKI's current best ability to determine the scope of work and budget. In light of this uncertainty, EKI will submit with each invoice a comparison of the remaining budget to the anticipated remaining level of effort to complete each task. If it becomes apparent that an individual task will exceed it estimated budget, EKI will inform the City and include a projected budget to complete the task. Additionally, at such time as significant new tasks are identified, EKI will inform the City of the new task and, if possible,the estimated cost to complete the newly identified task. 3 July 2008 Exhibit A Page 14 of 14 Inasmuch as the exact level of effort to complete the proposed Scope of Work cannot be identified at this time, we propose that compensation for consulting services by Erler& Kalinowski, Inc. be on a time and expense reimbursement basis in accordance with the Schedule of Charges dated 2 January 2008 included as Attachment 1. On the basis of the Scope of Work described above, we propose a budget of$230,000, which will not be exceeded without authorization. Tables: 1. Table 1 - Estimated Program Consulting Effort and Associated Costs,Program Management of City of Burlingame Water System and Water Quality Improvements (2008-2009 Fiscal Year), City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California Attachments: 1. Schedule of Charges dated 2 January 2008 3 July 2008 TABLE 1 2008-2009 Program ESTIMATED PROGRAM CONSULTING EFFORT AND ASSOCIATED COSTS Management Budget Program Management of City of Burlingame Water System and Water Quality Improvements(2008-2009 Fiscal Year) City of Burlingame,San Mateo County,California ESTIMATED ESTIMATED LABOR Hours See Note t EXPENSES COST a 3 3 � 3 y IS O K N + --� a p m = = d Labor Unit Comm Expense Line Item Task TASKS o' n m m > Subtotal hxpense Description Unit Quant Cost Fee Markup Subtotal Subtotals Subtotals $66 $81 $91 $128 1$172 5212 I 5221 $221 (S) I 1 1 3% 1 108 S) S) ($) PROGRAM ELEMENT A-PROGRAM MANAGEMENT TASK 0-PROGRAM COMMUNICATIONS(CIP Budget Item a.12) - •Monthly Summary Meetings24 12 4 $7,551 Meats ea 12 $150 $227 $180 S2 207 59,757 TASK I-FINANCE AND BUDGET TRACKING AND UPDATES(CIP Budget Item a.12) _ ♦Monthly program management budget updates 12 6 2 52,994 $90 $90 $3,083 ♦ arterly CIP Cash Flow a ates 8 4 2 $2,137 $64 S64 $2,201 $5 000 TASK 2-PROJECT DOCUMENTATION(CIP Budget Item a.12) - _ ♦Establishing City Files 160 12 $12 $377 - 5377 $12941 $13000 TASK 3-2009-2010 CIP BUDGET(CIP Budget Item x.12) - re •Parin 2009-2010CIP Budget 8 8 20 8 4 $6,040 Repn,duetlmu Is 1 $150 $181 $15 $346 $6,386 $6,000 Subtotals-Program Element A 168 0 8 40 54 20 0 4 531,286 $939 $195 53,084 534,000 PROGRAM ELEMENT B-CIP PROJECTS _- TASK 0-PROJECT COMMUNICATIONS(See Nate 2)(CIP Budget Item a.12) ♦Public Outreach 0.5 hour r wnck for Staff Engineer for term of Agreement) 24 S3,078 $92 S92 $3,171 $3,000 TASK 1-TROUSDALE PUMP STATION CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE (CIP Budget Item a.12)(Program Management of CIP Budget Item e.11-3%of Construction - ♦Assistance during Construction Management - (a) WeeklyMeenngs 100 B 518,867 $566 - 5566 $19,433 (b) Public Outreach 48 4 59,090 cnekpoim Is 1 $34,000 $273 $3,400 537,673 $46,763 _. (c) Assist in Submittal Reviews.RF/s,and other Construction Documentation 100 4 518,018 $541 5541 518,559 (d) Assist in Change Order Negotiation 40 4 2 2 58,601 $258 - 5258 $9,959 $94,000 TASK 2-TROUSDALE PUMP STATION SUPPLY TRANSMISSION MAIN DESIGN ASSISTANCE (CIP Budget Item a.12)(Program Management of CIP Budget Item e.1)-6%of Design - ♦Design Oversight g 2 $1,798 $54 $54 51,852 (a) Constructability Review (e) 95%Dasign Review andModifred Prolect Cost Estimates 8 2 4 2 53,125 $94 S94 53,219 (0 Communications with Design Consultant and/n(ormanon Retrieval 0 hours per week for 3 months) 12 52,060 $62 S62 $2,122 ♦Construction Bidding - (a) Assist in Assembling andDisMbuting Bid Packages 4 2 2 SI,299 _ _ $39 $39 51,338 (6) Assist in Answering Bidders Q uestionsiPmpare Addendum 4 1 2 1 5856 $26 $26 $882 (c) Assist in Bid O entn and Selection o(Contractor 4 1 2 $856 $26 S26 $882 1 $10,Ooo TASK 3-TROUSDALE PUMP STATION SUPPLY TRANSMISSION MAIN CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE (CIP Budget Item a.12)(Program Management of CIP Budget Item e.1).2%of Construction ♦Pre-Construction Conference 4 4 2 $49 S49 $1,673 ♦Assistance during Construction Management - (a) Weekly Meetings 24 4 $149 - 5149 $5,118 (b) Public Outreach 16 2 urdd...ot Is 1 $5,000 $95 $500 55,595 $8,767 (c) Assist in Submittal Reviews.RF/s,and other Consirmcum Documentation 24 2 5136 5136 $4,681 (d Assist in Change Order Ne otiation l6 2 2 24 $l22 5122-- 54 178 $23 000 Erler&Kalinowski,Inc. SOW Cost Estimate 2008-2009 2008-07-03 Page 1 of 3 7/3/2008 TABLE 1 2008-2009 Program ESTIMATED PROGRAM CONSULTING EFFORT AND ASSOCIATED COSTS Management Budget Program Management of City of Burlingame Water System and Water Quality Improvements(2008-2009 Fiscal Year) City of Burlingame,San Mateo County,California ESTIMATED ESTIMATED LABOR Hours See Note I EXPENSES COST 3 s a a N m c. v. Labor Unit Comm Expense Line Item Task P 6 'o TASKS .� m n m e Subtotal Expense Description Unit Quant. Cost Fee Markup Subtotal Subtotals Subtotals $66 $81 $91 1$128 1$172 $212 1$221 1$221 ($) 3% 10% $) ($) I ($) TASK 4-BURLINGAME GATEIGROVE/VILLAGE MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE 1 DESIGN ASSISTANCE (CIP Budget Item a.121(Program Management of CIP Budget Item d.5 and d.9)-6%of Design •Design Oversight (a) Consinictabilrm Review 8 2 $1,798 S54 $54 $1,852 (e) 95%Design RewewandModlfie,fPMect(od Estimates 8 2 4 2 $3,125 --- $94 S94 $3,219 (9 Communicanons with Design Consultant and Inf rmanon Retrieval(l hours per week for 3 months) 12 $2,060 $62 $62 $2,122 •Construction Bidding --- (a) Assist m Asocmbltng and Distributing Bid Packages 4 2 2 51,299 $39 $39 $1,338 _ (b) Assur in Answering Bidders{Aiecrions.Prepare Addendum 4 2 $856 $26 $26 $882 (c) Assist in Bid 01-ing 01-inand Selection ofContracror 4 2 5856 $26 S26 5882 $10,000 TASK 5-BURLINGAME GATE/GROVEIVILLAGE MAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE I CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE (CIP Budget Item a.121(Program Management of CIP Budget Item e.11-2%of Construction - •Pre-Construction Conference 4 4 2 $1,624 _ $49 $49 $1,673 ♦Assistance during Construction Management (al Weekly Meenags 24 4 $4,969 $149 5149 $5,118 (b) Public Out-ch 16 2 53,171 Umlcpoad Is 1 $5,000 $95 $500 $5,595 58,767 _ (c) Assist in Submittal Reviews.RFIs,and other Constniction Documentation 24 2 $4,545 $136 $136 $4,681 d Assist in Change Order Negotiation 16 2 2 2 $4,056 $122 5122 $4,178 $23,000 TASK 6-MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL SUPPORT (CIP Budget Item a.12)(Program Management of CIP Budget Item h.8 and b.1 1) •Technical Review,of Design of Hydropneumatic Tank Replacement Project 40 4 2 $6,422 $193 - $193 $6,614 •Evaluation of Operational Impacts due to SFPUC Maintenance 16 4 $2,901 Hydraulic Modeler Is 1 $2,000 $87 $200 $2,287 $5,188 $12,000 Subtotals-Pro ram Element 0 0 0 112 524 60 16 1-1 5123,699 $3,711 $4,600 $54„311 S178,000 PROGRAM ELEMENT C-WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE TASK I-PLANNED PROJECT MEETINGS(CIP Budget Item a./2) •Initial meeting with City Engineer and City Planner to identifi,known water plans/issues 4 8 4 $2,735 $82 - $82 $2,817 •Meet with Water Systems Group to present 5(P/,draft master plan 2 4 16 8 4 2 2 $5,654 Reproduction Is 1 $100 $170 $10 $280 $5,934 •Meet with Water Systems Group to present 9011.draft master plan 2 4 16 8 4 2 $5,212 Rpmdmtt,n Is I $100 $156 $10 $266 $5,478 $14 000 TASK 2.DEMAND ASSESSMENT AND MODEL VERIFICATION(CIP Budget Item a.12) •Data collection and Data Rei iew (a) Review 2004 WSMP current and projected population and water demand data 4 2 2 $1,281 $38 $38 $1,319 _ (b) f/pdare 1004 WSMP current and projected pomdanan and water demand data 4 2 2 51,281 $38 $38 $1,319 •Update hydraulic model - (a) Modrf},hydrmdic model to reflect existing conditions 8 4 2 $2,137 $64 S64 $2,201 (b) Modify h)drmthc model to reflect projected fiimre conditions 16 4 2 53,163 Hydraulic Modeler Is 1 $2,500 $95 5250 52,845 $6,008 (c) Meeting to discuss hydraulic model update 8 4 2 2 2 53,022 $91 $91 $3,113 $14,000 TASK 3-ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS(CIP Budget Item a.12) •Evaluate existing conditions _ (a) Evalume existing infrastnicmre based on performance criteria _ 4 2 $856 $26 $26 $862 _ (b) Recommended alternative and identify associated issues and parameters 4 2 2 $1,281 $38 $38 $1,319 •Evaluate future conditions (a) Evalumeexistinginfrasnuctureforfutureconditions 4 2 5856 $26 $26 $882 (b) Recommended altcrnutivr and identi/y assaciamd issues and parwnemrs 4 2 2 51,281 $38 $38 $1,319 $4,000 Erler&Kalinowski,Inc. SOW Cost Estimate 2008-2009 2008-07-03 Page 2 of 3 7/3(2008 TABLE 1 2008-2009 Program ESTIMATED PROGRAM CONSULTING EFFORT AND ASSOCIATED COSTS Management Budget Program Management of City of Burlingame Water System and Water Quality Improvements(2008-2009 Fiscal Year) City of Burlingame,San Mateo County,California ESTIMATED ESTIMATED LABOR Hours See Note 1 EXPENSES COST a K 3 o v 4 Y D Po t.'-- o T Labor Unit Comm Expense Line Item Task TASKSS m n m -o Subtotal Expense Description Unit Quant. Cost Fee Markup Subtotal Subtotals Subtotals $6G $81 $91 $128,$172 $212 $221 $221 ($) 3% 10% $) $) $) TASK 4-EVALUATION OF WATER SYSTEM OPERATION(CIP Budget Item a.12) ♦Evaluate pressure zone/pump station modification alternatives 8 4 51,713 ♦Evaluate storage alternatives in the Aqueduct Zone 8 4 $1,713 $51 - $51 $1,764 ♦Evaluate transmission mains 8 4 .1; $51 $51 $1,764 _ ♦Evaluate model output 8 4 2 2 $2,580 Hydraulic Modekr Is 1 $2,500 $77 $250 $2,827 $5,407 •Recommended alternative and identify associated issues and parameters 4 2 2 $1,281 $38 $38 $1,319 1 $12,000 TASK 5-PREPARE WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT(CIP Budget Item a.12) •Prepare draft Master Plan text.tables,and figures(8 review copies to City,2 EKI team) 4 8 80 16 8 4 2 $17,023 Reproduction Is 1 $300 $511 $30 $841 $17,863 •Revise and Finalize Master Plan to reflect City comments 4 24 4 2 1 1 $4,553 _ $137 $137 $4,690 ♦Reproduce 13 copies of Water System Master Plan(10 copies to City,3 copies for EKI team) 4 2 1 2 1 $701 Reproduction Is I $300 $21 $30 $351 $1,052 $24,000 Subtotals-Program Element C 12 0 1 22 1 234 1 86 40 10 8 $60,034 $1,801 $580 58,181 $68,000 PROGRAM ELEMENT D-AS NEEDED SERVICES TASK 0-AS NEEDED SERVICES(CIP Budget Item a.l l) •Placeholder budget for as-needed sen ices based on Future work authorizations 16 16 40 24 16 8 8 $18,931 $568 $568 $19,499 $19,000 Subtotals-Pro ram Element D 0 16 16 40 24 16 8 8 $18,931 $568 1 $0 $568 $19,000 GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED HOURS AND BUDGET(See Note 3) Iso 16 a6 426 68s t36 3a 3a $233,950 $7,019 $5,375 $66,144 $300,000 Nate.: (1) Sw0 bilking raw,Iwve been increased 10 percent w reflect a presumed uvu percent increase in billing rates at the swn of the 2009 calmdu ye,r. (2) EKI has as n,d that Circle Point will perform the work identified in this wsk and EKI will matwge the unplemenwtion of their df ms. (3) Gre id Total Estim ue Budget has been rounded up to the nearest$1000. Eyler& Kalinowski,Inc. SOW Cost Estimate 2008-2009 2008-07-03 Page 3 of 3 7/3/2008 Client/Address: City of Burlingame Attn: Philip Monaghan 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Proposal/Agreement : SCHEDULE OF CHARGES 2 JANUARY 2008 Personnel Compensation Classification Hourly Rate Senior Principal 232 Principal and Chief Engineer-Scientist 219 Supervising Engineer-Scientist 210 Senior Engineer-Scientist 187 Associate Engineer-Scientist 170 Engineer-Scientist, Grade 1 159 Engineer-Scientist, Grade 2 137 Engineer-Scientist, Grade 3 127 Engineer-Scientist, Grade 4 108 Engineer-Scientist, Grade 5 95 CADD Operator 90 Technician/Administrative Assistant 80 Typist/Secretary 65 Direct Expenses Reimbursement for direct expenses, as listed below, incurred in connection with the work will be at cost plus ten percent(10%)for items such as: a. Maps, photographs, reproductions, printing, equipment rental, and special supplies related to the work. b. Consultants, soils engineers, surveyors, drillers, laboratories, and contractors. C. Rented vehicles, local public transportation and taxis, travel and subsistence. d. Special fees, insurance, permits, and licenses applicable to the work. e. Outside computer processing, computation, and proprietary programs purchased for the work. Communication charges for local and long distance telephone, facsimile transmittal, standard delivery U.S. postage, and routine in- house copying will be charged at a rate of 3%of labor charges. Large volume copying of project documents, e.g., bound reports for distribution or project-specific reference files, will be charged as a project expense as described above. Reimbursement for company-owned automobiles, except trucks and four-wheel drive vehicles, used in connection with the work will be at the rate of sixty cents ($0.60) per mile. The rate for company-owned trucks and four-wheel drive vehicles will be seventy-five cents ($0.75)per mile. There will be an additional charge of thirty dollars($30.00)per day for vehicles used for field work. Reimbursement for use of personal vehicles will be at the federally allowed rate plus ten percent(10%). CADD and Modeling Computer time will be charged at twenty dollars($20.00)per hour. In-house material and equipment charges will be in accordance with the current rate schedule or special quotation. Excise taxes, if any,will be added as a direct expense. Rate for professional staff for legal proceedings or as expert witnesses will be at a rate of one and one-half times the Hourly Rates specified above. The foregoing Schedule of Charges is incorporated into the Agreement for the Services of Erler& Kalinowski, Inc. and may be updated annually. 9 ' Agenda Item # 9b Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: July 21, 2008 ` SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 2, 2008 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH 4LEAF, INC. FOR THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 2. CITY PROJECT NO. 81802 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing a professional services agreement with 4leaf, Inc. in the amount of $167,483 for construction management of the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area sewer improvements and rehabilitation project, phase 2. DISCUSSION: 4leaf, Inc. was selected from four qualified firms interviewed to provide construction management services for phase 1 of the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area sewer rehabilitation project. The firm has successfully completed all assignments in accordance with the scope of services. 41eaf is now retained for phase 2 work because of their familiarity with the project construction issues and scope of work. DISCUSSION: Staff has negotiated the scope of professional services in the amount of $167,483. The fee amount represents 7.8% of the project construction cost of $2,144,000 which is well below the industry standard of 10% to 15% for this type of work. The scope of services consists of full-time construction inspection and construction management services including quality assurance, construction documentation, construction scheduling and completion of as-built drawings. BUDGET IMPACT: Construction management $167,483 Contingency (15%) 25,517 Total $193,000 There are adequate funds available in the project budget to complete the project. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Agreement with Scope of services Don T. Chang P.E. Senior Civil Engineer C: City Clerk, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH 4LEAF, INC. FOR THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 2 CITY PROJECT NO. 81802 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I,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 , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Author,By NameVoaune Louie\REOLUTIONAGREEMENT.WPD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 2 CITY PROJECT NO. 81802 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2008, by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and 4LEAF, INC. engaged in providing PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT services herein called the "Consultant". RECITALS A. The City is considering conducting undertaking activities for the professional construction management services for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project, Phase 2. B. The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide Construction Management and Inspection engineering services because of Consultant's experience and qualifications to perform the desired work, described in Exhibit A. C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide all services as set forth in Exhibit A of this agreement. 2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement with completion of the program by May 30, 2009. 3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Burlingame business license. Page 1 of 7 4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. 5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of the these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant. 6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed $167,483.00; and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task. Billing shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form. 7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three (3)years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. 8. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this Agreement shall be Gene A. Barry. 9. Assi ng ability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City. Page 2 of 7 10. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: To City: Donald Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Consultant: 4LEAF, Inc. 2110 Rheem Drive, Suite A Pleasanton, CA 94588 or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as Consultant designates in writing to City. 11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for,traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or wrongdoing. 12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable Page 3 of 7 steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship. 13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment& Housing Act. 14. Insurance. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance: i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: Two million dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury and property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO "Occurrence" Form CG 0001. ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than One million dollars ($1,000,000) sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement. iv. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor Page 4 of 7 shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. B. General and Automobile Liability Policies: i. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. C. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees. D. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty(30) days'prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. Page 5 of 7 E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California. F. Verification of Coverage. Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 15. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law,the Consultant shall save, keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, agent, employees and volunteers from all damages, liabilities,penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, that may at any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which may be occasioned by a willful or negligent act or omissions of the Consultant, or any of the Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the active and/or sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. 16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo. 18. Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen(15) days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. Page 6 of 7 19. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant. 20. Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed $7,500 in total. 21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the parry to be bound, shall be binding on either party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Burlingame By Syed Murtuza Print Name: Director of Public Works 4LEAF, Inc. Title: ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk - Doris J. Mortensen City Attorney- Larry Anderson SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\81802\Consultant\41eafsagreementnew0.wpd Page 7 of 7 t�xu►�3IT As, 4LF.AF9 INC. Engineering Construction Management Inspection Plan Check April 28, 2008 Proposal No.: P0442 (Submitted via E-mail as PDF and mailed as Hard Copy) City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Donald Chang, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer RE: Proposal to Provide Construction Management and Inspection Services for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project Phase 2,Burlingame, CA. Dear Mr. Chang, 4LEAF, Inc. (4LEAF) appreciates the opportunity to provide our cost estimate to the City of Burlingame to perform Construction Management, Inspection, and Environmental Services for Phase 2 of the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation project. As you know, 4LEAF is currently providing these services to the City for Phase 1. We believe we have provided the City with exceptional Construction Management/Inspection services, detailed and accurate written daily reports, and exceptional and responsive customer support during the Phase 1 construction activities. Our estimate to provide project services for Phase 2 activities is One Hundred Sixty Seven Thousand,Four Hundred Eighty Three dollars ($167,483) (see Exhibit A). I have based this estimate on the suggested construction duration of 120 working days and have significantly decreased the amount of time needed for initial review of plans and specifications since we are familiar with the project's typical specification package and BKF's design drawings. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at(925) 462-5959. Respectfully submitted, C; -R--- A, ..lewd--- Gene A. Barry, P.E. Vice President Attachment: Exhibit A—Detailed Cost Estimate. 2110 Rheem Drive, Suite A 0 Pleasanton, CA 94588 • Phone(925)462-5959 • Fax(925)462-5958 EXHIBIT A Cost Estimate for Construction Management Services for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project Phase 2 City of Burlingame,CA Task Subtask Description Staff Staff Title Qty Units Unit Rate Total Cost Assumptions 1 Project Startup la Perform detailed review of plans and specifications. Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 4 hrs $127 $508 Not intended as a constructability review. John Jordan Construction Manager/ 4 hrs $116 $464 Not intended as a constructability review. Inspector Joe Brosnan Assistant Construction 2 hrs $105 $210 Not intended as a constructability review. Inspector lb Coordinate with City's public relations consultants to identify John Jordan Construction Manager/ 1 hrs $116 $116 Public Information items(e.g.information hotline,flyers, Inspector public outreach,etc.). is Attend pre•consbuction meeting with the City,BKF,EPC Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 3 bra $127 $381 Assumes 4 hrs for pre-construction meeting. Includes Consultants,Surveyor,Contractor,Underground Utiltity 1 hr for travel time to meeting from Pleasanton to representatives,and other staff. Burlingame.Per conversation w/Donal Chang,the City will be responsible for facilitating and developing agenda for meeting. City's public relations consultant will be responsible for meeting minutes. John Jordan Construction Manager/ 3 hrs $116 $348 Inspector ld Review,log,and distribute pre-construction submittals and John Jordan Construction Manager/ 4 hrs $116 $464 RFIs from Contractor to applicable parties. Inspector Task I Subtotal: $1,491 2 Construction Management 2a Perform full-time Construction ManagemerivInspection Dutiesiohn Jordan Construction Manager/ 960 bra $116 $111,360 Per conversation w/Donald Chang,assumed 120 days (regular time)" Inspector of construction. Perform fidl-time Construction Management/Inspection Dutieslohn Jordan Construction Manager/ 96 hrs $174 $16,704 Per conversation w/Donald Chang,assumed 10°/.of (overtime). Inspector total hours for OT. 2b Perform part-time Construction Management/Inspection Dutie Joe Brosnan Assistant Construction 48 bra $105 $5,040 Assumed 5%of total construction duration for as necessary(regular time). Inspector additional pan-time construction inspection. 2c QA review of daily field reports and weekly status reports. Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 60 hrs $115 $6,900 Assumes 0.5 hra/day(@120 days)for QA of daily field reports. Task 2 Subtotal: $140,004 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A Cost Estimate for Construction Management Services for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project Phase 2 City of Burlingame,CA Task Subtask Description Staff Staff Title Qty Units Unit Rate Total Cost Assumptions 3 As-Needed Environmental Engineering Services 3a Coordinate As-Needed Environmental Engineering Services Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 4 hrs $127 $508 During Construction. 3b Perform As-Needed Field Sampling During Construction. Tony Belcher Environmental Field 12 Ins $85 $1,020 Assumes two,6-hour days to sample soil stockpiles Technician during construction as needed. 3c Review Analytical Results and Prepare Summary Reports and Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 20 hrs $127 $2,540 Assumes two sampling events will be performed during Prepare Waste Profiles with Landfills. Phase 2 r@ 10 hrs/event. 3d Miscellaneous sampling supplies. NA — 2 LS $40 $80 Costs for brass tubes&EnCore®sampling cartridges. 3e Analytical Laboratory. Subcontractor — 2 LS $670 $1,340 Assumes two events at$670 per sample event for analytical laboratory services. Task 3 Subtotal: $5,488 4 Project Closeout 4a Develop final punch lists,perform final walk throughs w/ John Jordan Construction Manager/ 40 hrs $116 $4,640 Contractor,and review and approve final Contractor invoice, Inspector etc. 4b Prepare Final Completion Report. Report to be certified by Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 60 bra $127 $7,620 California registered Civil Engineer. John Jordan Construction Manager/ 40 bra $116 $4,640 Inspector Kelly Jasso Project Assistant 40 hrs 40 $1,600 4c Reproduction of Final Completion Report. Subconsultant — 1 LS 1,000 $1,000 Assumes reproduction costs for distribution of 5 copies of report. Task 4 Subtotal: $19,500 Total Estimated Costs: $167,483 Note: (a)Per discussions w/Donald Chang at the City,assumed 120 days for construction duration for main CM/Inspector. In the event the project duration for field activities exceeds the 110 days,a change order will be submitted and CM and inspection hours will be billed on a T&M basis.Overtime hours for Construction Management and Inspection duties will be billed at 1.5 times the hourly rate. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item # 9c Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: July 21, 2008 r . SUBMITTED B `- APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 2, 2008 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO K.J. WOODS, INC. FOR THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 2. CITY PROJECT NO. 81802 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution awarding a construction contract to K.J. Woods Construction, Inc. for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area sewer improvements and rehabilitation project, phase 2, in the amount of $2,144,000. BACKGROUND: The project is a continuation of phase 1 of the California Drive and Oak Grove Area sewer rehabilitation project. The work consists of replacing the aging and deteriorated sewer mains with a total of 7,800 linear feet of new pipeline system at the following locations: • Oak Grove Avenue between EI Camino Real and Winchester Avenue. • EI Camino Real between Oak Grove and Willow Avenue. • California Drive at Burlingame Avenue. • Rollins Road between Morrell Avenue and Francisco Drive. • 400 blocks of Capuchino Avenue and Paloma Avenue. The project will significantly reduce sewage stoppages and spills in the area as well as add capacity to the system to meet current conditions. The construction will begin in August 2008 and is expected to be completed by March 2009. DISCUSSION: The project bids were opened on June 19, 2008 and four bids were received ranging from $2,144,000 to $2,883,474. K.J. Woods Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $2,144,000 being 14.5% below the engineer's estimate of $2,509,306. K.J. Woods Construction, Inc. has met all the project requirements and has been working on successfully completing the phase 1 project. The phase 1 project will be brought before Council for acceptance at a future date. S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81802-phase2 Award KJ Woods Construction.doc BUDGET IMPACT: Estimated expenditures: Construction contract $2,144,000 Contingency(15%) $321,600 Construction Design&Testing $106,000 Staff Administration $108,400 TOTAL $2,680,000 There are adequate funds available in the project budget to complete the project. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Bid Summary and Project Map Donald T.Chang,P.E. Senior Civil Engineer C:City Clerk,City Attorney, Finance Director SM Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81802-phase2 Award KJ Woods Construotion.doc RESOLUTION NO. - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 2 TO K.J. WOODS, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81802 WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for proposals for the - CITY PROJECT 81802 - CONTRACT FOR CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 2 WHEREAS, on JUNE 19, 2008, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, K. J. WOODS, INC., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of$2,144,000. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of K. J. WOODS, INC., for said project in the amount of $2,144,000, and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. 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 , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\81802\KJ Woods ResolutnAward.awd.doc 8 8888888888 8 8 � 8 88 8 88 8 88. 8888. 8888. 8 8. 8 8. 8. 888. 8. 8. 8. 88 $ 8 � $ 88 $ 8 $ 8 8 8 88, 8. 88888, 888 8 asses 8 � � � � � �� ss s saassssss a � .c<6'_K ory d'•o = r,1' ,� ' = ry _ S "' - � - - � ri� a m .,f 3 - - e_d K m _�- - � N^ o:�.':rn R d U R » »w w w w w w w w w w w w w x» w w w w w w w-w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w x w w» s � w w 8. 8. 8. 8. 88888 $ 8 8 8 8. 8. 8. 88 8 888. 8888888 8 8, 8888 8 8 88888. 8888. 88 8 8. 88. 8. 8. 8. 888. 88 2 - « w w w w w«w w»» w » « w w I» w w w»» w w w w»»»» »«»w w w « x --w w w w « ««u $ $88888. 8. 8. 88. S. 8 8 8. $ 8. 8 88 88. 8. 8. 88. 8. 88. 8. 8. 8. 8 8. 888. 8. 8. 8. 888. 8. 8 'A � 8. 8. 8. 88 8. 8 8. 8 $ 8888 $ 88 $ 88, 8 s - w w w w w w w x»»w x x w w w w x w w w »w w w»»w w»w« w x x x«x« w w x x x w x w w x w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w x 8 888888888 $ $ $ 8 8 88 8 8888 $ 88 $ 88 8 8, 8888 8 8 8 $ 888 8888 88, 8 8 8888. 8. 8. 8. 8. 88 w x»w x w w w«w« w w w w w w w w w w w««x««w w » w w u x u w w ««w u w u 1"J"w w w w w w www w w w w w w» 8. 88. 8. 8. 8. 8 $ $ 88 8 8 8 8 88 8. 8 8. 88. 888888888 8 8, 88888 8 8 888888 assesx S. 8. 8 8. 8. 8888. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8 8 a s ass a s sass "a s � sss � s s " 's, 88 s s s � "s n ' a ea � am -Ka : s= � www»»»»»www x wwwwww »» » »»»«------- x x wwwww w w wwwwwwwx wwwww ww w w wwww»»wwwwww E S 8. 8. 8888. 8. 888 8 8 8 88. 8. 8 8 888. 8. 888 $ $ 8 8 8 8888 8 8 88888 8888. 88 8 8. 88. 8. 888. 888. 8. _So smass � asa � a ��ss a sss88 ass ^ g � s a � ���ss �s�� « wwwwwwwwww » » « «w xw w wwwwwwwwww » » wwww w w wwwww »»ww «» « x w««««ww«w« �; amssa § s s a s a sa ssaa � sa8 $ ss® a s $ aasrosa Massy � a a aasgsss$ s PSC m m d y w w w»»-»w w«ww w w w w w w » x«w x«w x x w w w w w w w. w w w w w w w w»w w w w w w w w»»w w w w w w az"� ° 8. 888. 8. 888888 w 8 8 8 8. 8 « 88. 88888888w 8 8 8888w 8 8 �88. 8. 8. 8w 8. 8. 88w8888888888» sad§§asset z „ 1 � F ew U w w w wwwww»w w w w w w w w w w w w»»»w« w w«w» « w x u x«x w«x u w w www w«w««w ;� � a �aa � aasaas � a s s aa � rvs = a "sasas" aasa � �ass � � � x�sasaoe < s�s $ a� �ss�aa � a �s� � d E .c K,�',oma as K K � K•d � « a. K_K n p K _ •r:K m - a K 8 ad � c_t w _ vi K r - _ J m U Y asssars � asw $ _ sags» - - �ssasg » esss $� _ _ ass „ a� ssssw � a F w «w w w w x w w w w w » w »x «« » «w w w w w w w w wTIT w w wwww w w wwwwww wwww w» » w «»»«««x x«x li 2 p:eC i g 6 g ., o OG B z �i GO OG GO z € g a"aaQ4 aaE � �. iza"oo5asasaaaaa �a ❑❑ aa" ❑oaoosas as 8 ae a�oozoo� s � ci � acaa 8 n r , CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 2 CITY PROJECT NO,91902 - D-HpB.. Eat QuaNUdt Unitprke Hem Totak Unit Price Item T-1, I Unit Price 1 Item Tomk I Urdt Price I I-T-6 I Unit Price I Iter T..I. AREA 4-OAK GROVE AVENUE FROM CALIFORNIA DRIVE TO WINCHESTER DRIVE 59 R°place F%fing 24"S3 with 27"PVC(Open Cm) 1,002 LF S 300 S 300,600 $ 250.00 S 250,500.00 S 275.00 S 275,550.00 S 300.00 S 300,600.00 S 400.00 S 400,800.00 --ALTERNATE II 60 Lme Exiting 21"SS with 21"C1PP 300 LF S 130 $ 39,000 S 160.00 S 48,000.00 S 150.00 $ 45,000.00 S 130.00 S 39,000.00 S 150.00 S 45,000.00 61 Replace Eds6ng Mmhole with 48"Diameter M-h le 2 EA S 6,5W S 13,000 S 9,000.00 S 18,000.00 S 5,000.00 S 10,000.00 S 11,000.00 S 22,000.00 S 6,000.0 S 12,000.00 62 1-115 LF Pipe Smb end R-Eg g Pipes with Rducer 1 EA S 11000 $ 1,0110 $ 400.00 S 400.00 S 1,000.00 $ I,000.m S 1,800.00 $ 11800.00 S 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 63 Remove Ed.fing Manhole 3 EA $ 2,000 S 6,000 $ 51000.00 S 15,000.00 S 1,000.00 S 3,000.E S 3,20.00 $ 9,600.00 S 500.00 S 1,500.W 64 Modify Eluting manhole 1 EA S 500 S 500 S 2,000.00 S 2,000.00 $ 5,750.0 S 5,750.00 S 1,200.00 S 1,20.00 S 500.00 S 5-.E 65 R l-Eds6ng 4"Sewer Lahml 11 EA S 1,600 S 17,6110 S 500.00 S 5,500.00 S 1,000.- S 11,000.00 S 2,W0.W S 22,".00 S 3,000.E S 33,000.E 66 Repkce Elting 4"Sewer Cleanout 11 EA S 400 S 4,400 S 1-.W S 1,1m.- S SE.W S 5,5-00 S 4W.W S 4,40.00 $ 500.00 S 5,50.00 AREA 4TOTAL: S 382,100 S 340,500.00 S 351900.00 S 400,600.00 S 500,300.00 AREA 5-CALIFORNIA DRIVE FROM BELLEVUE AVENUE TO BURLINGAME AVENUE 67 kw Edsfin ]0"SS with Ery(urvehed l8"FPVC( Cm) 128 LF S 165 S 27,120 S 350.00 S 44,600.00 S 275.00 S 35,200.00 S 24(1.00 S 30,720.00 $ 300.00 S 38,400.00 68 Replace Edson 10"S3 with City furnished IS"FPVC(Pipe Bwsl) 500 LF S 145 $ 73,905 S 70.00 S 35,630.00 $ 195.00 $ 99,245.00 S 100.00 $ 50,900.00 S 250.00 S 127,250.00 69 Abandon Elting 8"SS 601 LF S 55 $ 33,055 $ 2.00 S 1,202.00 $ 15.00 $ 9,015.00 $ 8.00 S 4,808.00 S 1.00 S 601.00 70 Replan Elting Mmdmle with 48"Maahok 2 EA $ 6,500 S 13,000 $ 91000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 15,0X00 $ 11,00.00 S 22,000.00 $ 6,000.00 S 12,0-.W 71 Remove Fadating M-h.k I EA S 2,000 S 2,000 S 3,500.00 S 3,500.00 $ 3,000.- $ 3,000.00 S 5,000.00 S 5,0110.W $ 5-.- S 5-.W 72 Ab-d-EAA.Mavhole 3 EA S U50 S 3,750 S 2,000.- S 6,-0.00 S 2,000.00S 6,000.00 S 2,BOO.W S 8,400.00 S 500.00 S 1,500.00 73 Replace Ewsting 6"Sewer Leted(W-fCaf i.DrJ 7 EA S I,8- S 12,600 S 600.W S 4,200.00 S 2,000.00 $ 14.000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 3,5-.E S 24,5-.- 73'Repkce Edatng 6"Sewer Letemi(Ee ofCdimmk Dr.) 1 EA S 2,3E S 2,300 $ 42W.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 S 2,400.00 S 2,4-.00 S 4,000.00 S 4,000.W 74 Replace E*isfing 6"Sewer CI-1 8 EA S 500 S 4,000 S 121.00 $ 960.00 S 750.00 S 6,000.00 S 400.00 S 3,2E.W $ 50000 $ 4,0110.00 75 Construct New 6"PVC G9-Wates Min 540 LF S 115 S 62,100 S 166.- S 89,640.00 S 125.00 S 67,500.00 S 130.00 S 70,200.00 S 200.00 S 108,000.00 76 Instil New 6"Water vele 1 EA S 1,400 $ 1,400 S 700.00 S 700.00 $ 4500.00 S 2.5-.00 $ 1,100.00 S 1,100.00 S 1,000.- S 1,000.00 77 Inemll New 2"BlowoffA..embly 1 EA S 3,000 S 3,000 $ 2,000.W $ 2.0-.00 $ 5,000.00 S 5,000.- S 2,3-.00 S 2,3-.- S 1,0-.- S I,OW.W Remove Ex Wamr Meta end Meter Box Instill New Water M- 78 and Meter Bo;Reconnat Wamr Serviws with 2"Service Line 5 EA S 4,000 S 20,000 S 2,000.00 S 10,000.00 S 3pq .W S 15,00000 S 3,900.00 S 19,500.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Inside id-bored HDPE casing(Water Mehr m be Famished by Eeat side ofCdif'a Ddve: 7Sa Remove Ex Water Meter and Meter Ho;fi-11 New Water Meta I EA S S," S 5.000 S 10,000.- S 10,0-.W S 12,5W.W S 12,500.00 S 51500.00 S 5,500.00 $ 4,0-.00 S 4,000.00 and Mehr Box,Reconnect Winer Service..ith 2"Service Li- (W-Memr m b.Furnished by City 79 Remove Edsfing Fire Hydrant end I..WI New Fim Hydrant 2 EA S 5,000 S 10,000 S 2,000.00 S 4,000.00 S 9,000.00 S 19,000.00 S 6,500.00 S 13,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 Water Sysmm Til.No.1 Including eU Fitting;Fledbk Coupling, 80 Gam valva Th-Blink Couphng Adaptor,Mega Lug and all 1 IS S 9,500 S 9,5- S 3,500.00 S 3,500.00 S 7,500.00 S 7,500.00 S 5,000.00 S 5,000.00 S 3,000.W S 3,0-.- Accesson Water System Tio-ly No.2 kdding dl Fitting;Fl dbk Coupling, 81 Gamvdve,Throat Blwk,Cwph,g Adaptw,Mega Lug.nd dl 1 LS S 8,500 S 8,500 $ 4,000.00 S 4,000.00 S 6,0E.W S 6,000.W S 2,0-.00 S 2,000.00 S 3,0-.E S 3,000.00 A- 82 TreB'ic Svippin&Tre[Bc SiLoop;end Parking Meter 1 LS $ 15,00 S 15,1810 S 6,000.- S 6,000.00 S 20,000.- S 21000.- S 11,000.- S 11,000.- S 10,000.00 S 10,000.00 Relocation AREA TOTAL: S 300,130 S 245,332.00 S 34;970.00 S 271,028.00 5 365,751.00 AREA 6-1200 BLOCK CAPUCHINO AVENUE(OPTION) Replan Edsfing 6"SS with 83 0 6"DR 25 FPVC w 688 LF $ 110 S 75,680 $ 70.E $ 48,160.00 $ 85.00 S 58,480.00 S 60.00 S 41.280.0 $ ]WOO $ 68,800.W 0 6"DR 17 HDPE Pi Burst) Repkce Ed i g 8"SS with 94 0S"DR 25 FPVCw 290 LF S 125 $ 36,250 S 70.W S 20,3W.00 $ 95.00 S 27,550.00 $ 77.00 S 22.330.00 $ 100.00 S 29,000.E 0 8"DR 17 HDPE Pi B-) 85 Line Elting 6"SS with 6"CIPP 55 LF S 80 S 4,400 S 180.E S 9,9011.- S 175.W S 9,625.00 $ 200.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 180.00 S 9,900.00 96 Repkce Edsting Manhole with 48"Manhole 2 EA S 6,500 S 13,OW S 9,000.- S 18.000.00 $ 3,0-00 $ 6,000.00 S 9,000.00 S 18,000.00 S 6,000.00 S 12,000.00 87 Rept-Eristing Manhole with 36"Manhole 2 EA S 51000 $ 10,000 $ 8,000.00 S 11000.00 S 2,560.- S 5,000.00 S 9,000.00 S 18,000.00 S 5,OW.W S 10,OW.- 88 Repkce Edsfi g Manhole with 36"Type H Mar hk 4 EA $ 4,560 $ 18,000 S 7,000.00 $ 28,000.00 S 2,500.00 S 10,000.00 S 6,500.00 S 26,000.W S 5,000.W S 20.00.E 89 h.WI5 LF Pipe Stub end Reconnect Edti.g Pipe 1 EA $ 1,000 S 1,000 S 400.00 $ 400.00 S 1,000.00 S 1,000.00 S I,000.W $ 1,000.00 S $000.- S 2,000.00 90 R.-Edsfing Lemph.1 1 EA S 2,1100 S 2,0110 S 400.- S 400.00 S 5-.- $ 500.00 $ 700.00 S 7-.00 S 200.- S 2-.00 91 Repkw Edsfivg 4"Sewer Latero 16 FA S 1,600 S 25,600 $ SW.- S S,WO.m S 750.00 S 12,000.00 $ 1,8-.00 $ 28,800.00 $ 500.00 S 8,000.00 92 Rept-EdA.g 4"Sewer Cleanout Ifi EA S 400 S 1400 S 100.00 S 1,6-.- S 5W.00 $ S.O-.00 S 4-.00 $ 6,4-.00 $ 500.00 $ 8,000.00 93 Repkce Elting 6"Sewer Lend 10 EA S I'm S 1$000 S SSO.W S 5,5-00 $ 1,000.00 S 11000.- S 1,8-.00 S 18,000.00 $ 5-.00 S 5,0-.00 94 Replace Etdting 6"Sewer Clemwut 10 EA S 5- S 5,000 S 120.W S 1,2-00 S 750.- S 7,5-.00 - S 4 .00 $ 4,000.00 $ 5- -0 .00 S 5, .W AREA 6TDTAL: S 215,330 S 157,4-.00 S 155,655.00 S 195,510.00 S 177,900.00 ALTERNATE 1:OPEN CUT OPTION: PROJECT TOTAL(ALTERNATE 7 $ 2,509-M6 S 2,144,000.00 S 2,677,383.00 S 2,679,91100 S 2,883,474.00 ALTERNATE II:PIPE BURSTING OPTION: Convector has the option m use pipe bursting method m r 1p the edsfi,27"SS long Roflins Road(Area 1)and the a wdog 24"SS long Ok Grove Avenue(Area 4). AREA 1-900 BLOCK ROLLINS ROAD AND 27"SIPHON MODIFICATION 12 JRplro Etdting 27"SS with 30"DR 25 FPVC(Pipe Bmat) 1 304 1 LF IS 275 1 S 83,6110 S 350.00 1 S 106,400.- $ 350.W $ 106,4-.00 S %.- S 29,184.00 S 350.00 S 106,400.00 AREA 4-OAK GROVE AVENUE FROM CALIFORNIA DRIVE TO WINCHESTER DRIVE 59 kse Edsfiv 24"SS with 27"DR 26 FPVC Pi Bunt 1,-2 LF S 245 $ 245,490 S 250 00 $ 250,500.00 $ 275,00 S 275,5509M S 79M S 78,156 W $ 375 00 S 375,750 W PROJECT TOT AL(ALTERNATE II): S 2,410,516 S 2,144,000.00 $ 2,677,383.00 S 2,365,050.00 S 2,910,104.00 Contracmr he.the option m use pipe fvdng m.dh between ww SSMH E5-21035 end new SSMH 005-21036 within the Town of Hilkbomogh. AREA 1-800 BLOCK ROLLINS ROAD AND 27"SIPHON MODIFICATION Rryhce Edting IS"SS with 36 0 16"DR 25 FPVC w 253 LF S 170 S 43,010 S 150.- S 37,950.00 S 235.- S 59,455.00 S 144.00 S 3fi,432.W T 150.- S 37,950.00 0 16"DR 17 DIPS HDPE Pi Burst 36a Repkce Edatieg 15"SS with IS"VCP(Open Cut) 12 LF S 190 S 2,280 S Ira.- $ 1,2-.- S 475.- $ 5,700.00S 190.- S 2,280.- S 250.- S 3,000.00 366 Live Erz IS"SS with l5"CIPP SI LF S 1- S S,IW S 3W.W $ 15,300.E $ 365.00 $ 18,615.00 $ 377.00 IS 19,227.00 I S 320.-I S 16,320.W ALTERNATE III:ROLLINS ROAD LINING OPTION: Commove has another option m use pipe lining mad d m replace the,dawg 27"SS oong Ronin.Rued(Area 1). AREA I-800 BLOCK ROLLINS ROAD AND 27"SIPHON MODIFICATION 12 Line Edafin 27"SS with 2T CIPP 304 LF S 150 1 S 45,600 S 2W.W IS 60,800.00 S 160.00 S 48,640.00 IS 166.00 1 S 50,464.W S 160.E 1 S 48,640.00 aww.e"w.e..o".a,"ymovrrsa,wam a�.yn.ne.�.+ awe vmav • t �;c� �kJ �vvds, ���. PROJECT LOCATION 1p_ ;P CN,4 7N RD QA LNUREL `LAUREL........ EL PROJECT ...... LOCAT�ION VE...,:, 4,1, LINDEN AVE- : ............. VE .............. ............. .......... AVE ,.,L�ALPINE A ...... ............... ....... G ............ , " ............ --------- .LAND .......... ------------ ...... .. A Ve ...... .... . :� _�L• i�o ------ L ROAD t I S _ -"I-",-I*' RAI W I ------ Rrolv ........ LU AVE 0 CC . ........ ...... MATE ....... 4j: —--------------- - c- . ....... A ......... -L XUr VE eARK D _UCvjATEL iz 1pvr ct) CROS SINA �2 zz ..... Osc 0 D uj ......... Ct ........... ------- 2 REPS" cr 0 .--*;I. ......... C PAJ ;4c;q 1 1?1. : 1 ... .... _Q Lo 04f�' ..... TAIRFIELD ........... Iq cj ....... PROJECT o. Ul LOCATION..=_ ......... ..-------- EL.. CAMINO.,:REAL : �... 13ALBOA AVE < PROJECT 0 _........................................ .........------------ co/o E"'r vc LOCATION CORTEZ AVEa 2' 03 4 11 it 00's, Q7 ........ .....- VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE Agenda 9d • Item# Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: July 21, 2008 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 9, 2008 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OVERRULING THE BID PROTEST AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. FOR THE MITTEN ROAD SEWER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 81360 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution overruling the bid protest and awarding a construction contract to Gantry Constructors, Inc. for the Mitten Road sewer pump station improvements project in the amount of$437,100. BACKGROUND: The Mitten Road sewer pump station has served its useful life and is in need of rehabilitation. Staff completed the engineering design of the project and prioritized it for construction. The project scope of work consists of installing new submersible pumps, motors and appurtenances including plumbing upgrades, new electrical equipment and control building. DISCUSSION: The project bids were opened on July 1, 2008 and four bids were received ranging from $437,100 to $491,440. Gantry Constructors, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $437,100 being 16.8% above the engineer's estimate of $374,000. Staff believes that the recent pricing increases in electrical equipment and masonry building materials resulted in the bid amount being higher than the engineer's estimate. JMB Construction, Inc., a second apparent low bidder submitted a protest asserting that the lowest bid from Gantry Constructors, Inc. should be disqualified as subcontractors were not listed for some items of work. After a thorough review of licensing requirements, references, contractor's experience and qualification to successfully perform the work per contract specifications, staff has determined that the Gantry's bid is responsive and the protest should be overruled. JMB Construction, Inc. is informed of this determination. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff ReportsWward Mitten Pump Station.doc BUDGET IMPACT: Estimated expenditures: Construction contract $437,100 Contingency(15%) $ 65,565 Construction Design&Testing $ 25,000 Staff Administration 25,000 TOTAL $552,665 There are adequate funds available in the project budget to complete the project. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Bid Summary, Gantry Constructor's letter, JMB Construction's letter and staff correspondence. Doug Bel, .E. Senior Civil Engineer C:City Clerk,City Attorney, Finance Director SAA Public Works Directory\Staff ReportMAward Mitten Pump Station.doc RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME OVERRULING BID PROTEST BY JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. FOR MITTEN ROAD SEWER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT — CITY PROJECT NO. 81360 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City issued an invitation for bids for the Mitten Road Sewer Pump Station Improvements Project, City Project No. 81360 ("Project"); and WHEREAS, after receipt and opening of bids, JMB Construction, Inc. filed a bid protest with the City dated July 2, 2008, requesting the City to determine whether Gantry Constructors, Inc., the apparent low bidder, could perform the work on the Project without a licensed electrical subcontractor or could perform the Project lining work without a subcontractor certified by the lining manufacturer; and WHEREAS, the City confirmed that Gantry Constructors, Inc. possesses a current Class A General Engineering Contractor's license from the State of California, which authorizes Gantry Constructors, Inc. to perform all work related to a sewer or sewer system project, including electrical and lining work, without the need for a subcontractor; and WHEREAS, Gantry Constructors, Inc. affirmed in writing that it was ready and experienced in performing the electrical and lining work required for the Project, WHEREAS, the bidding process has been conducted in accordance with the Burlingame Municipal Code and the Public Contract Code, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that: 1 . The Plans and Specifications for the Mitten Road Sewer Pump Station Improvements Project are approved and adopted. 2. The bid protest of JMB Construction. Inc. is overruled. 3. The bid of Gantry Constructors, Inc. for the Project in the amount of $437,100 is hereby accepted. 1 4. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into the Agreement contained in the Project Specifications on behalf of the City of Burlingame with Gantry Constructors, Inc. Mayor I,Doris Mortensen,Deputy 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 , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 2 BID RESULTS SUMMARY(Bid opening,July 1,2008) D Bell Mitten Rd Sewer Pump Station Improvement Project,CP 81360 2-Jul-08 Items# Bid Item Description Gantry JMB Anderson Pack Trinet Nolte Constructor Inc. Construction Inc. Engineering Construction Construction Inc. Engr Inc. Estimate 1 Mobilization $ 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 40,440 $ 16,200 2 Grading $ 10,000 $ 3,200 $ 15,000 $ 50,000 $ 22,500 3 2"water pipe&back flow preventer $ 5,000 $ 8,000 $ 7,000 $ 15,000 $ 3,000 4 Fence $ 2,100 $ 3,400 $ 4,000 $ 6,000 $ 2,800 5 12'wide gate $ 2,000 $ 2,400 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 2,500 6 MCC Building $ 60,000 $ 42,000 $ 59,000 $ 86,000 $ 35,000 7 Demolition of existing PS $ 10,000 $ 6,000 $ 12,000 $ 15,000 $ 26,000 8 Wet well&appurtenances $ 98,000 $ 125,000 $ 130,000 $ 108,000 $ 84,000 9 Valve vault&appurtenances $ 35,000 $ 25,500 $ 66,000 $ 15,000 $ 41,000 10 Temporary by pass pumping $ 25,000 $ 27,000 $ 25,000 $ 8,000 $ 40,000 11 Wires and conduit $ 55,000 $ 88,000 $ 65,000 $ 10,000 $ 19,000 13 MCC $ 95,000 $ 92,000 $ 54,000 $ 135,000 $ 48,000 Contingency $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 34,000 $ 437,100 $ 442,500 $ 460,000 $ 491,440 1 374,000 BURLINGAME c n r o x w n . 11 The City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD CORPORATION YARD TEL: (650) 696-7230 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 (650) 696-7260 FAX: (650)685-9310 July 11, 2008 JMB Construction Inc. 132 South Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attention: Mr. Dana Wilkins Senior Estimator Subject: Bid Protest letter dated July 2, 2008 Proj ect: Mitten Road Pump Station Improvement, City Project No. 81360 Dear Mr. Wilkins, This letter will confirm statements made during our telephone conversation of today, in regard to your Bid Protest letter dated July 2, 2008. City has determined that the bid of Gantry Constructors Inc. is responsive and has been determined to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. Our conclusion is based on a review of licensing requirements, discussions with past Gantry project references, and a letter, submitted by Gantry Constructors Inc., confirming that they will self perform the work, and that they are fully qualified to self perform the work per contract specifications, specifically the electrical work and wet well lining work. We appreciate your concern in this matter, and trust that you will continue to participate in the bidding of future City projects. Please contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Art Morimoto Assistant Director of Public Works Cc: L Anderson, City Attorney S Murtuza, PWD D Bell, Senior Engineer File 81360 S:\A Public Works Directory\Author,By Name\Art MorimotoUMB.ltr.wpd NAGE 02 Aft MANTRY CONSTRUCTORS� INC. ROCIS9543ArIzono&jjcense Rocj7U91 HE r-lftrnia License 901945 AVY CIVIL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS New Mexico License 8$505 N-ads Or censo July 8, 2008 Sent by Fax (650)685-9,3,1,0&US Mail Dov-Bell City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California PrOP Mitten Road Sewer Pump StatiOn Improvement Prqject City PrQject No, 81.360 Subj` SelfP17,Tform,'APce of Electrical Work Dear Mr. Bell, Please consider this letter as confirmation of our intent to self perform the electrical work on the above referenced project -under our General Contractor's license, # 801945 A. During preparation of our bid we were unable to obtain. an.37- bids from qualified electrical subcontractors. Cxa-ntry Constructors, Inc. has self performed the electrical work On. similar prQject6 in the Past and three of the most recent include: Cypmts Shore & La Pata Pump Stations Rehabilitation City Of Spn Clemente, CA. Contract Amount, $2,313,059 G-reg Deist, Construction Mgr. Ph# (949) 361-6154 Segunda Deshecha Urban Runoff Treatment Facility City of San Clemente, CA Cmitract Amount: $2,457,000 Handan Cirit, Construction Mgr, Ph# (949) 361-6128 Lift Station D Project-Contract# 1182 City of Huntington Beach, CA Contract Amount: $5,113,966 Joe Dale, Public Works Dept. Ph# (714) 536-5915 RO, Box 819 clarkdale. AZ 56324 928,649 2093 Fax-928-649-0925 www.gantrycon!structoi,s.com An additional point of clarification would be in referencing Section 02651-3, specifically QUALIFICATION OF WORK CREW. Gantry's foreman and work crew supervisor has well over 4 years of experience with similar work and project conditions relating to cementitious lining applications. Please don't betaitate to contact me if you have any additional questions. Thaxxk you, Ver --t�Ri V y7u/lly -ours aym d E. Blu, PD__; _ , resident Ends: N/A Cr: Burlingame File Joe Welsh cooSTRUCTioN General 1404 Engineering COntraator 1+ CCL 715324 July 02, 2008 Director of Public Works, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Ke: Mitten Road Sewer Pump Station Improvement Project City Project No. 51360 Subject: Bid Protest. Director of Public Works: This letter is hereby submitted as our firins Bid protest Por the above referenced project. Specifically, we are protesting the current apparent low bid submitted by Gantry Constructors, INC. Gantry Constructors, INC (GCI)was required to list all subcontractors whom will perform work in an amount in excess of 1/of 1 percent of the total bid. GCI failed to list an Electrical subcontractor on the"Designation of Subcontractors" sheet provided in the bid proposal (ref. Attachment A). According to the Contractors State License Board, OCT are licensed only as Class A General Engineering Contractors. JMB listed Lunlinalt Energy Corporation to perform the Electrical portion of the work_ Luminatt is a C-10 Electrical subcontractor. The cost of this work can be gauged frons the Subcontractor quote f rnished by Lum.inalt(ref. Attachment B) in the aua(3LCilt of 4,1�'S,nnn or 35.5% cit' their bid amount, clearly in excess of V2 of 1 percent of their total bid. GCl also Tailed to last a subcontractor to perform the Wet Well Lining as set out in Section 02651 of the Contract Specification. JMB listed Pacific Liners, a certified installer of"LaFarge Calcium Aluminate Mortar" to perform this portion of the work. The cost of this work can be gauged from the Subcontractor quote furnished by Pacit:ic Uners (ref. Attachment C) in the amount of 538,780 or 8.9% of their bid amount, again clearly in excess of`/2 of I percent of their total bid. 132 South Maple Avenue p South San Francisco, California 94080 (650) 267-5300 - Fax(654) 267-5301 www.jmbconstruction.com L0/7,0 39dd ONI NOIionN1SNOO 9Wr ZOEStK099 9b:bt 800Z/Z0/L0 JMB Construction INC. Mitten Road Pump Station improvement Project Page Two Taking the above into account GCI is potentially in violation of the California Public Contract Code. Public Contract Code Section 4104 (which Attachment A refers to) states that"any person making;a bid or offer to perform the work shall, in his or her bid or offer, set forth ... each subcontractor who will perform work ... ii an amount in excess of one-hall of 1 percent." Further, under Public Contract Code Section 4106 "if a prime contractor fails to specify a subcontractor... , the prime contractor agrees that he or she is fully qualified to perform that portion himself or herself'. It is our belief that GCI is not qualified to perform the aforementioned portions of work required to carry out this contract. We respectfidly request that the bid submitted by Gantry Constnlctors, INC. be determined to be non-responsive and the bid submitted by JMB Construction, INC. be determined the lowest responsible bid. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 267 5300, should you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, JMB Construction, INC. Dana V'v illcins Senior Estimator ATTACHMENT CC: Margaret Burke,President,JMB Construction, INC. bite:c{adcin/protcsUMilrtanitd/Burlingame I -MT k1r)T i env i akin,) CTWr 7PPC/47MQq Ct7:t7T PPn7/71.1/!Q Agenda 9e Item# Meeting BURLINGAME Date: July 21, 2008 ~ STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED . APPROVED BY. C TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 21, 2008 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BROADWAY FARMER'S MARKET AND TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for the Broadway Farmer's Market and traffic control plan. BACKGROUND: In June 2008, an encroachment permit was issued to Chamber of Commerce for a farmer's market event on trial basis at the 1800 block of EI Camino Real along the frontage road adjacent to Burlingame Plaza shopping center. Due to resistance to the market location from some property owners of Burlingame Plaza as well as due to concerns from the market vendors, the Chamber of Commerce decided to move the market location to near Broadway. DISCUSSION: Staff worked with the Chamber of Commerce and Broadway merchants group and identified the first block of Capuchino Avenue north of Broadway as the market site. A traffic control plan was developed for the closure of Capuchino Avenue during the event and adjacent residents and businesses were notified. The market was successful and no complaints were received after the first two events. The event is scheduled to be held every Wednesday 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm annually from May to November. Staff recommends that Council approve the Farmer's market with the following conditions: • Chamber of Commerce should notify the affected residents and the businesses in the area no less than 48 hours in advance of the event. • City approved traffic control plan must be complied with and any changes to the plan must be approved by the City in advance. • The Chamber of Commerce should provide and maintain necessary certificates of insurance and hold the City harmless against any liability arising as a result of the farmer's market. BUDGET IMPACT: Some staff time would be involved in coordinating the event which will not have a significant impact on City resources. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Traffic Control Plan C: City Clerk, City Attorney RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE BY THE BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF A PORTION OF THE FIRST BLOCK OF CAPUCHINO AVENUE NORTH OF BROADWAY FOR A FARMERS MARKET ON WEDNESDAYS FROM 4:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. FROM MAY 1 TO NOVEMBER 30 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce has requested the City to approve the closure of the 120-foot portion of the first block of Capuchino Avenue immediately north of Broadway to conduct a farmers' market on Wednesday evenings from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the City's engineering staff has developed a traffic control plan attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution that the Chamber of Commerce has accepted; and WHEREAS, the conduct of a farmers market is in the public interest, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Closure of the 120-foot portion of the first block of Capuchino Avenue immediately north of Broadway to conduct a farmers' market on Wednesday evenings from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. between May 1 and November 1 is approved subject to the following conditions: A. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce shall notify residents and businesses in the first block of Capuchino Avenue no less than 48 hours in advance of the conduct of the farmers market. B. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce shall be solely responsible for implementing and complying with the traffic control plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and the plan is hereby approved and affirmed. However, the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce remains solely responsible and liable for determining whether the traffic control plan conforms with legal requirements and good engineering practices and whether the plan is sufficient to protect the vendors and attendees at the event. The City makes no warranty or representation that the location or facilities that the Chamber of Commerce is using for the farmers market are suitable, safe, or appropriate for the Chamber's needs or purposes. 1 C. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce shall provide a certificate of insurance together with an endorsement naming the City, its officers and employees as additional insureds, in a form and amount approved by the City Attorney, and a hold harmless and indemnity agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney for the operation and conduct of the farmers market. 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 ,2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 Post sign on barricade onROAD CLOSED �n barricade on ' TO T Capuchino at north west Ca t south west ._ corner of Capuchino/Lincolncorner of Capuchino/Lincoln ersection. intersection. 5S t F 4 s a TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN BROADWAY/CAPUCHINO AVE. i ' MARKET !!! ' ,l i WWK D A T AGENDA STAFF REPORT 9f ITEM NO.: BURLINGAME ' MTG.DATE: 7/21/08 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted By DATE: July 21, 2008 FROM: Com. Dev. Dept.—Building Division Approved By SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR ATTENDANCE AT OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attendance of the Chief Building Official at an out-of-state conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota for the International Code Conference (ICC) annual business meeting and code adoption final hearings. BACKGROUND: The International Code Council (ICC) sponsors their annual business meeting in various cities throughout the United States. This year the conference is being held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Chief Building Official is Burlingame's representative at these meetings. At the business meeting and code adoption hearings the Chief Building Official, as the City of Burlingame's Class A member, will vote on a variety of code change proposals. Burlingame's participation in the code change process provides the City a voice in changes that are made to the Building Code. The Building Official will also attend the business sessions, will attend a variety of building code seminars, and will obtain Continuing Education Units required for job certifications. Attached is the flyer for the conference. The estimated cost for travel, accommodations, registration and food for the conference is approximately $2,375. EXHIBITS: Conference Flyer BUDGET IMPACT: Funds are available in the FY2008-2009 Building Division Budget c City Clerk, Community Development Director U:(STAFF REPORTS0UT OF STATE TRAVEL STAFF REPORT MINNEAPOLIS 6-17-08.DOC k� kk¢4f �V9 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS (TENTATIVE) SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17 8 am-4 pm 5th Annual Bob Fowler 6:15 am-7:30 am Fun Run Motorcycle Ride 7 am-5 pm Registration/Bookstore 2 pm-6 pm Registration/Bookstore 8 am-11 am Companion Breakfast 6 pm-11 pm Minnesota Hospitality Event 8 am-5 pm Final Action Hearings 11 am-1 pm Awards Luncheon SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 14 1:30 pm-5:30 pm International Forum 7 am-2 pm Annual Golf Tournament 6:30 pm-10 pm Reception/Annual Banquet 8 am-4 pm 5th Annual Bob Fowler Motorcycle Ride THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 18 8 am-5 pm IAS Board Meeting(invite only) 7 am-5 pm Registration/Bookstore 9 am-10:30 am Fellowship Event 8 am-8 pm Final Action Hearings 9 am-6:30 pm Registration/Bookstore 9 am—S pm Nomination Committee Meeting FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19 2 pm-6 pm Expo 7 am-5 pm Registration/Bookstore 3 pm-5 pm ICC Regional Meetings 8 am-5 pm Certification Testing 6 pm-10 pm Welcoming Event 8 am-8 pm Final Action Hearings MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1S SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 7 am-9 am Chapter Presidents Breakfast 7 am-5 pm Registration/Bookstore 7 am-6 pm Registration/Bookstore 8 am-5 pm Certification Testing 9 am-11 am Opening Session 8 am-8 pm Final Action Hearings 11:30 am-1 pm General Assembly Luncheon 1:15 pm-4:15 pm Education Program SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 1:30 pm-3:30pm Companion Orientation 3 pm-6 pm Expo 8 am-5 pm Certification Testing 4:30 pm-6 pm Candidates Forum 9 am-5 pm Registration/Bookstore 7 pm-11 pm Minnesota Hospitality Event 10 am-8 pm Final Action Hearings TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16 MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 7 am-5 pm Registration/Bookstore 7 am-5 pm Registration/Bookstore 8 am-10:30 am Annual Business Meeting 8 am-5 pm Certification Testing 9 am-4 pm Companion Tours 8 am-8 pm Final Action Hearings 11:30 am-1 pm Cracker Barrel Luncheon 1:15 pm-4:15 pm Education Program TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 1:15 pm-4:15 pm Chapter Leadership Workshop 7 am-5 pm Registration/Bookstore 1:30 pm-4:30 pm IT Symposium 8 am-8 pm Final Action Hearings 4 pm-8 pm Expo 4:30 pm-6 pm Delegate Photos 6 pm-8 pm Exhibitors Reception BOOKSTORE Saturday,September 13—Tuesday,September 23 Browse through the newest ICC books,CDs and videos for building and fire officials,inspectors, designers,and plan reviewers. 2 1 2008 Annual Conference and Final Action Hearings www.iccsafe.org/conference SCHEDULE OF EVENTS (CONTINUED) CYBER CAFE Sunday,September 14—Tuesday,September 23 Sponsored by: Panasonic (a® oil THE OFFICIAL COMPUTER OF THE 2008 ANNUAL CONFERENCE A bank of computers with Internet access will be set up for use by conference attendees to check emails and Internet sites while they are away from the office.The Cyber Cafe will be located near the registration area. EXPO Sunday,September 14 2 pm-6 pm Monday,September 15 3 pm-6 pm Tuesday,September 16 4 pm-8 pm Learn about the latest building and construction products and services offered by manufacturers,trade associations and related companies exhibiting at the Expo.This year's Expo will feature a specialized area for Plumbing/Mechanical/Fuel Gas trades.Find the right tools to make your job easier and more effective.Network with representatives from various industries as you discover the latest advances in building technology. For a current list of exhibitors,visit www.iccsafe.org/expo. CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS Friday,September 19—Monday,September 22 Two administration sessions will be administered each day for a variety of categories including building, electrical,plumbing,mechanical,and fire.Walk-in testing is available,on a first-come,first-served basis. Testing is limited to 30 candidates per seating.Candidates are strongly encouraged to preregister to confirm their seating availability. To pre-register or for more information on the examinations,references,fees,content outlines,and testing procedures,visit www.iccsafe.org/certification/exams/2008Conference-exam. FINAL ACTION HEARINGS Wednesday,September 17—Tuesday,September 23 Wednesday 8 am-5 pm I Thursday—Saturday,Monday—Tuesday 8 am-8 pm I Sunday 10 am-8 pm The 2008 Final Action Hearings will finalize the cycle of code development between the 2006 and 2009 editions of the International Codes®.The results of this cycle will be combined with the 2007 Supplement to the International Codes to produce the 2009 editions. At these hearings the agenda will consist of consideration of proposed changes that either received a public comment based on the action of the code development committee or for which there was a successful assembly action at the Code Development Hearings held February 18—March 1,2008. Also on the agenda will be the ratification of committee action for those proposed changes that did not receive a public comment or successful assembly action.Any interested party can participate in the debate at the hearings,with the final vote on all proposed changes determined by the ICC Governmental Member Representatives. www.iccsafe.org/conference 2008 Annual Conference and Final Action Hearings 3 ,���' 7 k STAFF REPORT BURUNGAMEAGENDA ITEM# 9S MTG. 7/21/08 wollp DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY /1y DATE: June 26.2008 APP RO D FROM: Central County Fire Department BY SUBJECT: Reclassification of Fire Mechanic to 40 hour position Recommendation: Approve the reclassification of the existing Fire Mechanic position to a 40 hour per week employee and adjust hourly wage for the position to maintain current monthly compensation. Background: The Fire Department is undergoing an organizational restructure to gain efficiency and reduce staffing costs due to overtime. Part of the restructure involves our automotive division. The current staffing is one (1) mechanic and two (2)mechanic helpers. The current classification of Fire Mechanic is a 56 hour per workweek position. The job responsibilities include maintenance of fire apparatus and staff vehicles for the department and maintenance of outside agency apparatus by contract. The current position requires performance of mechanic duties during normal business hours and performance of firefighting duties after normal business hours. The position is supported by two (2) firefighter/mechanic helpers who receive a 5% specialist pay and additional 8.5% incentive pay for outside agency work(combined total for the two specialists- $30,000 annually). They also work in the shop during normal business hours and as a firefighter after normal business hours. Due to staffing issues, these three (3)positions require additional overtime funds to relieve the three (3) firefighter mechanics of their suppression duties to allow them to work in the automotive shop during normal business hours ($116,000 annually). Reclassification of the Fire Mechanic to a 40 hour position will give the department a full-time, dedicated mechanic. The reorganization will also eliminate specialist and outside agency pay for the two(2)mechanic helpers and save overtime due to the need to backfill the mechanics during shop assignment hours. Additional savings will be realized through the lack of need to backfill the 40 hour Fire Mechanic for vacation or other leave ($15,425 annually). The current compensation for the Fire Mechanic is $38.01 per hour on a 56-hour(shift) work week basis, or the equivalent of$53.21 per hour on a 40-hour work week basis. The proposed new hourly rate for the 40- hour Fire Mechanic is $59.78. The additional compensation is required to insure no loss of current compensation for the Fire Mechanic, and to incorporate the current premium pay into base bay for this position. It should be noted that upon the retirement of the current Fire Mechanic, the Department intends to convert this position to a non-sworn 40-hour classification. Budget Impact: This change is estimated to generate net annual savings of$161,425.00 through reduction in overtime pay and elimination of premium pays. Attachments: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN REGARDING THE POSITION OF FIRE MECHANIC RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City's civil service is governed by a classification plan that allocates positions to provide effective and efficient service to the community; and WHEREAS,the fire chief is proposing that the position of fire mechanic be reclassified from a 56-hour a work week position to a 40- hour a work week position; and WHEREAS,this reclassification will significantly reduce overtime costs and create other efficiencies in the operation of the fire department's vehicle shop; and WHEREAS, the person currently in the fire mechanic position will be sustained at the person's current pay level; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has approved this reclassification pursuant to the City's Civil Service Rules & Regulations, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The reclassification of the fire mechanic position from a 56-hour per work week position to a 40-hour per work week position is approved. 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 , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK ���,CITY oz STAFF REPORT B4JwRLWCiAME AGENDA ITEM# 9h �o MTG. DATE 07/21/2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY Jack Van Etten,Chief of Police DATE: 06/30/2008 APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Etten,Chief of PoliceC BY Jim Nantell,City Manager SUBJECT: Consent Calendar Item—Authorization to Reclassify the Position of Police Commander toolice Captain RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the reclassification of the existing Police Commander position to Police Captain. DISCUSSION: At the present time,the majority of law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County have the title of Police Captain as the Second-in-Command. The change from the existing title of Police Commander to that of Police Captain would align the Burlingame Police Department to the majority(as well as the industry standard)of law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County and the Bay Area. The reclassification to Police Captain would not alter the existing duties,responsibilities or compensation of the position of Police Commander. BUDGET IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN REGARDING THE POSITION OF POLICE COMMANDER RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City's civil service is governed by a classification plan that allocates positions to provide effective and efficient service to the community; and WHEREAS,the chief of police is proposing that the position of police commander be reclassified to police captain at the same pay rate; and WHEREAS,this reclassification would bring the Burlingame classification system regarding police management into conformity with other police departments on the Peninsula; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has approved this reclassification pursuant to the City's Civil Service Rules &Regulations, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The reclassification of the police commander classification to police captain is approved. 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 , 2008,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 9i ITEM# MTG. 7/21/08 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL susWTED BY DATE: July 1, 2008 APP VED FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT FOR LAGUNA,PALOMA,AND "J" LOT PLAY AREA RESILIENT SURFACING—CITY PROJECT NO. 81790. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution awarding the subject work to Blossom Valley Construction, Inc. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame has been engaged in a program to upgrade the surfacing at its children's playgrounds. This is being accomplished with total playground renovation projects and with retrofit projects. The current project is a retrofit of three existing playgrounds. The project will upgrade the drainage and install rubberized surfacing to replace the current wood chip surfacing at the three playgrounds. The City began specifying rubberized surfacing for new playground installations in the mid 1990s. Previous installations had specified wood chips (often referred to as "engineered wood chips" or"Fibar" as the surfacing material. Engineered chips comply with state regulations for ADA access to playgrounds; however, use of chips requires constant maintenance and replenishment in order to keep them in compliance with surfacing regulations. The experience of the Parks Division has also been that supervising adults are less likely to walk into playgrounds with engineered chip surfacing. The chips are also a difficult medium in which to play. There is little for children to do on the engineered wood chips apart from accessing the equipment. Rubberized surfacing is more inviting for adults to enter the playground areas and, hence, to provide more direct supervision for their children. Rubberized surfacing requires less on going maintenance, is less affected by inclement weather, and provides an ideal surface for access for children with disabilities. Rubberized surfacing is much more expensive than engineered wood Construction documents for the selected parks were prepared by Landscape Architect John Cahalan. The construction will involve removal of existing chips, drainage improvements, modifications to meet accessibility requirements, and installation of accessible resilient surfacing on an installed concrete base. Add alternates were part of the bid package. The add alternates will provide for design and color variations on the installed surfacing. The construction documents were completed and put out to bid. The architect's estimate was $177,534 (base 158,850 plus three add alternates) for the construction costs. Three bids were received. The low bid was $157,850 (151,900 base) from Blossom Valley Construction, Inc. Blossom Valley Construction, Inc. is a San Jose company that has worked extensively in the Bay Area on a wide variety of projects, many of which were for municipalities. Bids received were as follows: COMPANY BASE BID TOTAL BID Blossom Valley Constr. 151,900.00 157,850.00 Golden Bay Construction 188,669.00 194,869.00 JDB Construction 213,720.00 213,720.00 It is estimated that the project will be completed by early November 2008. BUDGET IMPACT: The project is funded with $229,000 in the CIP budget. That amount will be adequate to fund the projected costs of: Construction Documents 21,000 Printing/advertising Costs 350 Administration and Inspections 3,800 Construction 158,850 Construction Contingencies 16,000 TOTAL $200,000 ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution Awarding Contract B. Agreement with Blossom Valley Construction, Inc. ATTACHMENT "A" RESOLUTION NO. AWARDING CONTRACT - LAGUNA PALOMA AND "J" LOT PLAY AREA RESILIENT SURFACING CITY PROJECT NO. 81790 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME,that; WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the LAGUNA, PALOMA, AND "J"LOT PLAY AREA- CITY PROJECT#81790 and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2008, all bids received were opened before the Interim Parks Superintendent, the Administrative Secretary of the Parks Division, and the Landscape Architect, and WHEREAS, BLOSSOM VALLEY CONSTRUCTION, submitted the lowest bid for the job in the amount of$157,850.00; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the bid of BLOSSOM VALLEY CONSTRUCTION for said amount of$157,850.00 be and the same is hereby accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor and materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. 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 14th day of July 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT LAGUNA.PALOMA&"T'LOT PLAY AREA RESILIENT SURFACING CITY PROJECT NO. 81790 THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into in the City of Burlingame,County of San Mateo, State of California on 2008,by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME,a municipal corporation,hereinafter called"City",and hereafter called"Contractor," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and execution of this Contract;and WHEREAS,a notice was duly published for bids for the contractforthe improvement hereinafter described;and WHEREAS,on after notice duly given,the City Council of said City awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor,which contractor said Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for said improvements;and WHEREAS,City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements; NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scone of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Specifications entitled: LAGUNA,PALOMA&"J"LOT PLAY AREA RESILIENT SURFACING PROJECT#81790 2. The Contract Documents. The Complete contract consists of the following documents:This Agreement,Notice Inviting Sealed Bids,copies of the prevailing wage rates on file with the Director of Public Works,the accepted Bid, the complete plans,profiles,detailed drawings and State Standard Specifications,Special Provisions and all bonds,and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one,and not mentioned in the other,or vice versa,is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. AGREEMENT-1 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full,payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of ($ ). Said price is determined by the unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event work is performed or materials furnished in additionto those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications,such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 5. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: TIMOTHY J. RICIIMOND PARKS PROJECT COORDINATOR CITY OF BURLINGAME 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: 6. Interpretation. As used herein,any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. AGREEMENT - .2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of three (3) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original ofthis Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAlME "CONTRACTOR" By By ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney AGREEMENT - 3 CITY STAFF REPORT BUIR INGAME AGENDA 9 ITEM# j MTG. 7/21/08 NAT®-6, DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. SUBMITTED I BY DATE: July 21,2008 APPROVED , V FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Employer Pickup Resolution--Pre-Tax Payroll Deduction ilan for Service Credit Purchases RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution authorizing the California Public Employees' Retirement System (Ca1PERS)pre-tax payroll deduction plan for service credit purchases. BACKGROUND: Currently, employees have the option of purchasing various types of service credit under CalPERS, including temporary service time, military service time, and the newly available"Additional Retirement Service Credit" (which allows employees to purchase up to five years of service credit that is not based on employment with a Ca1PERS employer). Employees who elected to purchase Ca1PERS service credit via payroll deduction had been doing so at their own expense on an after-tax basis. On April 3, 2006, you approved a similar resolution enabling employees to purchase such service credit at their own expense on a pre-tax basis. Ca1PERS informed staff that the April 3, 2006 resolution was specific to the former 2% at 55 retirement formula, and that with the implementation of the 2.5% at 55 formula effective March 31, 2008, it is necessary to submit a revised resolution that is non-specific to a particular retirement formula. The revised resolution will therefore apply to all miscellaneous and safety employees, regardless of retirement formula. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Return to CaIPERS- Unit 830 Employer code: 0018 EMPLOYER PICKUP RESOLUTION PRE-TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTION PLAN FOR SERVICE CREDIT PURCHASES (CONTRIBUTION CODE 14) WHEREAS, the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) at the April 1996 meeting approved a pre-tax payroll deduction plan for service credit purchases under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 414(h)(2); and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame{Employer) has the authority to implement the provisions of IRC section 414(h)(2) and has determined that even though implementation is not required by law, the tax benefit offered by this section should be provided to those employees who are members of CaIPERS; and WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame (Employer)elects to participate in the pre-tax payroll deduction plan for all employees in the following CaIPERS Coverage Group(s): {Membership Coverage Group(s)) All Miscellaneous Employees and All Safety Employees NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. That the City of Burlingame(Employer)will implement the provisions of IRC section 414(h)(2) by making employee contributions for service credit purchases pursuant to the California State Government Code on behalf of its employees who are members of CaIPERS and who have made a binding irrevocable election to participate in the pre-tax payroll deduction plan. "Employee contributions" shall mean those contributions reported to CaIPERS which are deducted from the salary of employees and are credited to individual employee accounts for service credit purchases, thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions. II. That the contributions made by the City of Burlingame (Employer)to CaIPERS, although designated as employee contributions, are being paid by the City of Burlingame(Employer)in lieu of contributions by the employees who are members of CaIPERS. III. That the employees shall not have the option of choosing to receive the contributed amounts directly instead of having them paid by the City of Burlingame (Employer)to CaIPERS. IV. That the City of Burlingame {Employer)shall pay to CaIPERS the contributions designated as employee contributions from the same source of funds as used in paying salary,thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions. V. That the effective date for commencement of the pre-tax payroll deduction plan cannot be any earlier than the date the completed resolution is received and approved by CaIPERS. VI. That the governing body of the City of Burlingame{Employer)shall participate in and adhere to requirements and restrictions of the pre-tax payroll deduction plan by reporting pre-tax payroll deductions when authorized by CaIPERS for those employees of the above stated Coverage Group(s)who have elected to participate in this plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the governing body of the City of Burlingame (Employer) this 21 st day of July, 2008. {year) BY (Signature of Official) (Title of Official) RETURN ADDRESS: FOR CALPERS USE ONLY Pre-tax payroll deduction plan effective date: Approved By: Title: MEMBER SERVICES DIVISION, Service credit section-Unit 830 AGENDA a ITY ITEM# 9� STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE:July 21,2008 �e are. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Jack Van Etten,Police Chief DATE: July 10, 2008 APPROVED — FROM: Jack Van Etten,Police Chief BY: Jim Nantell,Ci�ger SUBJECT: Consent Calendar- Approval for Captain Michael Matteucci to attend the FBI National Academy,a professional law enforcement command staff training course in Quantico,Virginia RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully recommend that the city council approve the request to send Captain Michael Matteucci to out of state training at the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy in Quantico,Virginia,for I 1 weeks of professional command staff training. DISCUSSION: The Federal Bureau of Investigation offers 1 I weeks of professional law enforcement command staff training at their National Academy facility in Quantico,Virginia.The academy training(from September 28,2008 through December 12, 2008)involves both leadership and management development for law enforcement management personnel and is accredited through the University of Virginia. Part of the police department's future vision is to increase the level of professional leadership and management training for both management and command staff personnel and to expose them to professional training on a state and national level.Only 2%of law enforcement professionals are nominated and selected to attend the FBI National Academy.At the present time,the police department has 2 employees who've attended and graduated form the FBI National Academy. BUDGET IMPACT: Round trip air fare,food, lodging,and study materials are paid for by the federal government.The police department would be required to provide our student with$1,500.00 to cover the expenses associated with the purchase of uniforms, athletic gear,and related costs that the federal government doesn't cover.This expense will be covered from existing funds in the current 08-09 police department budget. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of the FBI National Academy acceptance letter for training. Edi U.S. Department of Justice �s�¢ Federal Bureau of Investigation In Reply,Please Refer to 450 Gol den Gate Avenue File No. 1C-SF-142947 P.O. Box 36015 San Francisco, California 94102 July 7, 2008 Chief Jack L. Van Etten Burlingame Police Department P.O. Box 551 Burlingame, California 94011-0551 RE : Commander Michael J. Matteucci Candidate - 235th Session FBI National Academy September 28 - December 12 , 2008 Dear Chiefs Van Etten: c' I am pleased to extend an invitation to Commander Michael J. Matteucci to attend the 235th Session of the FBI National Academy at Quantico, Virginia. The FBI is proud to sponsor the National Academy for outstanding law enforcement leaders from agencies throughout the world. I look forward to Commander Matteucci ' s participation in the program. A representative from this office will contact Commander Matteucci regarding his travel arrangements in the very near future . Should Commander Matteucci or you have any questions, please contact Special Agent B. J. Sullivan, Training Coordinator at telephone number (925) 363-2074 . Sincerely Cha ene B. Thornton Special Agent in Charge CC : Commander Michael J. Matteucci $3,894,326.37 Ck. No. 33272-34042 Excludes Library Cks.33429-33462 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT ✓vl Payroll for June 2008 $2,884,629.49 Ck. No. 171816- 172063 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS&ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION CDn m CL ao CD C 3 a � N � S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS d Of/ CITY OF BURLINGAME 07- 11 -2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 18 FUND RECAP - 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 48,486. 19 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 1 , 750 .00 WATER FUND 526 3, 057.05 SEWER FUND 527 716, 177.86 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 447, 139. 00 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 3 , 142 .40 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 752 . 15 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 44, 784 .32 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $11265 , 288.97 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL : THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 18 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33819 THROUGH 34042 INCLUSIVE , TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 , 265 , 288.97, 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 07-11-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 17 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 137,470.20 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 60,298.95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 63,179.09 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 29,332.22 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 910.00 WATER FUND 526 322,993.65 SEWER FUND 527 57,528.82 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 10.15 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 28,726.06 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 7,041.77 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,331.79 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2,609.82 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 558.56 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 42,814.35 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 147.16 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 9,686.50 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $765,639.09 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 17 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33819 THROUGH 34042 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $765,639.09, 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, .................................... ...r.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-11-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 16 FUND RECAP - 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 185,956.39 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 60,298.95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 63,179.09 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 31,082.22 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 910.00 WATER FUND 526 326,050.70 SEWER FUND 527 773,706.68 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 10.15 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 475,865.06 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 7,041.77 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,331.79 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 5,752.22 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 558.56 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 43,566.50 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 147.16 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 54,470.82 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $2,030,928.06 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 16 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33819 THROUGH 34042 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,030,928.06, 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 15 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 34027 MR/MRS BRITO 28706 65.00 MISCELLANEOUS 65.00 101 36330 000 1890 34028 CHRISTIE KONG-WU 28707 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 34029 KARINA & GABRIEL GOMEZ 28708 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 34030 DORIS HUEY 28709 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 34031 ELIZABETH SARWAR 28710 80.00 MISCELLANEOUS 80.00 101 36330 000 1370 34032 MR/MRS BIANCHI 28711 44.00 MISCELLANEOUS 44.00 101 36330 000 1645 34033 LORI TAPIA 28712 88.00 MISCELLANEOUS 88.00 101 36330 000 1645 34034 JOANNE CHHINA 28713 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1782 34035 CATHERINE RICHARDS 28714 76.00 MISCELLANEOUS 76.00 101 36330 000 1372 34036 NINA OLDHAM 28715 153.00 MISCELLANEOUS 153.00 101 36330 000 1349 34037 JAMEE SCHORNO 28716 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1782 34038 KERRIE RONAN 28718 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1782 34039 BURLINGAME POLICE CADETS 28719 752.15 MISC. SUPPLIES 752.15 730 69533 120 34040 BOB GIBSON 28720 1,280.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,280.00 101 22520 34041 ELISA EISEMAN 28721 138.00 MISCELLANEOUS 138.00 101 36330 000 1372 34042 WING F. TRAN 28722 40.00 MISCELLANEOUS 40.00 101 36330 000 1890 TOTAL $2,030,928.06 a CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 14 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 34012 LAURA P GODFREY 28690 317.00 MISCELLANEOUS 165.00 101 36330 000 1372 MISCELLANEOUS 152.00 101 36330 000 1890 34013 GEHAD MORSY 28691 190.00 MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 36330 000 1646 34014 STEPHANIE BARADA 28692 296.00 MISCELLANEOUS 296.00 101 36330 000 1370 34015 PORTIA RODRIQUEZ 28693 11.00 MISCELLANEOUS 11.00 101 36330 000 1890 34016 CARMEL BORELLA 28694 32.00 MISCELLANEOUS 32.00 101 36330 000 1370 34017 RACHEL SAGER 28695 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 34018 MATTIE TEAHAN 28696 232.00 MISCELLANEOUS 232.00 101 36330 000 1890 34019 IGOR ROYZEN 28698 624.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS 524.00 101 36330 000 1213 34020 PECKHAM & MCKENNEY 28699 AP 5,833.33 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 5,833.33 101 64420 121 34021 ALL SIGN SERVICES 28700 AP 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 34022 GOLDEN STATE PORTABLES 28701 AP 1,642.01 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,642.01 101 68010 220 1950 34023 SFPUC WATER DEPARTMENT 28702 AP 782.05 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 782.05 526 69020 290 34024 MR/MRS HAYS 28703 274.00 MISCELLANEOUS 274.00 101 36330 000 1349 34025 BENEDICT J ALMARIO 28704 57.00 MISCELLANEOUS 57.00 101 36330 000 1372 34026 EMILY KENNER 28705 186.00 MISCELLANEOUS 186.00 101 36330 000 1349 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33996 WALTER PEACOCK 28672 59.00 MISCELLANEOUS 59.00 101 36330 000 1890 33997 SUSAN K COBOS 28673 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1660 33998 SHEILA ELGAARD 28674 236.00 MISCELLANEOUS 236.00 101 36330 000 1660 33999 ARLENE LEITNER 28675 108.00 MISCELLANEOUS 108.00 101 36330 000 1660 34000 CARMINA SALDANA 28676 67.00 MISCELLANEOUS 67.00 101 36330 000 1349 34001 SABRINA WEMPLE 28677 260.00 MISCELLANEOUS 260.00 101 36330 000 1331 34002 YULIA LOPATYUK 28678 231.00 MISCELLANEOUS 164.00 101 36330 000 1372 MISCELLANEOUS 67.00 101 36330 000 1646 34003 SHUK KWAN CHOI-ARCENEAUX 28679 189.00 MISCELLANEOUS 189.00 101 36330 000 1372 34004 STAN CHUDNOVSKY 28681 138.00 MISCELLANEOUS 138.00 101 36330 000 1372 34005 KIM FIRENZE 28682 138.00 MISCELLANEOUS 138.00 101 36330 000 1372 34006 GALINA KOSIKOVA 28683 162.00 MISCELLANEOUS 162.00 101 36330 000 1372 34007 SARAH LUCAS 28684 138.00 MISCELLANEOUS 138.00 101 36330 000 1372 34008 MICHELLE WARFORD 28685 138.00 MISCELLANEOUS 138.00 101 36330 000 1372 34009 SALLY FUNG 28687 89.00 MISCELLANEOUS 89.00 101 36330 000 1762 34010 DIANA MILLS 28688 89.00 MISCELLANEOUS 89.00 101 36330 000 1762 34011 ANNA NADELSON 28689 144.00 MISCELLANEOUS 144.00 101 36330 000 1890 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33980 REYHAN DOGAN 28655 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 33981 LISA WEN 28656 493.00 MISCELLANEOUS 209.00 101 36330 000 1349 MISCELLANEOUS 284.00 101 36330 000 1644 33982 CHANGSIK YOO 28657 232.00 MISCELLANEOUS 232.00 101 36330 000 1890 33983 TINA ARMANINO 28658 39.00 MISCELLANEOUS 39.00 101 36330 000 1646 33984 CHRISTI A HOLMES 28659 39.00 MISCELLANEOUS 39.00 101 36330 000 1646 33985 CHERYL C. GRACZEWSKI 28660 39.00 MISCELLANEOUS 39.00 101 36330 000 1646 33986 CHRISTINA LEE 28661 45.00 MISCELLANEOUS 45.00 101 36330 000 1646 33987 MAKI TAZAWA 28662 90.00 MISCELLANEOUS 90.00 101 36330 000 1646 33988 MR/MRS WOO 28663 45.00 MISCELLANEOUS 45.00 101 36330 000 1646 33989 KRISTEN GRAY 28664 104.00 MISCELLANEOUS 104.00 101 36330 000 1646 33990 ERICA WARREN 28665 52.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52.00 101 36330 000 1646 33991 MARYANNE RIBI 28666 104.00 MISCELLANEOUS 104.00 101 36330 000 1646 33992 VALERIE SHU 28667 52.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52.00 101 36330 000 1646 33993 JANET MARTIN 28668 114.00 MISCELLANEOUS 114.00 101 36330 000 1422 33994 MARIA MAURICIO 28669 270.00 MISCELLANEOUS 270.00 101 36330 000 1422 33995 SUZANNE PERTSCH 28671 135.00 MISCELLANEOUS 135.00 101 36330 000 1422 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33964 EILEEN D'ARCY 28591 67.00 MISCELLANEOUS 67.00 101 36330 000 1349 33965 SPRINT 28604 AP 799.84 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 799.84 101 65100 220 33966 ANDREA WONG 28628 3,888.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,888.00 101 68010 220 1330 33967 FIRE TRUCK HEADQUARTERS 28631 AP 15,376.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,376.92 201 65200 220 33968 BRENDA PADERANGA 28643 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 33969 BARBARA VAN DILLON 28644 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 33970 CHIKA ALLEN 28645 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 33971 BENJAMIN ROTTLER 28646 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 33972 JAMIE KENT 28647 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 33973 AMY MISHRA 28648 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 33974 KATHLEEN GAMBA 28649 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 33975 STEPHANIE YEE 28650 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 33976 DENNIS FERGUSON 28651 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 33977 NICOLE LIONETTI 28652 175.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1216 33978 DANA WAYNE 28653 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 33979 NICOLE COZART 28654 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33949 AT&T MOBILITY 27714 AP 65.91 COMMUNICATIONS 65.91 101 64150 160 33950 AT&T MOBILITY 27725 AP 110.09 COMMUNICATIONS 110.09 201 65200 160 33951 MUNI FINANCIAL 27742 AP 5,820.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,820.00 101 64560 210 33952 SOMERSET AUCTIONS 27797 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 33953 SUSAN M. SCOTT 27895 105.00 MISCELLANEOUS 105.00 101 36330 000 1644 33954 SANDRA ETCHELL CONSULTING SERVIC 27970 AP 2,400.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,400.00 320 79410 210 33955 LESLIE MCKNEW 27994 189.00 MISCELLANEOUS 189.00 101 36330 000 1372 33956 CARDINAL RULES 28008 88.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 88.00 101 68010 220 1788 33957 SARAH H. WILEY 28036 138.00 MISCELLANEOUS 138.00 101 36330 000 1372 33958 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 AP 1,493.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 633.26 619 64460 120 5250 MISC. SUPPLIES 392.41 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES 350.74 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 116.98 619 64460 120 5250 33959 MR/MRS GUCCIONE 28178 110.00 MISCELLANEOUS 110.00 101 36330 000 1646 33960 KATHERINE LOFRANO 28372 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1782 33961 KELLY BRESLIN WRIGHT 28386 374.00 MISCELLANEOUS 374.00 101 36330 000 1370 33962 CAINE COMPUTER CONSULTING 28458 AP 9,551.52 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,551.52 101 65100 210 33963 CYNTHIA AL-JAMEA 28565 108.00 MISCELLANEOUS 108.00 101 36330 000 1660 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *" Denotes Hand Written Checks 33934 AMERICAN MESSAGING 26822 AP 102.45 COMMUNICATIONS 102.45 526 69020 160 33935 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 AP 346.43 OFFICE EXPENSE -57.42 101 65300 110 OFFICE EXPENSE -29.67 101 66210 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 336.15 526 69020 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 97.37 527 66520 120 33936 COUNTY PRINT 26909 444.42 MISCELLANEOUS 444.42 101 22515 33937 MARGO MCKINNON 26961 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1782 33938 SAN FRANCISCO FENCERS CLUB 27032 147.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 147.20 101 68010 220 1762 33939 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF SAN 27283 AP 19.61 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.61 619 64460 120 5120 33940 CHRISTINA IP-TDMA 27328 95.00 MISCELLANEOUS 95.00 101 36330 000 1646 33941 ECMS INC 27389 AP 95.34 MISCELLANEOUS 95.34 201 65200 144 33942 KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES 27428 AP 1,250.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,250.00 101 68020 210 2200 33943 HELEN TRAN 27500 300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 68010 220 1789 33944 PROMOTIONAL ADVANTAGE 27563 AP 2,276.87 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,276.87 730 69593 120 6017 33945 PAW PRINTS 27626 AP 4,866.16 MISC. SUPPLIES 4,866.16 101 68010 120 1370 33946 ROBERT ANTHONY FLOWERDAY 27667 95.00 MISCELLANEOUS 95.00 101 36330 000 1646 33947 ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION 27674 2,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 101 64560 220 33948 JESSICA LIU-WONG 27705 252.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 252.00 101 68010 220 1331 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 33918 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 173.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 173.00 526 69020 190 33919 JOSEPH PADUA 25509 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 33920 THE BRIDGE SCHOOL 25563 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 33921 VALERIE BRUNICARDI 25586 16.00 MISCELLANEOUS 16.00 101 36330 000 1370 33922 ROBIN KNIFSEND 25597 1,020.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,020.00 101 22525 33923 KEVIN REYES 25970 210.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.00 101 68010 220 1789 33924 EDMOND'S PLAZA FLORIST 26041 AP 251.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 251.14 101 65100 120 33925 IMPACT SCIENCES 26099 AP 77.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 77.50 101 64400 210 33926 BUS & EQUIPMENT REPAIR 26386 AP 7,494.78 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,494.78 201 65200 220 33927 CEMEX 26506 AP 53.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 53.40 101 66210 120 33928 MIKE ADAM 26517 90.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1788 33929 WENDY VOORSANGER 26525 276.00 MISCELLANEOUS 276.00 101 36330 000 1372 33930 LAKE TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS 26590 AP 648.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 648.96 101 66210 120 33931 SFPUC WATER DEPARTMENT 26633 AP 6,337.05 MISCELLANEOUS 5,555.00 526 69020 233 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 782.05 526 69020 290 33932 KATHRYN BAXTER 26690 138.00 MISCELLANEOUS 138.00 101 36330 000 1372 33933 IRENE AZZOLLINI 26728 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 33903 WESTERN TRUCK FABRICATION 24215 AP 978.75 MISC. SUPPLIES 978.75 527 66520 120 33904 JC WHITLAM MANUFACTURING 24369 AP 1,982.35 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,982.35 101 68020 190 2200 33905 SAN MATEO MEDICAL CENTER 24408 AP 2,800.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 2,800.00 101 65100 292 33906 METCALF & EDDY INC 24445 AP 29,332.22 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 29,332.22 326 80910 210 33907 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 24466 AP 279.29 MISC. SUPPLIES 279.29 526 69020 120 33908 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 AP 379.86 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 379.86 101 64420 121 33909 ART IN ACTION 24912 2,955.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 920.00 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,035.50 101 68010 220 1644 33910 DON'S MOBILE GLASS, INC. 24956 AP 250.00 SUPPLIES 250.00 620 15000 33911 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES 25013 4,563.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,563.00 101 68010 220 1349 33912 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 AP 171.35 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 171.35 201 65200 220 33913 DIAMOND DIESEL SERVICE INC. 25062 AP 968.84 SUPPLIES 968.84 620 15000 33914 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 705.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 423.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 282.00 101 68010 220 1646 33915 ZOLL MEDICAL 25097 AP 4,725.00 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 4,725.00 201 65200 290 33916 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 AP 37.20 OFFICE EXPENSE 27.05 201 65200 110 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 10.15 530 65400 200 33917 ROCHE GEORGE 25323 90.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1788 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33891 OFFICE MAX 23306 AP 746.41 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SVC. 329.99 101 68010 011 1100 OFFICE EXPENSE 298.29 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 56.38 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 61.75 201 65200 110 33892 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 AP 364.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 364.13 619 64460 120 5130 33893 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 23470 AP 95.85 MISC. SUPPLIES 95.85 101 66210 120 33894 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 AP 107.15 MISC. SUPPLIES 104.18 619 64460 120 5250 MISC. SUPPLIES 2.97 619 64460 120 5170 33895 AT&T/MCI 23728 AP 9,715.46 COMMUNICATIONS 28.96 621 64450 160 UTILITY EXPENSE 9,686.50 896 20281 33896 KEITH MARTIN 23788 AP 79 08 MISC. SUPPLIES 34.00 101 66210 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 8.11 526 69020 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 31.66 527 66520 120 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 5.31 527 66520 250 33897 MAD SCIENCE OF THE BAY AREA 23841 4,420.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,420.00 101 68010 220 1349 33898 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 AP 5,361.06 MISC. SUPPLIES 754.11 101 68010 120 1111 MISC. SUPPLIES 158.17 101 68010 120 1114 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 503.37 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,354.00 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 591.41 619 64460 220 5240 33899 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 AP 14,615.86 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 14,615.86 320 79410 210 33900 C.F. ARCHIBALD 24094 AP 44,550.73 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 44,550.73 320 81670 220 33901 DAVID DELBON 24186 114.00 MISCELLANEOUS 114.00 101 36330 000 1422 33902 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 AP 213.20 OFFICE EXPENSE 213.20 101 64400 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33877 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 AP 1,202.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,202.96 101 66210 120 33878 CEB 21210 AP 443.44 MISC. SUPPLIES 443.44 101 64350 120 33879 SHERATON GATEWAY HOTEL 21471 AP 755.60 MISC. SUPPLIES 755.60 101 68020 120 2100 33880 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 AP 93.72 MISC. SUPPLIES 93.72 101 66210 120 33881 MANDEGO, INC. 21855 AP 1,598.60 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,450.96 101 68010 120 1787 MISC. SUPPLIES 147.64 101 68010 120 1789 33882 VB GOLF LLC 21948 900.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 101 68010 220 1784 33883 Z.A.P. MANUFACTURING 22249 AP 1,240.39 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 1,240.39 101 66210 222 33884 RACHEL REED 22749 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 36330 000 1331 33885 JIM NANTELL 22762 AP 1,720.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,720.00 101 64150 031 33886 BURLINGAME FAMILY PET HOSPITAL 22773 AP 139.77 MISC. SUPPLIES 139.77 101 65100 120 33887 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 AP 400.00 MISCELLANEOUS 400.00 526 69020 233 33888 DAVE MICHAELS 22847 255.00 MISCELLANEOUS 255.00 101 36330 000 1423 33889 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 AP 1,455.74 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.08 101 65100 120 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,412.66 101 65100 260 33890 SAN MATEO COUNTY PROBATION DEPAR 22943 AP 264.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 264.00 101 65100 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '*1 Denotes Hand Written Checks 33862 RICOH AMERICAS 18555 AP 3,535.90 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 3,535.90 621 64450 200 33863 BAILEY'S 18733 AP 893.85 SMALL TOOLS 893.85 101 68020 130 2300 33864 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 AP 1,720.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,720.00 618 64520 604 33865 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 AP 798.00 MISCELLANEOUS 798.00 526 69020 233 33866 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 AP 1,210.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,210.78 101 68010 120 1781 33867 GOETZ BROTHERS 19045 AP 43.30 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.30 101 68010 120 1785 33868 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 4,846.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,238.00 101 64420 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 608.00 101 64350 210 33869 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 AP 558.56 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 558.56 625 65213 203 33870 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 AP 1,612.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 320 81790 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,312.50 320 81080 220 33871 ALL FENCE COMPANY, INC. 19710 AP 910.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 910.00 327 81800 220 33872 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 AP 228.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220 33873 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 4,204.00 RENTS & LEASES 2,102.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 2,102.00 527 66520 180 33874 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 AP 812.91 COMMUNICATIONS 812.91 621 64450 160 33875 PBS&J 20526 AP 49,908.06 DEPOSIT REFUND 49,908.06 101 22590 33876 ELLEN MAllONI 20614 114.00 MISCELLANEOUS 114.00 101 36330 000 1422 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33847 CAL-STEAM 10557 AP 34.59 MISC. SUPPLIES 34.59 527 66520 120 33848 ROMEO PACKING CO 11348 AP 1,407.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,407.25 101 68020 120 2200 33849 LEE STAMBOLIS 11361 90.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1788 33850 HYATT REGENCY SFO 11673 AP 40,283.09 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 40,283.09 730 69593 220 6017 33851 SENSUS METERING SYSTEMS 14144 1,374.45 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,374.45 621 64450 200 33852 DEWEY PEST CONTROL 14338 AP 5,250.00 RAT CONTROL PROGRAM 5,250.00 527 66520 218 33853 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 AP 1,777.30 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,777.30 101 65100 220 33854 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 AP 1,680.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,680.00 101 68010 220 1787 33855 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 AP 2,874.22 GAS, OIL & GREASE 2,874.22 201 65200 201 33856 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 16148 AP 1,279.20 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,279.20 101 64350 210 3500 33857 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BO 16587 714,075.86 MISCELLANEOUS 447,258.27 527 24320 INTEREST PAYMENT 266,817.59 527 66530 762 33858 DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP 17456 AP 5,250.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,250.00 101 68020 220 2100 33859 LEE & ASSOCIATES 17568 AP 1,355.41 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 71.97 201 65200 203 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,283.44 201 65200 260 33860 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT 18011 AP 368.59 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 368.59 101 65100 200 33861 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 AP 1,794.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,100.00 101 22515 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 694.00 101 64420 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33833 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 AP 314,732.60 WATER PURCHASES 314,732.60 526 69020 171 33834 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 AP 5,750.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,750.00 101 66100 220 33835 RANDY SCHWARTZ 03518 AP 447.00 MISCELLANEOUS 447.00 101 68010 031 33836 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 AP 2,879.28 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,879.28 101 68020 220 2300 33837 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 AP 400.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 400.00 101 65100 260 33838 ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 03938 AP 3,669.68 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 3,669.68 201 65200 200 33839 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 AP 505.04 MISC. SUPPLIES 505.04 101 64350 120 33840 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 AP 67.52 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.71 619 64460 120 5250 SUPPLIES -90.35 620 15000 MISCELLANEOUS 147.16 731 22557 33841 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 AP 1,696.71 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,277.35 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 16.24 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 403.12 101 66210 219 33842 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 AP 24,109.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24,109.00 201 65200 220 33843 NOEL L. MILLER, INC, 09499 AP 1,203.30 SUPPLIES 1,203.30 620 15000 33844 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 AP 474,145.06 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 27,006.06 618 64520 210 INSURANCE PREMIUMS 447,139.00 618 64520 602 33845 CRAIG W. REED 09881 AP 1,973.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,973.00 101 68010 120 1787 33846 LEONA MORIARTY 09979 3,789.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,789.00 101 68010 220 1644 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 07/11/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33819 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 AP 436.81 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.12 619 64460 120 5180 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.69 619 64460 120 5110 MISC. SUPPLIES 272.00 619 64460 120 33820 BURLINGAME ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. 01500 1,750.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,750.00 326 80910 120 33821 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,514.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,514.92 101 64560 220 33822 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 01676 AP 71.55 OFFICE EXPENSE 71.55 101 68020 110 2100 33823 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 AP 275.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 135.00 101 68010 240 1101 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 140.00 101 68010 240 1100 33824 POLETTI ASSOCIATES INC. 01992 AP 8,723.29 MISCELLANEOUS 8,723.29 101 22515 33825 VEOLIA WATER 02110 AP 51,131.14 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 27,943.64 527 66530 190 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 23,187.50 527 66530 200 33826 FEDEX 02160 AP 371.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 235.26 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 26.88 101 64400 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 109.26 101 66100 120 33827 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 AP 161.19 MISC. SUPPLIES 161.19 619 64460 120 33828 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 AP 254.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 254.39 730 69560 120 2300 33829 P. G. & E. 03054 AP 46,546.82 GAS & ELECTRIC 1,762.50 101 68010 170 1286 UTILITY EXPENSE 44,784.32 896 20280 33830 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 1,054.90 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,054.90 101 68010 220 1372 33831 DON PLAGMANN 03172 90.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1788 33832 MARGARET PRENDERGAST 03179 458.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 458.25 101 68010 220 1641 CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-03-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 FUND RECAP - 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 60,662.95 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 9,697.19 SEWER FUND 527 227,371.00 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 4,440.41 STATE GRANTS FUND 734 1,200.00 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $303,371.55 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33709 THROUGH 33818 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $303,371.55, 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 .................................... .../...r... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-03-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 98,602.64 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 996.25 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 8,577.44 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 48,988.80 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 45,668.77 WATER FUND 526 5,014.30 SEWER FUND 527 210.00 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 10,221.18 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 10,573.18 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 4,437.01 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 680.16 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 535.64 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1,472.33 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $235,977.70 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33709 THROUGH 33818 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $235,977.70, 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 07-03-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 159,265.59 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 10,693.44 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 8,577.44 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 48,988.80 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 45,668.77 WATER FUND 526 5,014.30 SEWER FUND 527 227,581.00 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 14,661.59 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 10,573.18 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 4,437.01 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 680.16 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 535.64 STATE GRANTS FUND 734 1,200.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1,472.33 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $539,349.25 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33709 THROUGH 33818 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $539,349.25, 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, .................................... ...C.../... 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 9 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33818 MELISSA MENDOZA 28642 AP 2,115.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 940.00 101 68010 220 1331 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,175.00 101 68010 220 1349 TOTAL $539,349.25 if r CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT °*1 Denotes Hand Written Checks 33803 AT&T MOBILITY 27722 AP 42.43 COMMUNICATIONS 42.43 530 65400 160 33804 AT&T MOBILITY 27724 AP 518.25 COMMUNICATIONS 518.25 201 65200 160 33805 AT&T MOBILITY 27744 AP 65.26 COMMUNICATIONS 65.26 101 65100 160 33806 AT&T MOBILITY 27760 AP 1,365.61 UTILITY EXPENSE 1,365.61 896 20281 33807 AT&T MOBILITY 27763 AP 127.28 COMMUNICATIONS 127.28 201 65200 160 33808 PRE PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 27801 AP 93.65 MISCELLANEOUS 93.65 130 21019 33809 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 28021 3,260.78 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,260.78 130 20021 33810 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 AP 331.57 MISC. SUPPLIES 318.04 101 68020 120 2100 MISC. SUPPLIES 13.53 619 64460 120 5250 33811 AT&T MOBILITY 28264 AP 114.36 COMMUNICATIONS 114.36 619 64460 160 33812 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 28479 AP 292.10 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 292.10 320 80790 210 33813 HILTI INC 28501 AP 2,036.32 SMALL TOOLS 2,036.32 201 65200 130 33814 BOULDER CREEK HARDWARE 28638 AP 1,079.95 MISCELLANEOUS -2.50 201 23611 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,082.45 201 65200 260 33815 BLOOMFIELD MANUFACTURING CO 28639 AP 199.66 MISCELLANEOUS -14.82 201 23611 TRAINING EXPENSE 214.48 201 65200 260 33816 RICOH AMERICAN CORP 28640 AP 12.45 OFFICE EXPENSE 12.45 101 65100 110 33817 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 28641 AP 1,010.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,010.00 101 65100 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33788 ECS IMAGING INC. 25690 6,631.24 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,210.42 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,210.41 101 65150 220 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,210.41 530 65400 120 33789 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 25729 AP 74.43 TRAINING EXPENSE 74.43 101 68020 260 2100 33790 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 25852 AP 512.46 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200 33791 USPS-HASLER 26134 AP 5,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000.00 101 15500 33792 R.A. METAL PRODUCTS, INC 26527 AP 707.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 707.96 526 69020 120 33793 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 AP 213.76 OFFICE EXPENSE 71.41 101 64350 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 108.95 101 65300 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 33.40 526 69020 110 33794 BUREAU VERITAS 26854 AP 24,933.98 MISCELLANEOUS 24,933.98 101 22515 33795 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 26977 AP 106.72 UTILITY EXPENSE 106.72 896 20281 33796 ECMS INC 27389 AP 309.32 MISCELLANEOUS 309.32 201 65200 144 33797 COMMERCIAL OFFICE INTERIORS 27396 AP 426.32 MISC. SUPPLIES 426.32 101 66100 120 33798 CONSTANTINE KINIRIS 27436 AP 1,472.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,472.00 101 22520 33799 RUBINA MIRZA 27610 AP 247.37 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 247.37 101 64420 210 33800 JESSICA LIU-WONG 27705 AP 61.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 61.00 101 68010 220 1646 33801 AT&T MOBILITY 27716 AP 32.23 COMMUNICATIONS 32.23 101 64100 160 33802 AT&T MOBILITY 27717 AP 260.71 COMMUNICATIONS 260.71 101 66100 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33773 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 130 20024 33774 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 640.00 MISCELLANEOUS 640.00 130 20024 33775 C.L.E.A. 24523 526.50 MISCELLANEOUS 526.50 130 20026 33776 STANDARD INSURANCE CO. RB 24525 1,184.40 MISCELLANEOUS 1,184.40 130 20025 33777 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 AP 504.00 UNION DUES 504.00 130 21091 33778 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 AP 320.60 MISCELLANEOUS 320.60 130 21092 33779 JASON DURHAN 24534 AP 1,275.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,275.00 101 22546 33780 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 AP 1,720.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 1,570.00 101 64420 121 TRAINING EXPENSE 150.00 527 66520 260 33781 PRESERVATION PAINTING 24552 AP 5,600.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,600.00 619 64460 210 5240 33782 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENTS ASSO 24605 AP 60.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 60.00 527 66520 240 33783 AETNA 24760 3,905.51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,905.51 130 20022 33784 DON'S MOBILE GLASS, INC. 24956 AP 250.00 SUPPLIES 250.00 620 15000 33785 NEOPOST 24987 AP 76.86 OFFICE EXPENSE 76.86 621 64450 110 33786 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 AP 141.64 OFFICE EXPENSE 15.14 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 126.50 201 65200 110 33787 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMM 25234 AP 5,040.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,040.00 320 82020 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33759 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 AP 674.92 MISC. SUPPLIES 674.92 619 64460 120 5130 33760 PACE CONSULTING 23457 1,200.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,200.00 734 65195 120 33761 PACIFIC PARKING SYSTEMS, INC. 23462 AP 383.71 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 383.71 530 65400 200 33762 EASTMAN KODAK CO. 23597 876.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 876.00 101 65100 220 33763 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 AP 120.94 MISC. SUPPLIES 120.94 619 64460 120 5120 33764 AT&T 23661 AP 48.30 COMMUNICATIONS 48.30 621 64450 160 33765 AT&T/MCI 23728 AP 305.46 COMMUNICATIONS 22.79 101 64250 160 COMMUNICATIONS 106.19 101 65100 160 MISCELLANEOUS 62.41 101 68020 192 2200 COMMUNICATIONS 114.07 201 65200 160 33766 MAD SCIENCE OF THE BAY AREA 23841 AP 5,095.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,095.00 101 68010 220 1349 33767 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 AP 1,598.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.08 201 65200 111 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,124.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 431.82 619 64460 220 5110 33768 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 AP 34.68 COMMUNICATIONS 34.68 101 65300 160 33769 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 AP 35,428.22 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 35,428.22 320 80520 220 33770 BRET BOTTARINI 24049 AP 1,600.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,600.00 101 22520 33771 SPANGLE ASSOCIATES 24113 AP 2,618.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,618.00 530 65400 210 33772 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 AP 78.00 UNION DUES 78.00 130 21080 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33744 BPS REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 19047 AP 787.10 MISC. SUPPLIES 787.10 101 66100 120 33745 PRIORITY 1 19239 AP 81.70 SUPPLIES 81.70 620 15000 33746 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 AP 20.23 MISC. SUPPLIES 20.23 526 69020 120 33747 ALL FENCE COMPANY, INC. 19710 AP 2,710.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 2,710.00 526 69020 190 33748 RACQUET SMITH 20339 AP 8,292.80 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,292.80 101 68010 220 1782 33749 NOLTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20376 AP 44,579.98 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 44,579.98 327 81260 210 33750 FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC. 20967 AP 103.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 103.92 101 65100 220 33751 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 AP 1,890.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,890.00 101 68010 220 1331 33752 CEB 21210 AP 165.38 MISC. SUPPLIES 165.38 101 64350 120 33753 ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC. 21749 2,230.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,230.00 530 65400 220 33754 POWER MAINTENANCE CORPORATION 22349 2,950.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,950.00 101 65100 220 33755 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 AP 400.00 GAS, OIL & GREASE 200.00 101 65100 201 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 200.00 620 66700 210 33756 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 22794 AP 2,500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,500.00 320 79410 210 33757 JONES AND MAYER 22818 AP 214.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 214.50 101 64350 210 33758 OFFICE MAX 23306 AP 42.54 OFFICE EXPENSE 42.54 621 64450 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33733 CHIEF DON DORNELL 11568 AP 1,271.44 MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 201 35230 000 7120 OFFICE EXPENSE 10.27 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 4.00 201 65200 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 20.84 201 65500 120 MISCELLANEOUS 527.13 201 65200 144 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 68.00 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 466.20 201 65200 260 33734 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 AP 490.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 110 COMMUNICATIONS 240.00 101 65100 160 33735 FORTE PRESS CORP. 13759 AP 813.31 OFFICE EXPENSE 813.31 101 65100 110 33736 ADAMSON POLICE PRODUCTS 14414 AP 2,543.52 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 476.38 101 65100 200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,067.14 101 65100 220 33737 SYDNEY MALK00 16347 AP 43.29 SMALL TOOLS 43.29 620 66700 130 33738 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 AP 1,088.79 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,088.79 327 81360 220 33739 ACCURATE MAILINGS, INC 17623 AP 794.62 MISCELLANEOUS 794.62 526 69020 233 33740 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER 18181 AP 500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 500.00 320 79410 210 33741 ELIZABETH FLOOD 18693 AP 235.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 235.00 101 68010 220 1644 33742 BAY ALARM 18854 AP 2,187.37 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 111.00 619 64460 210 5230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 908.14 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 180.00 619 64460 210 5121 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 150.00 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 171.00 619 64460 210 5180 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 120.00 619 64460 210 5121 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 547.23 619 64460 210 5120 33743 BMT IMAGING SYSTEMS 19017 3,060.12 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,060.12 101 65100 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33723 SAN MATEO CTY NARCOTICS TSK FR 03408 44,049.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 44,049.00 101 65100 220 33724 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. 03523 AP 3,542.94 SUPPLIES 3,542.94 620 15000 33725 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 AP 4,318.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,318.92 101 68020 220 2300 33726 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 AP 3,122.48 MISC. SUPPLIES 130.00 101 68010 120 1785 MISC. SUPPLIES 413.80 101 68020 120 2100 MISC. SUPPLIES 210.00 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 75.00 101 68010 120 1891 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 82.79 101 68020 140 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.00 101 68010 220 1331 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 892.25 101 68010 220 1212 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 288.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 465.00 101 68010 220 1645 MISC. SUPPLIES 535.64 730 69593 120 33727 ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 03938 AP 2,446.45 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,446.45 201 65200 260 33728 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 AP 141.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 141.00 101 68010 220 1660 33729 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 AP 3,152.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210 33730 POM INC. 09248 AP 12,115.95 MISC. SUPPLIES 5,228.48 320 80480 120 MISCELLANEOUS 6,887.47 530 65400 400 33731 ANA FITZGERALD 09975 AP 112.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 112.50 101 68010 220 1647 33732 PIP PRINTING 10620 AP 146.79 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 146.79 101 68020 220 2100 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 07/03/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33709 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNME 01131 5,307.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 5,307.00 101 64560 240 33710 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 AP 87.17 SUPPLIES 87.17 620 15000 33711 POLETTI ASSOCIATES INC. 01992 AP 1,730.22 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,730.22 101 64250 110 33712 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 AP 305.12 MISCELLANEOUS 305.12 201 65200 144 33713 VEOLIA WATER 02110 227,371.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 227,371.00 527 66530 220 33714 GENE EVANS 02149 AP 293.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 293.75 101 68010 220 1644 33715 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 AP 784.90 MISCELLANEOUS 784.90 101 68020 192 2200 33716 FEDEX 02160 AP 119.21 OFFICE EXPENSE 30.88 101 65100 110 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 88.33 530 65400 200 33717 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 AP 1,054.33 TRAINING EXPENSE 748.09 526 69020 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 306.24 619 64460 120 5120 33718 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 AP 3,403.04 MISC. SUPPLIES 44.54 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 1,057.88 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 2,300.62 101 66210 226 33719 IRVINE & JACHENS INC. 02599 AP 804.98 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 201.25 101 65100 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 402.49 101 65150 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 201.24 530 65400 140 33720 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 AP 231.91 SUPPLIES 231.91 620 15000 33721 P. G. & E. 03054 AP 17,975.73 GAS & ELECTRIC 17,975.73 101 66100 170 33722 SANDRA POBE 03175 AP 1,595.62 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,595.62 101 68010 220 1644 CITY OF BURLINGAME 06-27-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 FUND RECAP - 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 169,924.27 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 9,937.81 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 17,730.54 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 4,544.80 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 63,886.56 WATER FUND 526 21,688.92 SEWER FUND 527 16,912.82 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 37.68 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 286.71 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 2,456.13 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,838.92 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,161.05 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,330.75 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 6,321.30 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 91,497.31 STATE GRANTS FUND 734 400.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1,933.06 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $412,888.63 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33585 THROUGH 33708 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $412,888.63, 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 .................................... ...r...r... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33706 EDWARD YUEN 28635 10,056.25 MISCELLANEOUS 10,056.25 101 22546 33707 SUSTAINABLE SILICON VALLEY 28636 1,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,000.00 101 64560 210 33708 PHIL BENKER 28637 67.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 67.00 130 20014 TOTAL $412,888.63 ( � 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33691 MARIO CAPRINI 27980 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 33692 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 119.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.40 619 64460 120 5150 33693 RICOH AMERICAS CORP 28221 854.28 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 761.76 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 92.52 101 65150 220 33694 RICKY CIRIMELE 28284 537.00 MISCELLANEOUS 537.00 130 20016 33695 JOE BUNNELL 28287 145.00 MISCELLANEOUS 145.00 130 20016 33696 DANIEL COX 28288 152.00 MISCELLANEOUS 152.00 130 20016 33697 MICHAEL HILLHOUSE 28289 384.00 MISCELLANEOUS 384.00 130 20016 33698 NEAL JOHNSON 28291 281.70 MISCELLANEOUS 281.70 130 20016 33699 PATRICK SIMONS 28295 209.00 MISCELLANEOUS 209.00 130 20016 33700 WILLIAM VELLA 28298 618.30 MISCELLANEOUS 618.30 130 20016 33701 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 28479 1,090.57 MISC. SUPPLIES 997.76 101 66100 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 92.81 320 81790 220 33702 GOLF VENTURES WEST 28630 699.38 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 699.38 101 68020 190 2200 33703 COMCAST 28632 70.00 MISCELLANEOUS 70.00 201 35220 000 7130 33704 JOINT VENTURE SILICON VALLEY NET 28633 13,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 13,000.00 101 64560 210 33705 GREGORY CHOW 28634 1,425.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,425.00 101 22546 .<OFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 169.00 620 66700 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 970.28 625 65213 203 MISC. SUPPLIES 106.00 730 69585 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,112.98 730 69533 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,433.00 730 69593 120 6030 MISC. SUPPLIES 242.96 730 69583 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 810.15 730 69533 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 32.67 730 69533 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,136.27 730 69544 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 447.27 730 69533 220 LIBRARY EXPENSES 757.02 731 22531 MISCELLANEOUS 35.37 731 22558 MISCELLANEOUS 438.14 731 22554 MISC. SUPPLIES 400.00 734 65195 120 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 33690 U.S. BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYST 27931 21,765.91 OFFICE EXPENSE 87.82 101 67500 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 23.51 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 46.53 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 24.00 101 64250 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 871.84 101 68010 120 1891 MISC. SUPPLIES 132.11 101 68010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 29.04 101 68010 120 1520 MISC. SUPPLIES 160.37 101 68020 120 2100 MISC. SUPPLIES 892.14 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES 124.77 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 63.51 101 68010 120 1785 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.95 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 253.33 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 29.96 101 69537 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 845.97 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 268.90 101 65100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 99.00 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.81 101 68010 120 1114 BANKING SERVICE FEES 225.00 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 154.30 101 68010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 83.08 101 64400 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 112.17 101 68010 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 825.00 101 68010 120 1370 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 14.34 101 64420 121 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 72.37 101 67500 125 POLICE--SUPPLIES 268.48 101 65100 126 COMMUNICATIONS 10.81 101 66100 160 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 59.37 101 67500 190 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 375.24 101 68020 200 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 81.72 101 68010 220 1950 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 366.40 101 65150 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 101 68010 220 1370 MISCELLANEOUS 290.04 101 67500 235 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 82.00 101 66100 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 66.00 101 68020 250 2100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 86.29 101 64420 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 156.14 101 69537 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 327.43 101 64150 250 MISC. SUPPLIES 210.68 201 65200 120 SMALL TOOLS 109.90 201 65200 130 COMMUNICATIONS 37.86 201 65200 160 VEHICLE MAINT. 28.90 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 76.32 201 65200 203 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 739.14 201 65200 220 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 804.22 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,387.24 201 65200 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 382.68 527 66520 120 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 220.00 527 66520 240 TRAINING EXPENSE 604.00 527 66520 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 286.71 530 65400 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 97.41 619 64460 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT 'wd Denotes Hand Written Checks 33683 JOSEPH BUNNELL 27243 100.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060 33684 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF SAN 27283 615.59 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 615.59 625 65213 203 33685 OSCAR REYNOLDS 27557 100.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 101 68010 220 1950 33686 JESSICA LIU-WONG 27705 362.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 362.25 101 68010 220 1646 33687 AT&T MOBILITY 27715 78.33 COMMUNICATIONS 78.33 101 65300 160 33688 MUNI FINANCIAL 27742 5,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,000.00 101 64560 210 33689 AD BRAKES 27766 457.20 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 457.20 201 65200 203 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33667 MARTIN DILLON 25774 134.81 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 134.81 130 20060 33668 ED BARTON 25850 100.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060 33669 DAN PAULUS 25917 437.00 MISCELLANEOUS 437.00 130 20016 33670 FEDEX KINKO°S 26021 53.59 SMALL TOOLS 53.59 101 65300 130 33671 DATABANK IMX 26176 6,609.55 MISCELLANEOUS 6,609.55 101 22518 33672 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC 26294 200.00 COMMUNICATIONS 200.00 621 64450 160 33673 MARC SYMKOWICK 26350 145.00 MISCELLANEOUS 145.00 130 20016 33674 DANCE FORCE 26351 2,376.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,376.00 101 68010 220 1646 33675 DEIRDRE DOLAN 26734 2,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,500.00 101 64420 031 33676 CAROL NOWLIN 26736 95.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 95.00 130 20014 33677 FIRE FIGHTER TREE SERVICE 26738 5,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 5,000.00 201 65200 290 33678 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 219.09 OFFICE EXPENSE 219.09 526 69020 110 33679 BUREAU VERITAS 26854 57,638.99 MISCELLANEOUS 57,638.99 101 22515 33680 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 310.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 310.00 101 64420 262 33681 HERMAN BARAHONA 27169 325.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 325.00 201 65200 260 33682 ADVANCE RECRUITMENT SOLUTIONS 27211 1,960.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 1,960.00 101 64420 150 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33652 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 1,493.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,333.00 101 23620 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 160.00 101 64420 210 33653 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 105.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 105.00 619 64460 220 5240 33654 KEVIN PARKIN 24088 8,040.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 8,040.00 101 22520 33655 CHRISTINE REED 24153 1,233.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,233.00 130 20016 33656 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 155.00 SUPPLIES 155.00 201 65200 112 33657 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 18,997.88 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 18,997.88 526 69020 803 33658 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 8.46 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8.46 101 65150 220 33659 CASEY PERA 24829 78.00 MISCELLANEOUS 78.00 130 20016 33660 TOM DONNELLY 24830 148.00 MISCELLANEOUS 148.00 130 20016 33661 LINDSY CALDWELL 24896 309.02 TRAINING EXPENSE 309.02 201 65500 260 33662 ART IN ACTION 24912 3,855.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,655.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,200.00 101 68010 220 1646 33663 DALE ROYAL 25082 516.00 MISCELLANEOUS 516.00 130 20016 33664 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 1,049.79 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE -2.79 101 65100 292 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,052.58 201 65200 110 33665 MICHAEL VONADA 25235 100.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060 33666 SSFFD CTC 25376 189.75 MISC. SUPPLIES 189.75 101 68010 120 1370 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33640 PITNEY BOWES INC 22878 329.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 329.00 621 64450 200 33641 STEVE EHLERS 23014 306.00 MISCELLANEOUS 306.00 130 20016 33642 OFFICE MAX 23306 1,093.09 OFFICE EXPENSE 144.90 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 663.41 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 284.78 621 64450 110 33643 UNIVERSAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 23311 34.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 34.28 619 64460 120 33644 THE CASH REGISTER CO. 23421 135.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 135.00 101 65100 200 33645 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 23470 320.48 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 290.17 101 66210 226 MISC. SUPPLIES 30.31 526 69020 120 33646 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 20,404.59 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 20,404.59 326 81970 210 33647 BART GAUL 23603 8,685.00 MISCELLANEOUS 8,685.00 101 22546 33648 CALIFORNIA EMS ACADEMY 23612 215.00 SUPPLIES 215.00 201 65200 112 33649 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 46.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 46.00 619 64460 120 5170 33650 MAD SCIENCE OF THE BAY AREA 23841 2,785.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,785.00 101 68010 220 1349 33651 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 430.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5150 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5160 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5180 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33626 GE CAPITAL 20216 379.75 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.93 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 284.82 101 68010 220 1101 33627 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 21209 1,737.42 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,737.42 101 65150 220 33628 CIR 21211 2,391.58 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 2,391.58 527 66520 270 33629 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 988.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 494.00 619 64460 210 5120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 247.00 619 64460 210 5230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 247.00 619 64460 210 5130 33630 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 241.78 OFFICE EXPENSE 36.51 201 65200 110 COMMUNICATIONS 205.27 621 64450 160 33631 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 2,250.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,250.00 527 66520 260 33632 SEWER RAT 21821 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 33633 IEDA 21981 3,530.41 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,530.41 101 64420 210 33634 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 70.98 SUPPLIES 70.98 620 15000 33635 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 861.91 MISC. SUPPLIES 861.91 527 66520 120 33636 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 200.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 200.00 620 66700 210 33637 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 2,139.00 MISCELLANEOUS 855.00 201 35220 000 7100 MISCELLANEOUS 1,235.00 201 35221 000 7100 MISCELLANEOUS 49.00 619 64460 804 5170 33638 QUENVOLDS SAFETY SHOEMOBILES 22479 175.36 TRAINING EXPENSE 175.36 619 64460 260 33639 FIRE SERVICE SPECIFICATION & SUP 22705 2,492.84 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 2,492.84 201 65200 200 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33614 BRUCE BARRON 18131 410.00 MISCELLANEOUS 410.00 130 20016 33615 DON CHESNEY 18143 194.00 MISCELLANEOUS 194.00 130 20016 33616 JOHN TSIVIKAS 18177 1,280.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,280.00 130 20016 33617 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 1,499.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,499.00 101 65100 200 33618 BAY ALARM 18854 104.16 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 104.16 619 64460 210 5140 33619 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 1,264.28 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 276.85 101 66210 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 339.64 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 276.83 527 66520 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 37.68 528 66600 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 97.52 619 64460 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 235.76 620 66700 140 33620 PRIORITY 1 19239 1,841.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,841.92 101 65100 220 33621 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 634.65 OFFICE EXPENSE 91.89 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 5.84 101 64200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.84 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.84 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.84 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 377.40 201 65200 111 OFFICE EXPENSE 142.00 621 64450 110 33622 SUMMIT BICYCLES, INC. 19794 4,451.99 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,451.99 320 79160 220 33623 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL 19879 210.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 210.00 619 64460 210 5120 33624 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 2,102.00 RENTS & LEASES 2,102.00 526 69020 180 33625 SYED MURTUZA 20201 1,602.40 MISCELLANEOUS 1,602.40 101 66210 031 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT °*1 Denotes Hand Written Checks 33599 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 1,049.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,049.13 201 65200 111 33600 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 9,925.82 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 9,925.82 527 66520 230 33601 PAIGE COMPANY 14138 337.40 OFFICE EXPENSE 337.40 101 64200 110 33602 TRESSER'S TOW SERVICE 15543 30.00 SUPPLIES 30.00 620 15000 33603 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,410.49 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,410.49 101 65100 220 33604 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 94.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 94.00 101 64200 150 33605 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 77.39 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 77.39 201 65200 203 33606 GALL-S, INC. 17304 108.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 108.39 101 65100 120 33607 COLORPRINT 17497 99.05 OFFICE EXPENSE 99.05 101 64100 110 33608 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE 17546 171.68 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 171.68 625 65213 203 33609 KIM SHAH 17619 1,541.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,541.00 130 20016 33610 SHAW PIPELINE INC 17959 41,731.97 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 41,731.97 326 80910 220 33611 TOOLS EXPRESS 18027 520.86 TRAINING EXPENSE 520.86 101 68020 260 2300 33612 STEVE KORON 18034 190.00 MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 130 20016 33613 ICMA MEMBERSHIP RENEWALS 18050 1,350.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,350.00 101 64250 240 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 06/27/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 33585 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 234.29 SUPPLIES 6.79 620 15000 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 227.50 625 65213 203 33586 BURLINGAME ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. 01500 1,750.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,750.00 326 80910 120 33587 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 1,444.61 GAS, OIL & GREASE 90.51 201 65200 201 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 264.44 201 65200 203 SUPPLIES 1,089.66 620 15000 33588 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 1,933.06 MISCELLANEOUS 1,933.06 896 20282 33589 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 36.73 SMALL TOOLS 36.73 620 66700 130 33590 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 1,905.17 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 1,481.91 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 423.26 101 66210 226 33591 MEG MONROE 02936 536.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 536.00 130 20014 33592 AT&T 03080 154.14 COMMUNICATIONS 154.14 101 67500 160 33593 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 90,266.78 MISCELLANEOUS 90,266.78 731 22587 33594 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 7,998.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,998.00 101 68020 220 2300 33595 JULIE COHN 09122 1,175.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,175.00 101 68010 220 1646 33596 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 1,890.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 705.00 101 68010 220 1660 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,185.75 101 68010 220 1891 33597 NOEL L. MILLER, INC, 09499 274.26 VEHICLE MAINT. 274.26 201 65200 202 33598 OLE'S 09626 345.70 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 345.70 625 65213 203 CITY OF BURLINGAME 06-18-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 87,851.77 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 4,398.55 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 19,705.90 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 12,483.02 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 238,491.61 WATER FUND 526 64,362.69 SEWER FUND 527 855.07 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 284.96 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 19,241.74 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 15,686.16 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 428.12 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,206.76 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 36,016.80 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,340.58 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 943.62 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 155.78 BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 25,032.15 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 2,890.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 652.02 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $533,027.30 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33463 THROUGH 33584 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $533,027.30, 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 9 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33578 DANS UPHOLSTERY CARPETS & DRAPES 28622 428.12 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 428.12 619 64460 210 5110 33579 GARY DE MERA 28623 1,875.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,875.00 101 22546 33580 BESS TESTLAB INC 28624 5,503.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,503.00 327 81802 220 33581 PIPE USERS GROUP 28625 350.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 350.00 327 81800 210 33582 MASTER PLUMBING 28626 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 33583 JOSE DURAN 28627 523.96 MISCELLANEOUS 19.10 101 22518 MISCELLANEOUS 501.50 101 31510 MISCELLANEOUS 3.36 731 22550 33584 ANDREA WONG 28628 800.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00 101 68010 220 1330 TOTAL $533,027.30 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33563 AD BRAKES 27766 457.20 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 457.20 201 65200 203 33564 DATAMAX ONEIL 27767 1,091.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,091.39 530 65400 120 33565 WITZIG HANNAH SANDERS & REAGAN L 27777 600.07 MISCELLANEOUS 600.07 618 64520 234 33566 4 LEAF INC 27948 12,715.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 12,715.00 327 81800 210 33567 INTERSTATE TOWING 28053 1,116.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 1,116.00 101 65100 292 33568 AT&T MOBILITY 28132 152.42 MISCELLANEOUS 152.42 731 22554 33569 THE OFFICE CITY 28427 40.14 OFFICE EXPENSE 40.14 101 64420 110 33570 CAINE COMPUTER CONSULTING 28458 7,641.12 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,641.12 101 65100 210 33571 COTTON CANDY EXPRESS MUSIC 28615 1,900.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,900.00 101 68010 220 1950 33572 ANDRE AKINYELE 28616 400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 101 68010 220 1950 33573 BAY AREA REMARKETING 28617 249.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 150.00 101 68010 120 1950 MISC. SUPPLIES 99.00 730 69533 120 33574 BILL TOKHEIM 28618 3,685.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 2,885.00 101 36630 33575 JAJE DU 28619 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 22525 33576 TOM CARNEY 28620 1,688.83 MISCELLANEOUS 1,688.83 101 22546 33577 B PARK CONSTRUCTION 28621 280.00 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 22546 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33548 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 153.22 RENTS & LEASES 153.22 526 69020 180 33549 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 25852 512.46 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200 33550 SAN JOSE BLUE 25886 1,872.19 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,872.19 326 80910 120 33551 RANDALL HAYES 26476 897.40 TRAINING EXPENSE 897.40 201 65500 260 33552 MIKE ADAM 26517 100.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 101 68010 220 1788 33553 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 605.67 OFFICE EXPENSE 77.66 101 66210 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 189.66 101 65300 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 338.35 526 69020 110 33554 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 130.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 130.00 101 64420 262 33555 ROBERT VOGEL 27290 1,240.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,240.00 101 22520 33556 ECMS INC 27389 177.15 MISCELLANEOUS 177.15 201 65200 144 33557 OSCAR REYNOLDS 27557 1,110.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,110.00 101 68010 220 1950 33558 KEVIN GARDINER AND ASSOCIATES 27560 17,043.91 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 17,043.91 530 65400 210 33559 JOHN VEGA 27582 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22525 33560 LOOMIS 27594 1,490.63 BANKING SERVICE FEES 500.00 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 990.63 530 65400 120 33561 EPC CONSULTANTS 27676 195.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 195.00 327 81800 220 33562 AT&T MOBILITY 27758 32.19 COMMUNICATIONS 32.19 101 65100 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33533 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 236.73 MISC. SUPPLIES 194.05 101 68010 120 1112 MISC. SUPPLIES 42.68 101 68010 120 1101 33534 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 280.45 COMMUNICATIONS 280.45 101 68020 160 2100 33535 K.J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION INC 24058 219,728.61 MISCELLANEOUS -24,414.29 327 20005 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 244,142.90 327 81800 220 33536 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 632.30 OFFICE EXPENSE 632.30 101 64400 110 33537 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 24249 648.00 MISCELLANEOUS 648.00 526 69020 233 33538 SAN MATEO MEDICAL CENTER 24408 700.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 700.00 101 65100 292 33539 METCALF & EDDY INC 24445 5,711.10 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,501.72 326 80910 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 209.38 326 80910 220 33540 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENTS ASSO 24605 120.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 120.00 527 66520 240 33541 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER, INC. 24637 8,606.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,606.60 101 68010 220 1372 33542 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 62,839.13 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 62,839.13 526 69020 220 33543 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 90.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 201 65200 220 33544 PREMIER INVESTIGATIONS 24828 1,095.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,095.00 101 65150 220 33545 THE LIGHTHOUSE 24840 34.13 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 34.13 201 65200 203 33546 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 708.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 708.75 101 68010 220 1644 33547 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 10.81 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 10.81 101 65100 292 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '*1 Denotes Hand Written Checks 33522 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 3,099.73 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,099.73 326 80910 210 33523 OFFICE MAX 23306 1,893.09 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,074.88 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 43.26 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE -57.16 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 58.06 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 372.78 101 68010 110 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 595.80 101 66100 120 OFFICE EXPENSE -194.53 621 64450 110 33524 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER 23366 284.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 284.96 528 66600 120 33525 DATASAFE 23410 83.15 OFFICE EXPENSE 77.75 101 66100 110 BANKING SERVICE FEES 5.40 101 64250 120 33526 FLOWERS ELECTRIC 23432 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 33527 PACE CONSULTING 23457 1,700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 101 65150 220 33528 PACIFIC PARKING SYSTEMS, INC. 23462 115.81 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 115.81 530 65400 200 33529 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 4,240.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,240.00 101 68010 220 1331 33530 KEITH MARTIN 23788 94.66 MISC. SUPPLIES 26.51 526 69020 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 4.00 527 66520 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 23.35 527 66520 120 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 22.00 527 66520 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 4.00 527 66520 260 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 14.80 620 66700 250 33531 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 1,276.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,276.00 101 23620 33532 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 250.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33506 ESA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 21160 1,392.06 DEPOSIT REFUND 1,392.06 101 22590 33507 ON CAMERA PRODUCTIONS 21177 2,890.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,890.00 738 64580 220 33508 SPARTAN TOOL LLC 21329 51.60 MISC. SUPPLIES 51.60 527 66520 120 33509 SHERATON GATEWAY HOTEL 21471 755.60 MISC. SUPPLIES 755.60 101 68020 120 2100 33510 HILLYARD/SAN FRANCISCO 21658 1,048.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,048.14 101 68020 120 2100 33511 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 4,479.13 MISCELLANEOUS 4,479.13 101 37010 33512 SEWER RAT 21821 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 33513 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 189.60 SUPPLIES 189.60 620 15000 33514 AUTO PRIDE CAR WASH 22278 256.81 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 256.81 101 65100 200 33515 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 3,595.00 GAS, OIL & GREASE 3,595.00 101 65100 201 33516 DAVID DJANIKIAN 22447 60.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00 101 68010 220 1788 33517 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 23,227.17 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,757.01 736 64572 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,470.16 736 64571 220 33518 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 435.00 UTILITY EXPENSE 435.00 896 20281 33519 ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS 22851 10,843.00 CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 10,843.00 618 64520 225 33520 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 367.89 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 367.89 101 65100 140 33521 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 23156 175.00 MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 101 64420 031 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33491 BAILEY'S 18733 71.82 MISC. SUPPLIES 71.82 101 68020 120 2300 33492 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 518.42 TRAINING EXPENSE 518.42 527 66520 260 33493 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 301.24 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 301.24 201 65200 220 33494 GOETZ BROTHERS 19045 3,528.08 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,528.08 101 68010 120 1787 33495 PRIORITY 1 19239 235.97 SUPPLIES 235.97 620 15000 33496 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 93.33 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 93.33 201 65200 203 33497 WILSEY & HAM 19397 19,181.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,808.50 320 81760 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,673.50 320 81740 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,699.00 320 81780 220 33498 AMERICA PRINTING 19430 1,071.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,071.00 101 64560 120 33499 WINGES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 19471 650.00 MISCELLANEOUS 650.00 101 22525 33500 CAL-LINE EQUIPMENT INC 19697 353.52 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 353.52 101 68020 200 2300 33501 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 1,804.98 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,804.98 736 64570 220 33502 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 349.70 COMMUNICATIONS 349.70 621 64450 160 33503 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 1,800.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,800.00 326 75170 210 33504 BRIDGE WIRELESS 20633 112.84 COMMUNICATIONS 112.84 620 66700 160 33505 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 1,186.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,186.40 101 66210 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 33477 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 491.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 491.00 201 65200 220 33478 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 7,106.40 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,889.00 101 64350 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,217.40 618 64520 210 33479 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 2,986.21 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 645.63 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 2,340.58 625 65213 203 33480 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 11749 67.57 MISC. SUPPLIES 67.57 527 66520 120 33481 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 336.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 119.26 101 65100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.46 101 65100 120 COMMUNICATIONS 160.00 101 65100 160 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 50.36 101 65100 200 33482 FOUNDATION FOR CROSS-CONNECTION 13961 357.48 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 357.48 526 69020 240 33483 UNITED TRANSMISSION INC. 14760 610.27 SUPPLIES 610.27 620 15000 33484 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 33.90 TRAINING EXPENSE 33.90 527 66520 260 33485 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 43.28 SMALL TOOLS 43.28 620 66700 130 33486 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 958.70 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 958.70 101 68020 140 2100 33487 OTTO MILLER 17129 3,645.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,645.00 101 36630 33488 COLORPRINT 17497 1,098.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 253.72 101 64400 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 844.62 730 69593 220 6017 33489 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 524.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 524.90 320 82080 120 33490 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 694.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 694.00 101 64420 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 06/18/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 33463 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 35,349.17 COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 35,049.17 621 64450 220 33464 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 412.16 MISCELLANEOUS 412.16 201 65200 144 33465 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 378.64 MISC. SUPPLIES 378.64 101 68020 120 2200 33466 FEDEX 02160 112.57 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.00 101 64400 120 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 65.88 101 64420 121 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 25.69 618 64520 210 33467 KAVANAGH ENGINEERING 02665 1,400.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,400.00 101 66100 210 33468 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 597.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 597.39 101 68020 120 2200 33469 P. G. & E. 03054 338.65 GAS & ELECTRIC 328.42 201 65200 170 GAS & ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170 33470 AT&T 03080 217.02 UTILITY EXPENSE 217.02 896 20281 33471 PERSONAL AWARDS, INC. 03145 964.51 MISC. SUPPLIES 964.51 101 68010 120 1787 33472 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 434.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 34.90 101 65100 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 101 65100 220 33473 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 480.39 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 480.39 101 64350 210 33474 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 52.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 52.50 101 68010 220 1660 33475 LIFE ASSIST 09392 470.89 SUPPLIES 470.89 201 65200 112 33476 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF°S OFC. 09433 9,056.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,056.00 101 65100 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME 06-13-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 119,380.62 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 8,894.95 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 9,322.90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 15,478.63 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 16,281.16 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 18,209.35 WATER FUND 526 76,906.99 SEWER FUND 527 6,904.25 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 5,152.35 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 59.40 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 21,389.26 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 28,667.30 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 33,384.42 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,969.32 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 641.12 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 16,667.21 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 574.80 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $379,884.03 ItSuoQ� VOID (.vv-c)o Vv►D 3 ��-k.o HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 33273 THROUGH 33428 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $379,884.03, 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 WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 11 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33415 JULIE SENATORE 28601 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 33416 ALANAH CHASE 28602 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 33417 RAZIEL UNGER 28603 655.89 MISC. SUPPLIES 655.89 730 69593 120 6016 33418 SPRINT 28604 1,134.64 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 799.84 101 65100 220 MISCELLANEOUS 334.80 731 22554 33419 MARNIE M. GONZALES 28605 58.00 MISCELLANEOUS 58.00 101 36330 000 1789 33420 DANIELLE T OLANDER 28606 52.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52.00 101 36330 000 1660 33421 WILMA RODRIQUEZ 28607 66.00 MISCELLANEOUS 66.00 101 36330 000 1661 33422 FU-PING YAO 28608 117.00 MISCELLANEOUS 117.00 101 36330 000 1644 33423 BARBARA SPIELBERG 28609 117.00 MISCELLANEOUS 117.00 101 36330 000 1644 33424 HSU-LIEN RIVERA 28610 99.00 MISCELLANEOUS 99.00 101 36330 000 1644 33425 KAREN JENSEN 28611 234.00 MISCELLANEOUS 234.00 101 36330 000 1644 33426 MERCEDES AUDIGIER 28612 117.00 MISCELLANEOUS 117.00 101 36330 000 1644 33427 KIMBERLY HO 28613 81.00 MISCELLANEOUS 81.00 101 36330 000 1782 33428 JONG SOON YEU 28614 32.00 MISCELLANEOUS 32.00 101 36330 000 1641 TOTAL $379,884.03 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 33399 MEINEKE CAR CARE CENTER #699 28585 217.80 MISC. SUPPLIES 217.80 528 66600 120 33400 DANIELLE NAJERA 28586 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 36330 000 1370 33401 KARI JO ASH 28587 116.00 MISCELLANEOUS 116.00 101 36330 000 1661 33402 JANET MCGHEE 28588 116.00 MISCELLANEOUS 116.00 101 36330 000 1661 33403 ZIAD EL-KHOURY 28589 108.00 MISCELLANEOUS 108.00 101 36330 000 1762 33404 MR/MRS. SIGALA 28590 108.00 MISCELLANEOUS 108.00 101 36330 000 1762 33405 EILEEN D'ARCY 28591 58.00 MISCELLANEOUS 58.00 101 36330 000 1644 33406 SUSAN UCCELLI 28592 58.00 MISCELLANEOUS 58.00 101 36330 000 1644 33407 NEIL ARORA 28593 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1890 33408 JENNIE GREIFELD 28594 64.00 MISCELLANEOUS 64.00 101 36330 000 1785 33409 SHERI KANESHIRO 28595 32.00 MISCELLANEOUS 32.00 101 36330 000 1785 33410 HANS WEINGAND 28596 64.00 MISCELLANEOUS 64.00 101 36330 000 1785 33411 BEVERLY DERISH 28597 5.00 MISCELLANEOUS 5.00 101 36330 000 1661 33412 SANDRA YEE 28598 130.00 MISCELLANEOUS 130.00 101 36330 000 1422 33413 ALMERA MILANES 28599 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 33414 COURTNEY GOMEZ 28600 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33383 ANNE MERICS 28355 20.00 MISCELLANEOUS 20.00 101 36330 000 1785 33384 WINDOW SOLUTIONS 28363 1,064.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,064.00 320 80430 210 5110 33385 FIREWORKS & STAGE FX AMERICA INC 28406 10,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,000.00 730 69593 220 6018 33386 FOSTER & FREEMAN USA INC 28452 170.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 170.00 101 65100 292 33387 DREW HARRISON 28573 1,600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,600.00 730 69544 220 33388 MARCUS SALOMOM 28574 1,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00 730 69544 220 33389 JOANNE SCHULTZ 28575 2,500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,500.00 101 64420 210 33390 PENINSULA TENNIS CLUB 28576 31,635.00 MISCELLANEOUS 31,635.00 101 22546 33391 NICKI CARR 28577 325.00 MISCELLANEOUS 325.00 101 37010 33392 STEVEN EVANS ALBERT INC 28578 1,346.21 MISCELLANEOUS 1,346.21 101 22546 33393 DOUGLAS KNIVETON 28579 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 33394 ADNA BERRYMAN AND PENINSULA PRIM 28580 4,814.00 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 4,814.00 618 64520 601 33395 NANCY STIRM 28581 564.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 564.00 101 68010 220 1644 33396 ERIC JORGENSEN 28582 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 33397 JWD CONSTRUCTION 28583 1,360.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,360.00 101 22520 33398 MERCY CENTER 28584 650.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 650.00 101 64420 262 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *" Denotes Hand Written Checks 33369 CEMEX 26506 114.58 MISC. SUPPLIES 114.58 101 66210 120 33370 SFPUC WATER DEPARTMENT 26633 498.40 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 498.40 526 69020 290 33371 AMERICAN MESSAGING 26822 76.31 COMMUNICATIONS 76.31 526 69020 160 33372 SAN FRANCISCO FENCERS CLUB 27032 187.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 187.20 101 68010 220 1762 33373 ROB MCNICHOL 27501 579.00 MISCELLANEOUS 579.00 130 20016 33374 OSCAR REYNOLDS 27557 1,200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,200.00 730 69544 220 33375 ACME SECURITY SYSTEMS 27745 7,965.03 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,965.03 320 80430 210 5110 33376 VMI INC 27929 107.43 MISCELLANEOUS 107.43 621 64450 400 33377 CARDINAL RULES 28008 49.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 49.50 101 68010 220 1788 33378 CINTAS FIRE PROTECTION 28124 155.65 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 155.65 619 64460 210 5130 33379 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 4,371.42 SMALL TOOLS 1,562.39 526 69020 130 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 165.95 526 69020 230 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 1,562.39 527 66520 230 MISC. SUPPLIES 645.43 619 64460 120 5230 MISC. SUPPLIES 133.66 619 64460 120 5250 MISC. SUPPLIES 93.31 619 64460 120 5230 MISC. SUPPLIES 208.29 619 64460 120 5110 33380 PETERSEN DEAN ROOFING SYSTEMS 28250 3,253.60 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,253.60 320 80790 210 33381 AT&T MOBILITY 28264 110.62 COMMUNICATIONS 110.62 619 64460 160 33382 WILLIAM VELLA 28298 650.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 650.00 201 65200 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33354 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 54,801.56 MISCELLANEOUS 4,800.00 526 69020 400 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 50,001.56 526 69020 801 33355 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 8,315.95 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8,315.95 130 20014 33356 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 575.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 253.59 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 221.08 527 66520 120 TRAINING EXPENSE 100.47 527 66520 260 33357 A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS 25020 879.92 OFFICE EXPENSE 879.92 526 69020 110 33358 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 171.35 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 171.35 201 65200 220 33359 BAY CITIES DRIVING SCHOOL 25220 3,281.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,281.00 101 68010 220 1422 33360 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 530.64 OFFICE EXPENSE 530.64 201 65200 110 33361 MARK LIEW 25231 2,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,250.00 101 22546 33362 JOSEPH BOJUES 25335 38.00 MISCELLANEOUS 38.00 101 36330 000 1782 33363 SSFFD CTC 25376 240.00 MISCELLANEOUS 240.00 731 22554 33364 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 173.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 173.00 101 66210 190 33365 ROBERT GILSON 25616 7,562.50 MISCELLANEOUS 7,562.50 101 22546 33366 ANGELA BEUCUS 25826 30.00 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00 101 36330 000 1660 33367 LANCE BAYER 26156 437.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 437.50 101 64350 210 33368 J.P. COOKE CO. 26207 538.07 COMMUNICATIONS 538.07 101 65300 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33343 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 138.10 MISC. SUPPLIES 138.10 619 64460 120 33344 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 18,209.35 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 18,209.35 327 81800 210 33345 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 4,890.28 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,890.28 528 66600 210 33346 AT&T/MCI 23728 29.78 COMMUNICATIONS 29.78 621 64450 160 33347 ED NEALE CONSTRUCTION 23756 640.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 640.00 101 22520 33348 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 19,504.56 MISC. SUPPLIES 223.46 101 68010 120 1111 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,952.11 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,101.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,140.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 989.00 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,892.00 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 902.00 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 653.99 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 619 64460 220 5121 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,873.00 619 64460 220 5120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 632.00 619 64460 220 5130 33349 BRET BOTTARINI 24049 1,000.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,000.00 101 22520 33350 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 2,100.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,100.00 527 66520 260 33351 STAN MUI 24343 7,255.50 MISCELLANEOUS 7,255.50 101 22546 33352 JACK'S AUTO TOP AND UPHOLSTERY 24505 100.99 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 100.99 101 65100 200 33353 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 7,787.68 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 460.00 326 81180 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,327.68 326 82040 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33329 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 3,700.00 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 1,100.00 101 68020 230 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,600.00 101 64420 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,000.00 526 69020 260 33330 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC. 21680 211.19 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 211.19 101 66210 222 33331 ALL PETROLEUM RECOVERY SERVICE, 22008 75.00 GAS, OIL & GREASE 75.00 201 65200 201 33332 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 138.36 SUPPLIES 138.36 620 15000 33333 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 760.19 MISC. SUPPLIES 760.19 526 69020 120 33334 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 405.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 405.00 620 66700 210 33335 RANDY REBARBER 22444 30.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.00 101 68010 220 1788 33336 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 7,520.60 MISCELLANEOUS 4,919.80 619 64460 804 5110 MISCELLANEOUS 680.00 619 64460 804 5170 MISCELLANEOUS 1,920.80 619 64460 804 5110 33337 MAXIMUS, INC 22746 1,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 101 33900 33338 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 240.00 MISCELLANEOUS 240.00 526 69020 233 33339 A&B TRAILER HITCH CO. 22998 44.27 MISC. SUPPLIES 44.27 528 66600 120 33340 FILE OF LIFE, INC. 23031 1,054.45 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,054.45 201 65200 260 33341 OFFICE MAX 23306 1,384.62 OFFICE EXPENSE 408.20 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 298.13 101 68010 110 1101 COMMUNICATIONS 161.18 101 65300 160 OFFICE EXPENSE 517.11 621 64450 110 33342 PACIFIC PARKING SYSTEMS, INC. 23462 37.44 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 37.44 530 65400 200 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33314 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 1,445.64 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 804.52 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 641.12 625 65213 203 33315 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 2,947.57 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 763.51 320 81790 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,184.06 320 81080 220 33316 CLEARLITE TROPHIES 19679 1,211.32 MISCELLANEOUS 927.70 730 39593 000 6070 MISC. SUPPLIES 283.62 730 69593 120 6017 33317 ROBERTSON INDUSTRIES INC 19779 1,258.91 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,258.91 101 68020 190 2100 33318 DAVID F. O'KEEFE 19905 717.03 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 717.03 101 68020 190 2200 33319 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 2,102.00 RENTS & LEASES 2,102.00 527 66520 180 33320 ROBERT SMITH 20079 1,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00 730 69544 220 33321 UNITED STATES POST OFFICE 20144 1,315.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,315.00 621 64450 110 33322 CENTRAL GARDEN CENTER 20300 43.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.28 101 68020 120 2200 33323 CMC FLUIDIQS INC 20421 8,493.48 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 8,493.48 326 79400 210 33324 CHANNING L. BETE CO., INC. 20761 254.90 SUPPLIES 254.90 201 65200 112 33325 JEFF DOWD 20779 228.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.00 101 68010 220 1785 33326 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 611.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 611.34 101 66210 120 33327 CEB 21210 350.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 350.78 101 64350 120 33328 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 265.29 OFFICE EXPENSE 265.29 201 65200 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33299 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 58.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 58.00 101 64200 150 33300 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 1,750.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,750.00 101 68010 220 1787 33301 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 32,516.78 SUPPLIES 32,516.78 620 15000 33302 TEAM CLEAN 15827 220.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 220.00 201 65200 220 33303 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 16148 3,113.29 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,113.29 618 64520 210 3500 33304 ROBERTS & BRUNE COMPANY 16169 8,122.35 MISCELLANEOUS 8,122.35 526 69020 233 33305 SYDNEY MALK00 16347 30.27 SMALL TOOLS 30.27 620 66700 130 33306 GOLDEN NURSERY 17128 74.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.39 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 6.43 101 66210 219 SMALL TOOLS 47.15 526 69020 130 33307 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 2,408.51 RADIO MAINT. 2,408.51 201 65200 205 33308 COLORPRINT 17497 603.99 MISC. SUPPLIES 550.99 527 66520 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 53.00 619 64460 110 5120 33309 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 4,290.59 MISCELLANEOUS 4,290.59 618 64520 604 33310 BAY ALARM 18854 222.64 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 222.64 619 64460 210 5130 33311 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 1,708.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,708.00 526 69020 240 33312 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 911.01 MISC. SUPPLIES 240.22 101 68010 120 1785 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 670.79 101 68010 220 1349 33313 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 57.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 57.00 101 64350 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33286 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 3,152.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210 33287 POM INC. 09248 21.96 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 21.96 530 65400 200 33288 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 9,171.38 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,171.38 618 64520 210 33289 BERNARD EDWARDS 09548 2,115.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,115.00 101 68010 220 1762 33290 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 697.95 SMALL TOOLS 90.85 101 68020 130 2300 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 382.00 101 68020 200 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 159.77 101 68020 200 2300 SUPPLIES 65.33 620 15000 33291 OLE'S 09626 143.68 SUPPLIES 143.68 620 15000 33292 WFCB OSH COMMERCIAL SERVICES 09670 278.44 MISC. SUPPLIES 172.98 201 65200 120 SMALL TOOLS 105.46 201 65200 130 33293 CAL-STEAM 10557 440.10 MISC. SUPPLIES 277.53 526 69020 120 SMALL TOOLS 15.85 526 69020 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 50.17 527 66520 120 SMALL TOOLS 62.99 527 66520 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.56 619 64460 120 33294 PIP PRINTING 10620 248.43 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 248.43 320 81790 220 33295 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 1,835.79 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,835.79 201 65200 203 33296 SHAFFER'S AUTO SERVICE CENTER 11324 89.00 VEHICLE MAINT. 89.00 201 65200 202 33297 BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT 11695 18,523.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,523.00 101 68010 220 1106 33298 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,794.77 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,794.77 101 65100 220 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 06/13/08 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 33273 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 71.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 45.41 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 18.36 619 64460 120 5180 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.57 619 64460 120 5190 33274 BRIDGES TIRE & WHEEL SERVICE 01403 85.00 SUPPLIES 85.00 620 15000 33275 BURLINGAME HISTORICAL SOCIETY 01535 1,960.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,960.00 101 68010 120 1101 33276 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,514.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,514.92 101 64560 220 33277 ANASTASIA COLE 01945 141.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 141.00 101 68010 220 1644 33278 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 685.01 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 685.01 201 65200 203 33279 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 706.15 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 502.43 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 203.72 101 66210 226 33280 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 555.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 14.07 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 205.57 101 66210 219 MISC. SUPPLIES 181.54 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 97.11 527 66520 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 57.05 527 66520 219 33281 P. G. & E. 03054 1,515.46 GAS & ELECTRIC 1.68 101 66100 170 GAS & ELECTRIC 1,513.78 101 68010 170 1286 33282 PUMP REPAIR SERVICE CO. 03197 6,569.85 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 6,569.85 526 69020 230 33283 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 5,750.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,750.00 101 66100 220 33284 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 251.74 MISC. SUPPLIES 251.74 101 64350 120 33285 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 151.69 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 151.69 101 66210 219 Agenda Item a. RECEIVED Meeting Date JUN 3 0 2000 CITY CLERK'R OFFICE CITY"OF BtJRUINi AME June 30, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council: Please schedule an appeal hearing for 1837 Hunt Drive to be heard Honorable City Council at the August 18, 2008 Council City of Burlingame meeting. City Hall City Clerk 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Request for Hearing with City Council ADDRESS: 1837 Hunt Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 APPLICATION: Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first and second story addition to single family dwelling. Please grant us a hearing at the earliest possible time in order to consider our appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny without prejudice our application to improve our home at 1837 Hunt Drive. Supporting documentation will be provided at a later date. If you have any questions or need any immediate information, please feel to contact me at (650)219- 1077. Sincerely, Chris Dunning Property Owner CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAW AGENDA ITEM# 13.b. MTG. DATE 7/21/08 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY DATE: July 16, 2008 APPROVED FROM: Doris J. Mortensen, City Clerk—558-7203 BY SUBJECT: COUNCIL INTEREST IN ATTENDING 2008 LEAGUE IF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND DESIGNATION OF A VOTING DELEGATE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council discuss whether a Council Member shall atten 8 League of California Cities Annual Conference in Long Beach Septem , and designate the atten voting delegate representing Burlingame. BACKGROUND: Consistent with League of California Cities bylaws, a city's voting delegate must be designated by the City Council. The voting delegate must be registered to attend the conference and be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of a voting card in order to cast a vote. EXHIBIT: League of California Cities Memorandum dated June 13, 2008 1408 STREET LEAGUE SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 `'�,..� ��� PH:(916) 658-8200 R �� EIVt` OF CALIFORNIA Fx:(916) 658-8240 tN�I! nnnn C I T I E S .F�Fir� Q �l7U� '. n; ��?1< t���C t�r WW V .CACITIES.ORG ol..._ Y t' b . s P"Up -1iV11 Please review this memo carefully. New procedures were adopted in 2006 regarding designation of voting delegates and alternates and voting at the Annual Conference. June 13, 2008 TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference—September 24-27, Long Beach The League's 2008 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 24-27 in Long Beach. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting, scheduled for 8:30 a.m., September 27, at the Long Beach Convention Center. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. In the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, your city may appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. In 2006, the ability to appoint up to two alternates was the result of approval of a League bylaws amendment that increased the number of voting delegate alternates from one to two. Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League's office no later than September 5, so that voting delegate/alternates records may be established prior to the conference. At the conference, voting delegate forms may be returned to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the conference registration area. Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting process at the Annual Business Meeting. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws 6T ,2nd7-"6vo alternates.must bq1 111 by; .�h! en completing the :, attached Voting I�elegafe form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. At least one must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of voting card in order to cast a vote. Voting delegates and alternates -more- are requested to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegates Desk. This will enable them to receive the special stamps on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting. • Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. • New Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together,they should be sure to sign in at the Voting Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges. The Voting Delegate desk in the conference registration area will be open September 24, 25 and 26, and prior to the Business Meeting on September 27. The conference registration area will open at 12:00 p.m., on September 24, at the Long Beach Convention Center. The Voting Delegate desk will also be open at the Business Meeting, but not during a roll call vote, should one be undertaken. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share it and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals your council designates as your city's voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to the League office by September 5. If you have questions, please call Mary McCullough at (916) 658-8247. Attachments: • 2008 Annual Conference Voting Procedures _ • Voting Delegate/Alternate Form LEAGT T 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 lJ Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 OF CALIFORNIA www.cacities.org ` CITIES Annual Conference Voting Procedures 2008 Annual Conference 1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council-may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee. 3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. We encourage voting delegates and alternates to sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk so that they may receive a special stamp on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting. 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates) and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates,but may not be transferred to another city official who is not either a voting delegate or alternate. 6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special stamp on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the city's voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, all should sign in at the Voting Delegate desk and obtain the special stamps on their badges. 7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. LEAGUE � OF ICITY: ._ CITIES 2008 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM Please complete this form and return it to the League office by September 5, 2008. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council. Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this special area will be limited to individuals(voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special stamp on their conference badge. If your city's voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together at the Business Meeting,they are all encouraged to sign in at the Voting Desk in order to obtain the identifying stamp that will admit them to the special voting area. 1. VOTING DELEGATE Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Name: Title: Title: PLEASE ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES. ATTEST (I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate.) Name: Phone: Title: Date: Please complete and return by September 5 to: League of California Cities ATTN: Mary McCullough FAX: (916) 658-8240 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 AC2008 V otingDelegateLettendoc BURLINGAME rj The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, May 8, 2008 Commissioners Present: Dan Conway, Chair Michael Bohnert, Vice Chair Jerry McDonnell Stephen Warden Commissioners Absent: Mark Noworolski Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Dean Williams, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Pat Gray, 1616 Adeline Drive 1. CALL TO ORDER. Meeting called to order at 6:58 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present, 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS None, 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of March 8, 2007 as submitted, M/S/C: Warden/Bohnert; 4/0/1 Page l of 4 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Gray from the Green Ribbon Task Force expressed the need for public transportation and suggested that the shuttle service be re-assessed due to non-existent ridership and to reinstitute the overnight parking ordinance. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Commission Appeals Process Chair Conway sought comments from the Commission on the final draft version of the Commission's Appeals Procedure document. There were no comments and the Commission was satisfied with the final draft. Motion:Approve the Appeals Process as presented. M/S/C:Warden, Bohnert;4/0/1 8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1 In-pavement Illuminated Crosswalks—Verbal Report Mr. Chou reported that an illuminated crosswalk was being considered at Highland Avenue &California Drive. This installation would be approximately 18 solar powered lights across four lanes. Installation would be pending the manufacturing and receipt of materials, which he believed to be two to three months out. 8.1.2 Bellevue Avenue/California Drive Intersection—Verbal Report Mr. Chou provided a feasibility report from DKS Associates on potential traffic re- design of the area to improve both traffic and pedestrian safety. He reviewed the report findings which were three potential design modifications: 1. Full traffic signalization 2. Full roundabout design 3. Half/partial roundabout design Mr. Chou stated that each design alternative had its positive and negative attributes. He added that at least the City had some designs to look into further when funding becomes available. Page 2 of 4 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 Selective Enforcement List—Verbal Report Sergeant Williams provided the Commission with the Selected Enforcement List, and went through certain items on the list with the Commission. 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns 8.3.1 Traffic & Parking Technology Seminar Series — Discussion Chair Conway stated that the seminars could be an opportunity to promote the Shuttle Service and Bike Path program. Chair Conway then opened the floor for public discussion. Pat Gray suggested conducting a survey of opinion regarding transportation in the town. Discussion occurred as to how to get a better turnout for future series. It was determined that the location should be Council Chambers or the Lane Room. Additional topics could be shuttle service and B/PAC projects. Commissioner Bohnert stated that he would coordinate the date with the representative of the Sustainable San Mateo County Organization for a presentation sometime late in June. 8.3.2 Miscellaneous Comments and Concerns None. 9. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Warden acknowledged that the trailer on Edgehill Drive was finally off the street after 1 Yz years. Commissioner Warden brought to the attention of the Commission that the illuminated crosswalk northbound California Drive by Stacks is out. Mr. Chou said that staff was aware and was ordering the parts. Commissioner Warden stated that Autohaus Exec has more cars out there for sale. Commissioner Warden provided the Commission with his current address. Commissioner McDonnell provided an email communication from Pat Gray regarding overnight parking for the record and will forward a copy to the Commissioners. Commissioner Bohnert sought status of the lit crosswalk at Broadway. 10. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. 1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Mr. Chou reported that they did not really meet this month. He said that at the next meeting, they would be looking at ideas for the Carolan Avenue bike path lane route for a TDA grant application cycle in December. 10.2 Miscellaneous Reports None. 11 . FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Chair Conway noted Gene Condon's idea of parking medallions at the airport and an update on Traffic Seminar series. Mr. Chou may have two stop sign requests pending studies and warrants. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7;52 p.m. Page 4 of 4 BURUMOAMI Library Board of Trustees Minutes May 20, 2008 I. Call to Order President Griffith called the meeting to order at 5:30pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Bruce Carlton, Deborah Griffith, Pat Toft Trustee Absent_: Katie McCormack Staff-Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder _ Foundation Representative Stephen Hamilton Trustee Candidates Sandy Towle, Elizabeth Corcoran III. .Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously approved the Warrants. M/S/C (Toft/Carlton) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the April 15, 2008 meeting. M/S/C (Carlton/Griffith) V. Correspondence and Attachments The press release announcing the Library's 2nd annual adult book club and summer program series entitled "Literary Tasting @ Burlingame Library: Food and Wine" was sent to local newspapers, local cable, Peninsula Channel 26, Next-Read Newsletter, City of Burlingame E- News and the BPL Website. These programs will be held from June 16th through July 31 st. Culinary programs will be given by representatives of the San Francisco Professional Food Society. VI. From the Floor - No one from the public attended. VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights 1. Library Budget - 2008-2009 - The budget for this time period had to reflect no increases in operating costs and - collections. Increase in vendor contracts necessitated that costs be cut by 3.3% in other areas of the budget to sustain a zero percent increase. 480 Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 94010-4083 Phone(650) 558-7474'Fax(650)342-6295'www.burlingame.orq/library J 2. Renovation of the Children's Room-Plans to give the Children's Room a new look are in progress. Upgrades to the room will be as follows: refinishing some of the existing furniture, painting all walls and beams,reupholstering original settees and purchasing 3 small Craftsman lounge chairs. The Children's Mural,created by muralist Lynne Rutter,will define this area as truly a place for children and create a feeling of wonderment and magic for them. This project is being funded by the Burlingame Library Foundation. B. Foundation Report-Stephen Hamilton 1. Author Luncheon-The event was a great success and netted the Foundation approximately$15,000. 2. Book Sales-The April book sale hit a new record by netting$6,800. Daily book sales are netting approximately $1,000 a month and a-bay sales are close to$2,800 since the beginning of this project.By combining all 3 book sale revenues, the Foundation's goal is to raise approximately$20-25,000 for the Library. Jim Nagel gave a workshop for members who might be interested in helping with the on-line book sale. The Foundation is going to strive for clearing$10,000 on the on-line book project. VIII. Unfinished Business A. Library Centennial Update 1. Change in Mural/Lion Event-The Trustees determined that the dedication and naming of the lions should be combined with the dedication of the children's mural for the Centennial Kick-Off Celebration. Sunday May 19th before the library opens was selected as the date for the event. Trustee Griffith made a motion to change the date of the Centennial Kick-Off Event from October 17th to October 19th and to combine the dedications of the lions and the children's mural. M/S/C(Griffith/Carlton) Joanne Garrison,author of the"Burlingame Centennial 1908-2008"will be present at the event for a book signing. 2. Naming Contest Team-Trustees Toft and Brock will chair the"Naming of the Lions Contest": Information on the contest will be sent to the daily newspapers,as well as being available at both Burlingame libraries. Participants of all ages are welcome to send in an entry. The chairs will select thebest10 entries and the final choice will be made by full Library board. Library Board of Trustee Minutes May 20,2008 - 2 B. Hillsborough Update The City Librarian advised the Trustees that discussions between the City Managers of Burlingame, San Mateo and Hillsborough regarding an increase in Hillsborough's payment for Library services have come to a temporary impasse. Hillsborough's current response to this issue is that Hillsborough residents should be charged according to usage rather than by a per capita average of all libraries in the PLS System. Jim Nantell (Burlingame City Manager) and Arne Croce (San Mateo City Manager) will determine how they wish to proceed. The City Librarian noted that it would be illegal to permit Hillsborough residents to pay on a usage basis as California public libraries must serve all users equally. This would also put our State funding in jeopardy. At the request of the City Librarian, Bruce Carlton agreed to remain on the Library's committee for the Hillsborough Contract in a consulting role. IX. New Business A. Staff Development The Trustees discussed the possibility of creating an endowment fund which would be used to fund educational opportunities for individual staff members to further enhance their library knowledge and skills by attending workshops and conferences. Presently the Anderson Fund and the Duncan Fund are being used as sources for staff development. The Trustees requested that the City Librarian prepare a proposal for their review. B. Staff Scholarship The Trustees also wanted to research the idea of offering a scholarship to a staff person who was working towards his or her Masters in Library Science. The issue of how a scholarship of this nature could be administered was of interest to the Trustees. The City Librarian will prepare scholarship options for the next meeting. The idea of discussing staff development and a staff scholarship as a package is one the Trustees want to consider. C. New Centennial Library Cards Patrons will be offered the opportunity to obtain a new library card featuring the main Library in recognition of the Library's 100 years. The card will be free during the Centennial. Patrons will receive a new card number with their Centennial card. Library Board of Trustee Minutes May 20,2008 3 X. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:32pm. M/S/C (Brock/Toft) The next meeting of the Library Trustees will be held June 24, 2008 at 5:30prn in the Library Conference Room. Respectfully Submitted, Al red H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes May 20, 2008 4 BURL NOAME 0 A11111 4 4 i yi rarian eport. June 6, 2008 Library Wins 6.National Awards! Burlingame Public Library's public relations efforts won a total of 7 awards: 6 First Place awards, and one Honorable Mention, from the American Library Association!We are very proud of Maryam Refahi for her wonderful work on behalf of the library and its programs. Congratulations Maryam! Library Use Statistics Up Library circulation statistics are up again: 8.27% at Main; 9.28% at Easton. We are posting 60%,of the circulation.at both branches on the self-checks. This will be our largest year ever, assuming we maintain this rate through June. Library Budget to be approved The Library budget is expected to be approved at the City Council public hearing on Monday, June 16, 2008. The library operating budget was submitted with zero increase. Unfortunately, the budget reflects an increase in contractual costs with vendors, resulting in an overall reduction in the operating budget of$ 26,000. Funds were reduced in the collections budget once again, which means a loss in collections available for the public. Appointment of Trustees will take place.at this Council meeting as well. Hillsborough Contract Negotiation Stalled The contract to serve Hillsborough library users has stalled in discussions with the three City managers (Burlingame, Hillsborough, and San Mateo). The Hillsborough Citizen's committee (with whom we havenot met) maintains that Hillsborough should pay only for Hillsborough users, not by per capita expenditure. It would, in fact, be illegal for us to allow Hillsborough-to pay by user, as California public libraries are required to serve.all-users equally., Per capita cost is the typical way in which public libraries are funded across the state. For the past 5 years, Hillsborough residents have been paying the average of all PLS libraries as their cost: I will keep you posted on ' future developments. Library Carpet Project The Library Carpet project was resurrected last month, as the Public Works department and our staff developed the documents necessary togo out to bid. A -bidders meeting was held and Pat Harding and representatives from the Facilities Department were there. Unfortunately, we had only one attendee. However, we understand that the bidding information was not published in the contractor's local 480 Primrose Road Burlingame•California 94010-4o83. Phone(650)558-7474Fax(650)-342-6295 www.burlingame.orgf li�rary newsletter,where most contractors get their leads.This will be done and we think we will have 6 bids.The bidding period closes on June 13th and we hope to Have the work done in August or September.We plan to remain open during the installation. Children's Room Mini-Renovation The children's room facelift,funded by the Foundation,is taking shape.We have hired Michelle Nelson,the Interior Designer for the Easton Branch to assist us with fabric selections,paint colors,etc.We will have the children's room furniture refinished and reupholstered.We will be adding 3 new lounge chairs in the arts and crafts style to provide a greater variety of seating for those who use the children's room.The City will . be painting the Children's room walls and ceiling.The Foundation will be funding-the furnishings,upholstery and refinishing projects. Children's Centennial Mural Lynne Rutter,our muralist,is busy creating characters and scenes for the Foundation-sponsored Children's Centennial Mural.-A maquette was on view at the May Author Luncheon.Kris Cannon and her committee are working on funding for the project.,I think this will be a memorable tribute for many years to come.The mural installation should be complete in September 2008.I have asked Ms.Rutter to join us for the dedication. Burlingame Public Library Centennial Programs for the Burlingame Public Library Centennial celebration will kick-off in October: • Fine free week,October 1-6,2008 • Library Centennial Event:Naming of Lions contest results;Dedication of Children's mural,Sunday,October 19,2008,Noon;The Burlingame Historical Society will be on hand with Joanne Garrison's new book Burlingame_ Centennial.Refreshments will be served. • "Winter Wonderland"Family Event:featuring multiple performers and activities for children and adults of all ages;Friday,December 12,2008,7-9 TM.Volunteers will be needed for this event. Programs for Adults The One Book,One Community program:Dave Eggers in conversation with Michael Krasny will take place on Wednesday,October 1,2008,7:30 PM,San Mateo Performing Arts Center.Additional programs will be planned here and at venues throughout the County.The book is"What is the What"an autobiographical novel about Valentino Deng;one of the Sudanese"Lost Boys,"who we hope will be here in person during our events in October.Bookmarks have been published and programs will be distributed that evening and at all libraries in Peninsula Library System. Literary Tastings @ Burlingame Library The culinary arts provide the theme for our adult summer reading club. There will be raffles, prizes and programs. We will host 8 programs by individuals in the local food industry: chefs, bakers, cookbook writers, winemakers. In addition, films will be shown with a food theme. Interested individuals may register now. The program runs from June 16-July 31 . Mysterious California Author Series This series featuring local mystery authors was great fun. We had Nina Revoyr, Southland, Kirk Russell, Shell Games; Nadia Gordon, Sharpshooter, Laurie King, The Art of Detection, in an author's discussion panel. Discussion groups on each of their books were enjoyed by a loyal following. - Foundation Business The Foundation Author Luncheon not only made friends for the library, but also raised nearly$ 15,000. The author line-up was excellent. My thanks to the committee for making this second annual author event such a great success! The Foundation is looking for ways of marketing books either on an Amazon Store, or on eBay. The potential for larger sales is very good-with the larger audience. President Stephen Hamilton notes that this could bring in another $ 10K per year to the Foundation. The City Librarian attended a seminar given by the Planned Giving Council on "Protecting your Charity." A San Francisco attorney spoke about ways to protect your charity against loss and legal action. A handbook she designed was distributed and I have it available should anyone wish to view it. Technology Updates All libraries in Peninsula Library System will be upgraded with fiber optic cable which will allow us to have much greater bandwidth and therefore more speed. AT &T will be doing the work and individual libraries are paying part-of the cost. The work should be completed in the next 6 months., Peninsula Library System is also doing some long range planning for technology. The City Librarian is on the committee studying and prioritizing future technology options. Former Staff Member passes Former Page Supervisor, Michael Donnellan, passed away on May 23rd after a year- long battle with cancer. Michael retired from his post in December 1997,just after the main library opening. Services for him were held at St. Bartholomew's Church, 300 Alameda de las Pulgas, San Mateo on June 13, 12:30 PM. Posting of Library Trustee Agendas Library Trustee meeting agenda and packets must now be made available to the public at the same time they are mailed to the Trustees. This complies with new laws regarding information available at public meetings, SB 343, which takes effect July 1, 2008. Agendas and packets will be placed in a binder at the Reference Desk for public review. Off-Site Storage The library will shortly be contracting for offsite storage for shelving and furniture that we are not now using, but wish to keep. We are hoping to find a reasonable storage facility nearby. We must clear out our Tel/Data closets and other storage areas in keeping with fire safety, and there does not seem to be anywhere in the City to store our extra-furnishings. Upcoming Events: • 6 June, Burlingame Centennial Gala, 6 PM • 12 June, Historical Society: Public.Art in Burlingame, Russ Cohen, 7 PM • 12 June, Foundation Board Meeting, 5:30 PM • 16 June, Budget Approval; Appointment of Trustees by City Council • 17 June, Library Board Meeting, 5:30 PM • 4 July, Independence Day, Closed • 22 July, Library Board Meeting, 5:30 PM BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION JUNE 5,2008 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Carney. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Carney,Benson,Ellis (arrived @ 6:05p),Grandcolas,Lahey(arrived @ 6:05p), and McQuaide Absent: Commissioner Wright Staff: Interim Parks Superintendent Foell, Supervisor Disco,Arborist Porter, and Admin. Secretary Harvey Guests: Susan Raffo (1309 Castillo), Karen & Gil Borgardt (17 Clarendon), Beth & John Ailanjian (2504 Easton) Elizabeth Watson & George Martin (2305 Poppy), Raul Nicho (2500 Easton), and Jennifer Pfaff (615 Bayswater) MINUTES—The minutes of the April 3,2008 Beautification Commission were approved as corrected to read: 1) Meeting was "called to order at 6:00p.m." 2) Pg. 3, (5t" paragraph/bullet point #2) under Old Business/Proposed Changes to the Street Tree Selection/ Planting Policies: Parks Division Staff will not create "themed"streets but the majority ofproperty owners on a block may petition to have a "themed"street, choosing from the appropriate street tree list. 3) Pg. 3, (last paragraph) under Old Business/Proposed Changes to the Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies: Ms. Pfaff asked Supervisor Disco to assess the Accolade Elm and Zelkova for planting strips less than 6'and to reassess the purchasing availability of the `Frontier Elm'. Supervisor Disco responded that he would further research the possibility of planting Elms and Zelkova's in smaller planting strips and would also check into the current availability of the Frontier Elm'. 4) Pg. 1, under Old Business/Business Landscape Award Election: Commissioner Lahey reported that the Landscape Award Committee received two nominations. . . . There being no further corrections to the May 1, 2008 commission meeting minutes, the minutes were approved as corrected. CORRESPONDENCE Staff Report to Commission dated April 23, 2008 re: Street Tree Planting Plan submitted by Parks Superintendent Richmond Amended Street Tree Policy Proposal submitted by Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff Direction and Action,May 1, 2008 document submitted by Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff Proposed revised Official Street Tree List dated April 2008 submitted by Parks Supervisor Email correspondence dated May 2, 2008 from Elizabeth Watson (2305 Poppy Dr.) re: Proposed Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies Email correspondence dated May 25,2008 from Shirley Eigenbrot re: Proposed Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies Staff Report to Council dated May 13, 2008 re: Report on the Beautification Commission's Meering and Recommendation for the Plan to have Streets with Themed Trees submitted by Parks & Recreation Director Randy Schwartz Memorandum to Commission dated May 27,2008 re: Revised Street Tree List Correspondence dated May 22, 2008 from James Peters (18 Bloomfield) re: Proposed Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies Letters and related documents related to the Appeal of the Approval for the Removal of Only One of Three Redwood Trees @ 2504 Easton Drive—Burlingame Copy of article in the January 2003, Journal of Arboriculture: A Benefit-Cost Analysis of Ten Street Tree Species in Modesto, California, U.S., by E. Gregory McPherson,submitted by Jennifer Pfaff 1 FROM THE FLOOR Jennifer Pfaff(615 Bayswater) commented on the abstract Benefit-Cost Analysis of Ten Street Tree Species . . ., that some trees that grow fast such as ornamental pear trees are amongst the poorest selections of street trees and are not long lived, whereas slower growers such as London Plane trees and Gingko trees are better suited as street trees,requiring less maintenance, and living longer. Chairman Carney changed the order of the agenda to accommodate the appellants present. NEW BUSINESS Appeal of the Denial for the Removal of a Private Live Oak Tree *, 15 Clarendon Road (nearest to the property at 17 Clarendon Road)— Arborist Porter reviewed and reported to the Commission that the original application from the property owner, submitted in February of 2008, requested removal of all 3 Live Oak trees on the property. The application was denied because the request was only based on "future" building plans. Subsequently, plans were submitted to the Building Department in March of 2008. Arborist Porter stated he then approved removal of the Live Oak tree (41) for the new garage and driveway, and the removal of Live Oak tree (42) because too many roots would need to be cut as part of the proposed construction. Arborist Porter stated that following the approval, two letters were received from property owners at 17 & 18 Clarendon Road appealing the decision and requesting the removal of Live Oak tree (43) instead of the middle Live Oak tree (42), because the #3 Oak tree shades the property at 17 Clarendon Road, deprives the garden area of sunlight, causing difficulty in growing vegetables. A letter from 18 Bloomfield was also received appealing the decision, but instead, requests that the Live Oak tree (42) and the Live Oak tree (#3) remain for canopy and balance issues. Additionally, a letter from #10 Bloomfield was received and requests that at least one of the Live Oak trees remain on the property. Following the Commissions review with Arborist Porter, Commissioner McQuaide asked if the plans had been approved by the Planning Commission. Arborist Porter stated that until the completion of the appeal process had been met with regard to the trees,the plans for the project would not move forward. Chairperson Carney then opened the hearing to public comment. Gil Borgardt(appellant), 17 Clarendon Road, stated that the trees are too close to each other and there is no room on the property for all 3 trees to remain. He stated that the#1 Oak tree has an iron grill embedded in it and that there is wire in the #3 tree;he would like the#2 Oak tree to remain but would like the #3 tree to be removed instead, or at the least,the plan to include that the 43 Live Oak tree be pruned so it doesn't come over his property. Commissioner Ellis asked Arborist Porter if the #2 Oak tree was in the way of the proposed project. Arborist Porter confirmed that the#2 Oak tree is too close to the footprint of the proposed garage. Commissioner Lahey stated that there are not many tall trees in the neighborhood or between the back yards. She stated that she would not want to see all 3 or possibly even 2 trees removed on this property,but acknowledged that the trees are too close. She concluded,that if the #3 Oak Tree was pruned and thinned nicely, the appellant would still have light to his garden, and the neighbor at 18 Bloomfield would still have some canopy. Following the discussion, Commissioner Benson moved to uphold the denial of the removal of the #3 Oak tree, because the drip line of the tree does not reach over the property at 17 Clarendon Road, is viable despite being neglected, and adds canopy to the neighborhood;seconded Motion carried G—0—I (absent/Wright). Chairperson Carney thanked the appellant and advised of appeal procedures. Appeal of the Denial for the Removal of Only One of Three Redwood Trees in the Back Yard (a,) 2504 Easton Drive— Arborist Porter reported that in April 2008 an application was received to remove 3 Redwood trees located in the back yard due to roots of the trees invading the yard. Approval for the removal of the #2 Redwood tree (in the middle of the yard) was granted because he believed it was the tree causing most of the root damage on the property, but denied the removal of the 2 outside Redwood trees, citing root pruning on the remaining trees could mitigate concerns and could be accomplished without dyer consequences. The property owner at 1309 Castillo(located behind the applicants property), has appealed the denial of the removal of the other two Redwood trees citing roots have lifted and cracked the driveway, and that they are experiencing difficulty opening their garage door. 2 NEW BUSINESS - Anneal of the Denial for the Removal of Only One of Three Redwood Trees in the Back Yard (ii)2504 Easton Drive—(Contd.) Commissioner Benson asked Arborist Porter how he determined which roots were causing the damage. Arborist Porter stated he could make that determination by following the root flair, which is straight across from the 42 Redwood tree, and is closest to the back fence line. Commissioner Lahey asked if the 42 Redwood tree were removed along with the stump, would the roots of the other trees be disturbed. Arborist Porter responded that stump removal would generally only include the general area around the stump and should not affect the other trees. Commissioner Ellis asked if the property owner wanted to install a lawn, would it grow. Arborist Porter responded yes, but lawn may last only 3-4 years. The Commission further reviewed with Arborist Porter the damage caused by tree roots,root growth, proper root pruning techniques,installation of root barriers to mitigate future damage, and stability of trees following root pruning. Chairperson Carney then opened the hearing for public comment. Susan Raffo (appellant), 1309 Castillo, submitted pictures of damage to fencing and surrounding concrete surfacing caused by roots from the neighboring redwood trees. She commented that, 6-8 years ago, because they could not open their garage door,her husband dug up the asphalt and cut out large roots so they could open their garage door. The roots have grown back again (creating the same problem), the driveway on the other side is now undulating, thin roots are in their yard, and the gate is now off line. Ms. Raffo stated that they wish to replace the driveway with the goal of replacing the garage and landscaping the garden but hesitates to do so because they do not want the roots to reinvade again. She stated that she is also concerned that the roots might someday invade her pool. Ms. Raffo concluded that her neighbors at 2504 Easton want to improve their back yard and have a play area for their children, that, the appeal is to have only one other tree removed, and hopes the Commission would reconsider and approve the removal of the #1 Redwood tree too. Commissioner Ellis asked Ms. Raffo the age of her existing driveway. Ms. Raffo stated the driveway is about 28 years old and replacement cost would run around$20,000 if the trees were to remain and root barriers were to be placed. John Ailanjian, 2504 Easton Drive, stated that when they bought the house they loved the Redwood trees, but thinks these trees are not appropriate for this size lot and were planted by the previous owner and left to grow. He stated that after they purchased the home, the basement flooded, due to roots; repair costs were $30,000. They have considered decking or installing Astroturf in the back yard but an Independent Arborist recommended removal because the trees were going to grow to a massive size and root pruning could make the trees unstable. He concluded his comments stating that they would be willing to replace the trees with other more suitable trees if removal were approved. Beth Ailanjian, 2504 Easton Drive, stated they loved the back yard when they bought their home 6 months ago, but no one wants to prune the roots; three people have stated that they would not guarantee the tree's stability if the roots are pruned. She now fears someone may get hurt if they were to prune the roots and cause the tree(s) to become unstable. She commented that she takes her children to the park all the time because they cannot provide a play area in the existing space;that the space is so tiny and unusable. She concluded that had they known,they would not have bought the house. Commissioner Grandcolas asked Arborist Porter if cutting the top of the Redwood tree would cause it to grow vertically. Arborist Porter stated, no, but cutting the top of the tree would create a worse situation. Arborist Porter added that putting a lawn in the back yard would be possible without pruning the roots by filling in with topsoil and seed over the roots of tree 43, and then in the area where tree 42 has been approved for removal, putting down a new layer of topsoil and planting a lawn. Commissioner McQuaide commented that her neighbors have several large Redwood trees in their yard and that they left an area open around the trunks, planted lawn, and the trees roots have not affected lawn. Raul Nicho, 2500 Easton Drive, stated that the Redwood trees roots at 2504 Easton Drive have caused problems on his property with the sewer line, can only assume it is the size of the trees, and that the Redwood tree#1 is mostly likely the tree damaging the sewer line. They have managed to live with the problems the tree has caused over the years, but he understands his neighbor's plight because their basement is now completely refinished. He concluded that he is in favor of the Commission approving removal, and was glad to hear that his neighbor would agree to plant trees that are more appropriate. 3 NEW BUSINESS -Appeal of the Denial for the Removal of Onlv One of Three Redwood Trees in the Back Yard (a-),2504 Easton Drive—(Contd.) Commissioner Ellis noted that the hot tub is in the path of Redwood tree #1 and asked the Ailanjian's if they had experienced problems in that area. Mr. Ailanjian stated that the hot tub is elevated and there is concrete underneath,but had not experienced any,problems. Commissioner Grandcolas stated and clarified with Arborist Porter that the old clay sewer lines in the City of Burlingame shift and break or crack, and then the roots invade the line, not the other way around,that the roots break or crack sewer lines. Arborist Porter stated that tree roots don't search out sewer lines but will go to the source of water. Commissioner Grandcolas then asked if replacing the old clay sewer line would correct the problem. Arborist Porter stated yes,that would correct the problem. Chairperson Carney closed the hearing to public comment. Commissioner Benson stated if the approved removal of the#2 Redwood is removed then the#I Redwood tree should be removed as well because thev are too close to each other and there would still be a gorgeous big Redwood tree by leaving the #3 Redwood tree in this tiny back yard. Commissioner Benson then moved to approve the removal of the Redwood tree#1 because it is too close to the#2 Redwood tree already permitted for removal, the roots of the two trees are intertwined, root pruning would not mitigate the concerns, and the shade from Redwood tree #3 would provide shade and canopy for the yard;seconded, Carney. Commissioner McQuaide commented that if both Redwood tree 41 and Redwood tree#2 are removed,the 43 tree would stand alone and it is her understanding that Redwood trees need to have another Redwood tree; one Redwood tree in the yard might create instability on the remaining tree. Commissioner Benson responded that one Redwood tree could stand alone adding that these trees roots are going to continue growing and the trunks will continue growing. Commissioner Lahey commented that she is hesitant approving removal of a Redwood tree. Since the Redwood tree#2 has been already permitted for removal, the remaining Redwood tree#1 and Redwood tree #3 can be pruned and raised up; adding that we all have trees in our yards that were planted by squirrels. She noted that Redwood trees are gone in the City because trees were removed when the lots were subdivided in the City. Commissioner Carney asked Arborist Porter how long before roots would go into the driveway? Arborist Porter responded that it would probably take 10 years,that the driveway is 5-10 feet beyond the drip line. Commissioner Ellis stated and clarified with Arborist Porter that tree roots don't grow into foundations and that there would not be a problem with soil on the top of the existing roots. Arborist Porter stated that concrete foundations are deep and roots will not go through the concrete, and that putting topsoil and grass a couple of feet away from the trunk would be possible and doable in this case; noting that there are varieties of grass that would be more appropriate for the particular growing conditions. Following the discussion, Chairperson Carney repeated the motion and called for the vote. Motion failed: 1 (favoredBenson), 5(opposed), 1 (absent/Wright). Commissioner Benson then moved to uphold Arborist Porter's recommendation to remove only Redwood tree#2; seconded, Grandcolas. Motion carried 6—0—I (absent/Wright). Chairperson Carney thanked the appellants and advised of appeal procedures. OLD BUSINESS Business Landscape Award Update Commissioner Lahey reported that she had contacted the owner of Solo Bambini and Commissioner Wright had also notified artist Dale Perkins of the results as well. The owner of Solo Bambini was thrilled to hear that they would be receiving the award, and invited the Commission to come by and see the back yard of the business too. Commissioner Lahey submitted for Commission review, the proposed letter that would be sent to the winning business noting that the approved letter would be sent on Commission letterhead. She stated the plaque design would need to be decided and had asked Administrative Secretary Harvey to bring the plaque that was used for the Commission's past 'Landscape Award' program. Commissioner Lahey concluded that the plaque design, publicity for the Chamber Newsletter, and a date for the presentation before Council would need to go back to the committee; noting that since some summer Council meetings are cancelled, September might be the best month to present the award. 4 OLD BUSINESS-Business Landscape Award Update(Contd.) Commissioner Lahey then added that she would need to remove herself at this time from the committee because of time required of her with a new job and her children. Commissioner-Benson stated she thought September would be too late and expressed concern that momentum would be lost. Following a brief discussion, it was a consensus of the Commission that Director Schwartz ascertains a date for a Council meeting in September when the award could be presented. Commissioner McQuaide agreed to serve on the committee. The committee would meet soon and decide on the plaque design and the publicity for the award. Street Tree Policy Recommendation/Official Street Tree List Revisions Interim Superintendent Foell reviewed the status of the Commissions Street Tree Policy Recommendation to Council and stated, though he had not attended the meeting, it was his understanding that, generally the Council approved the recommendation and agreed with the focus on 'tall canopy' trees. He noted that it is important for the revisions on the tree lists to be approved tonight because the fall planting,the Grant planting, and the postponed April planting is still on hold until the lists are approved. He stated that Supervisor Disco had been revising the lists, removing some species, adding some species, and keeping some trees with the best,largest canopies as possible. Commissioner Grandcolas commented that he attended the Council meeting when the recommendation was presented to Council. The Council did not seem intent on creating more "themed" streets, but thought it best not to dictate to homeowners the specie of tree to be planted in front of their homes,but mostly discussed removing bad choices of trees, leaving and adding choices of"grand"trees,and providing fewer choices of trees on the list. Interim Superintendent Foell stated that the existing "themed" streets need to be identified and that Supervisor Disco would be creating a list of"themed"streets for the Commission to review at the August meeting. Supervisor Disco stated he would like to see the tree lists reviewed on a yearly basis, adding and updating trees on the list. He then reviewed with the Commission the suggested revisions to the 4 street tree lists. The Commission made some suggested changes that Supervisor Disco would take into consideration after conducting further research. Chairperson Carney then opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater, stated that she had attended the May 19'h Council meeting and expressed concern that there seemed to be a disconnect between what is being presented at the Commission meeting and what happened at the Council meeting and understood by the Council's comments that they had wanted the street tree list peared down to include"grand"trees, maybe to 3 or 4 species on certain blocks. She noted that the revised street tree lists still had a lot of choice, and asked "where are the "grand" trees?" She commented that she did appreciate that the Red Bud had been removed from the list. Ms. Pfaff then suggested the following: * Under the PRIM list, 2 types of Magnolia's are not needed; remove the small 'Little Gem' Magnolia from the list. * Narrow down the lists, choosing trees with big canopies;by default,a greater canopy is created * London Plane(Sycamore) trees could be included on the PRIM list * Pear trees only live 25 years and should be removed from the list because they are not long lived * Consider using a symbol by the trees on each list that are"canopy"trees or`Burlingame preferred"trees Elizabeth Watson commented on the possible "disconnect" between the Council and the Commission, and thought the Council heard that the lists could be cut down to 3 choices on the"themed"streets. She then suggested the following for the street tree lists: * Stay with the 4 lists with 10-12 choices on each list;the broader the choice for property owners,the better • Providing as many"grand"trees on each list as feasible * Providing smaller trees for areas where there are special needs;be flexible * Label"grander"trees on list;would love to know which are the"grander"trees Ms. Watson concluded that many who were to have trees planted in April are still waiting for a decision and do not know if or when the trees will be planted or if they will need to choose from other lists. Interim Superintendent Foell responded that staff has met and thought those on the April list would be able to stay with original choices because most were not on"themed"streets. Ms. Watson stated that those homeowners may wish to choose from the revised list. After a brief discussion, it was decided that once the revised list was approved, those on the April planting list would be given the opportunity to chose from those lists as well. 5 OLD BUSINESS-Street Tree Policv Recommendation/Official Street Tree List Revisions—(Contd.) Chairperson Carney closedpublic comment. Commissioner McQuaide moved to approve the revised street tree list with the additions discussed, while researching other suggested species for inclusion;seconded,Benson. Motion carried 6—0—I (absent/Wright). CalTrans Plan for El Camino Update Interim Superintendent Foell reported that CalTrans made a presentation to Council. Council has now asked CalTrans to provide a survey and a map for the October Council meeting indicating which Eucalyptus trees would be removed, and how many, and where replacement Elm trees would be planted. Commissioner Grandcolas reported that he was at the same Council meeting and stated that the news is not pretty; not hopeful. He continued that CalTrans' new guidelines call for removal of trees to provide a site distance of 100', each way, at each intersection, and that, replacement plantings will be sparse. He noted that he spoke to the issue and reminded the Council that Elm trees will not grow as tall as the Eucalyptus trees, and that overhead power lines will be very visible when the trees come down,and asked the Council to spend the money to underground power lines. Supervisor Disco stated that he had walked the El Camino several times with the project manager and had shared his concern regarding the 100' site distance each way at intersections. After the project manager discussed Supervisor Disco's concerns with his supervisor, it was articulated that this was just a `guideline" and could be adjusted. Supervisor Disco recommended to the project manager that 1) site distances at the intersections to be 30' each way, instead of 100% 2) the minimum spacing between replacement trees to be brought in (or lessened); 3) provide smaller trees instead of no trees for site clearances between driveways; and, 4) where wires are over planter strips, plant Accolade Elms trees, slightly back/closer to the sidewalk edge, rather than no tree planting in those areas. Supervisor Disco further reported that the majority of tree removals on El Camino at this time would be the removal of the small Eucalyptus microtheca trees. July 3`d Beautification Commission Meeting After a brief discussion, it was a consensus of the Commission that the July 3rd Beautification Commission be cancelled due to the July 4th Holiday. REPORTS— Interim Superintendent's Report Interim Superintendent Foell reported that staff is making progress on the fall tree planting. Interim Superintendent Greg Foell introduced himself and stated he had served in Parks and Recreation for 23 years; loves it and is very passionate about this field. He added that it is lovely to see a City that is so passionate about trees and that he comes from an area that has a commitment to trees. He noted that on the "Parks" end, he had served as Assistant Administrator with a Park District as well as an Administrator of a Park District doing Park Development and overseeing the planting of over 1,000 trees. Supervisor Disco Supervisor Disco reported that the tree crew removed 2 Silver Maples along the sidewalk on California Drive at the request of the Public Works Department due to ADA requirements because a blind individual had hit his head while walking on the sidewalk adjacent to the trees; both trees also had decay in the trunk. The trees would be replaced with Red Maples. Chairperson Carney Chairperson Carney reported that a Cork Oak tree had been planted in Washington Park,near the horseshoe pits,in honor of retired Parks Superintendent,Richmond. Commissioner Grandcolas Commissioner Grandcolas reported a swing had been placed in a City tree on Balboa. 6 REPORTS—(Contd.) Commissioner Benson Commissioner Benson reported that she trimmed the entire trail in Mills Canyon, weeded two blocks on Broadway, and deadheaded the rose bushes in the Park Road Rose Garden. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, n Kar ene Harvey Recording Secretary 7 • CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGo 1 .AME APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California June 23, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the June 23, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 3, Item 2a. 2520 Valdivia, second bulleted item: The neighbors made^h ng to the bed-Feem suite instaYing a SOW StUGGG wa#on a pa4o, the wa#dee.90 agow vie"when seated ip the Feside"^^ The neighbors removed the glass patio door from their master bedroom and closed up that space with a stucco wall. They also replaced a four-foot fence with a six-foot fence; the new fence blocks the view when seated in the patio area. Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Joel Weise, 3 Kenmar Way; noted his objections regarding the proposed project at 2700 Summit Drive (Design Review Study item from June 9, 2008 Planning Commission agenda). There is a proposal to install a fence on the public sidewalk. View obstructions will occur. His home is adjacent to the property, but not shown on the plans; average setback is not accurate. Most of neighbors are objecting to the setback calculation. The owners have gone around asking the neighbors not to object to the plan; neighbors were intimidated not to get in the way of the project. With respect to the Variance; it speaks to the look, feel and mass of the structure;the house is nearly 5,000 square feet and includes an in-law unit;this does not fit with the neighborhood, the home is too large. The applicant has already built a fence within a foot or two of the street; have encroached into a public easement. All of the adjacent neighbors object to the plans. CommissionerAuran recused himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 1, since he has a business relationship with the applicant. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23,2008 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 350 LORTON AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA B—APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF RETAIL SPACE TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTION(WACHOVIA BANK)(ROB SHINE, APPLICANT;ANN SABATINI,PROPERTY OWNER;AND CHRISTY BATES,CALLISON ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report,dated June 23,2008. Commission comments: • How many other businesses along Lorton have received parking Variances? • Financial institutions are prohibited on Burlingame Avenue; where is the dividing line between Subarea A and Subarea B; what is the Downtown Specific Plan Citizens Advisory Committee intention regarding this type of use? Concern that banks in the downtown core do not promote pedestrian activity. • Consider window treatments on Lorton Avenue and California Drive frontages to address the concern with the pedestrian environment. • Is the parking in-lieu fee available as an option(Senior Planner Brooks—it can be considered as an option). • This is an extensive application for a parking Variance,a 30 percent parking shortage for the use. • What are the applicant's intentions regarding the building facades,changes? • Verify if it is truly the applicant's intention for the project to be LEED certified. • Will this be a full-service retail bank? • Are there numbers for traffic and parking from the prior tenant;this is a significant intensification, there could be potential parking and traffic issues. • Applicant may wish to discuss parking arrangements in conjunction with II Fornaio's valet parking program. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commission Auran noted that he would abstain from voting regarding Agenda Item 2c,since he lives within 500-feet of the property. 2a. 2673 MARTINEZ DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(MARWAN ZEIDAN,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER,AND DAVID MIRAFLOR,DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN(continuedfrom June 9,2001 Planning Commission Meeting) 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 2b. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR ANEW THREE-STORY, THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MIKE PRESCOTT, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (continued from June 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting) 2c. 1277 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER, AND BOB AND CINDY GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Vistica moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 on Items 2a and 2b (Commissioner Lindstrom absent); 5-0-1-1 on Item 2c (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Auran abstained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m, VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 2520 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND LEE AND MARGIE LIVINGSTON, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN (continued from June 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting — Request to Continue by applicant) Continued at the request of the applicant. The matter will be re-noticed prior to appearing on a future agenda. 4. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRSTAND SECOND STORYADDITION TOA SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIAL ART, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CHRIS DUNNING, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated June 23, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. He indicated that he would participate in the discussion of the item, but would abstain from voting, since he had not participated in the prior discussion regarding the item. Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive, represented the applicant. ■ Have considered all neighbors in the project design; and have taken their input into consideration, ■ Described changes made to plans; have incorporated all of the Commission's recommendations. ■ Provided photos of homes in the area. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 Commission comments: ■ Asked if the applicant has visited the neighboring property to observe the views (Applicant — no significant views are impacted). ■ Not convinced regarding the detailing of the rail on the rear deck; most in the area don't move into the "commercial" character (Applicant—willing to re-design rail as an FYI if required). ■ Match the character of the rear column with the design of the front column. ■ Concerned regarding view blockage from the neighbor's (1847 Hunt Drive) kitchen window. Public comments: ■ Thomas Nuris, 2171 Junipero Serra Boulevard, Daly City; represented Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Vlahos , 1847 Hunt Drive; the kitchen view blockage is significant, the space is used the majority of the time. Believe that the design should be revised to eliminate the view impact. Moving the addition into the rear yard would impact the applicant's use of yard space, but should be balanced with impacts upon the neighbor's view. Extend the addition at ground level without impacting views of neighbor. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Believe that view blockage from the kitchen is substantial; quality of life in neighbor's house will be impacted. ■ The pattern within the block is single-story homes. ■ Breakfast room and den views are also affected. ■ Reasonable addition, but there is view blockage;wouldn't want to set a precedent by allowing view blockage in this instance; there are other alternatives to expand the residence. ■ Massing hasn't changed too much with modifications that have been made; sense was that the prominent views were to the southwest; were hopeful that the designers would shift the massing somewhat; concern about views wasn't a prominent a discussion point during the initial discussions. ■ Applicant has worked to modify the design as directed; can be supported, though there are some view impacts. ■ The two-story design is appropriate for the site; the ordinance that makes the hillside area valuable emphasizes distant views; views of trees and sky have not been deemed significant in the past. If the regulations are used injudiciously, could become problematic; be mindful thatjust blocking light does not count as a valuable view. ■ Preservation of back-yard space is important over view space. ■ Blockage of air and sunlight do not reach level of being substantial from a view blockage standpoint. ■ Distant view of trees is significant; the proposal creates a significant view blockage. Commissioner Auran moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: • Appreciates the applicant's willingness to work through the issues, but there are alternatives for an addition that will not impact the neighbor's view. View impact is significant. ■ Design of house was intentional, promoted views from the property. 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23,2008 Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the application without prejudice. The motion passed 3-2-1-1(Commissioners Terrones and Brownrigg dissenting, Commissioner Cauchi abstaining, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. Commissioner Auran recused himself from participation on Agenda Item 5 due to a business relationship with the applicant 5. 1317 CABRILLO AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(BOB AND CINDY GILSON,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;AND CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING,DESIGNER)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 23,2008,with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen(13)conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: • None James Chu,55 West 43r6,San Mateo,and Bob Gilson,30 Woodgate Court,Hillsborough;represented the applicant. Met with three of the neighbors that spoke at the prior hearing. • Spoke to Principal at Our Lady of Angels;not worried about shadows in the parking lot;there is not a problem with shadow casting on the school yard. • Willing to work with neighbor at 1321 Cabrillo Avenue regarding landscaping and fence issue raised in letter to Commission. Public comments: • Mary Ann Martinez and Sue Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Avenue; Rolando Pasquale, 2836 Hillside Drive;and Peter Lu, 1315 Cabrillo Avenue;concerned that the project will take away more of the light from the neighboring property,it appears to be much taller;the deviation from the declining height envelope will impact the use of the garden of the neighbor's home;revise the design of the wall outside the neighbor's dining room to improve the view;the neighbor is willing to accept having the new home's rear wall at the same location as the rear wall of the existing home,spoke to Judith O'Rourke at Our Lady of Angels,she indicated that she is obligated to inform the School Board of the project;the relevant time to assess shadow impacts is during the fall and winter months;the neighbors would not likely have a problem with a project of a similar size to the existing home;the project is out of character with the neighborhood;moving the home back further on the lot would affect the usability of neighbor's rear yard;could the design be revised to reduce the mass. Additional Commission comments: Would neighbor prefer the placement of the home closer to the street,or moved away to the rear by 4-feet;it will not likely impact the neighbor's garden(James Chu—the rear of the proposed home and the neighbor's home are nearly equivalent;clarified that the maximum height of the structure is 25'/feet,roughly 8-inches taller than the neighboring home to the left). • Clarified that the new home is still shorter than the existing home;similar to both neighbor's homes. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 • Clarified that new home is only 0.43-foot taller than the neighboring home. • Requested clarification of front setback. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: • Spoke to issue of presenting the project to Our Lady of Angels; if we look at shadow casting of this residence, then the Commission must look at shadow casting of Our Lady of Angels on Cortez Avenue. • The two story home is only 8-inches taller than the adjacent home on the left; applicant has made an effort to bring down the scale of the home to be more accommodating to the street;the porch design makes the design approachable. • The neighbor's input has resulted in a better project. • The house is handsome; fits well, though there is more roof massing. • Minimal impact upon the neighborhood; is appropriate design for the street. • Not concerned with potential shadow impacts. • Could be helpful in the future to have existing elevations submitted with a proposal for a new residence. • The project has been reduced in height by 4.5 feet. • Suggested hipping the roofline on the second floor(rear)of the house; could be a benefit to the right hand neighbor. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped, June 11, 2008, sheets A.1 through A.6, landscape plan and boundary and topographic survey, 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 design of the roof at the rear gable shall be revised with a hip roof design; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and the NPDES Coordinator's April 25, 2008 memos, the City Engineer's May 14, 2008 memo, and the Fire Marshal's April 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 4. 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; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review, 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planninc Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 7, 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; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that 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; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11 , that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12, that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. 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; and 14, 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Declining height envelope encroachment is inherent with the style; is there to enhance the architecture of the project. • House is pushed to one side to accommodate driveway and detached garage; places bulk at one side of the lot; declining height envelope encroachment is minimized. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Auran recused, Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23,2008 Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. 6. 1783 EL CAMINO REALM 501 TROUSDALE DRIVE,ZONED UNCLASSIFIED—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITTO INCREASE THE FLOORAREA OF THE PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING BY ADDING A FLOOR FOR THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT (MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT; PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER;AND ANSHEN+ALLEN,ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated June 23,2008,with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. One-hundred forty-six (146) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: • Have Mitigation monitoring panel disbanded 60-90 days following project completion, in case problems occur at conclusion of project. Chris Ovlen,Mills-Peninsula Health Services,1501 Trousdale Drive;Kevin Day,Anshen+Allen Architects; and Larry Kollerer,program manager,Mills Peninsula Health Services;represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Requested clarification regarding the"foundation"business model. • Concern regarding massing on EI Camino frontage. • Concern regarding sheathing of HVAC enclosure(Day: will be painted the same tone as the metal panels on lower levels);not persuaded that the type of screening is the best solution;Should give some thought to a better treatment for the HVAC sheathing. • Treatment of access road needs further thought as part of the overall project. • Kiosk for valet parking;was encouraged so that there is advanced thought given to the design • Not too concerned regarding the massing on EI Camino;feels that the bay window breaks up the mass. • Asked if the equipment sheath is tall enough to block equipment(Day—yes). • Treatment of access road questioned(Kollerer—is primarily a fire road;would make more sense to put money into other aspects. Believes that road view will be blocked by landscaping). • The access road could become a highly used asset for nearby residents. • Question regarding configuration of helipad; how is it treated; how visible is it(Ovlen-at same height;but now a pre-fabricated steel structure). Public comments: • Pat Giorni,1445 Balboa Avenue;Luciana Kinser,402 Heather,San Mateo;Terry Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive;Simoune Almasi, 1605 Davis Drive;Janelle Morgan,3 Emerald Court, San Mateo; regarding fire road;originally sold as a walking path akin to the healing gardens. Were told that it was also a fire road;would need to be heavily surfaced to accommodate loads. At last health board meeting it was stated that the new foundation is related to Palo Alto Medical Foundation merger. Is the glass canopy going to shatter during an earthquake or other trauma? What is the total of freed up beds that is moving to Magnolia Gardens? What services will be offered in the new facility;will more and separate staff be hired? Will food service be from main hospital? All of this needs to be taken into account in the new traffic analysis. Magnolia Gardens remodel;will it solely be under 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 State permitting, or will it come to the City for review? Spoke to public art and process for review. Concerned that some aspects of outpatient services may be eliminated,as may be the helipad. Has State heliport permit been issued for the helipad? Noted requirement that the Planning Commission review any physical changes before facility licensed as a trauma center. Should consider an additional condition stating that the helipad must be constructed and licensed for operation priorto issuance of occupancy for the Professional Office Building. Additional floorwill outweigh benefits of having a helipad from a cost consideration. Concern for employees is that everything must be put in writing for everything to be done. Commented regarding fitness facility and whether it will be included in the project. PC would be giving approval of a plan that may not benefit the entire community. Concerned regarding some of the information in the packet to the Planning Commission. Parking on Davis Drive may be closer than the parking garage. Have been asked to consider having limited term parking in front of the residences on Davis Drive. Were told that Mills- Peninsula would take care of the parking problems,and recited commitment from hospital CEO that they would keep employee vehicles off the streets. Doesn't feel that their homes should be devalued by placement of limited term parking. City should have more meetings with the neighborhood to identify solutions to parking problem; consider closing down the alley. Could place a guard at Marco Polo entrance to address parking problems. There are other alternatives that haven't been considered. Questioned mitigation monitoring panel condition; does construction include demolition of hospital, landscaping,will concerns and questions be addressed if they are not construction related. Will the City create another venue to consider other issues? Doesn't believe employees are the current parking problem; the guests and visitors are a problem. How many vehicles will make the left turn from EI Camino Real to Trousdale Drive in the morning rush hour? How will traffic conditions change? Applicant response: • Larry Kollerer and Chris Ovlen; noted that the Mills-Peninsula program cannot unilaterally be changed. The fitness club facility is not an in-patient service; taking up valuable hospital space for this type of service is a difficult choice, The administration understands the employee's desire, but it comes down to changes in the length of stay of patients; demand for beds has increased beyond what was anticipated. Helipad has not been used over a four-year period. At one time there were occasional, sparse landings. It will remain in the plan; though it is unusual for a neighborhood to request it. The cost for the helipad is not large. Getting a license now is not possible since it wouldn't be in service until 2012. Believe that the present location can be licensed when the time is right (City Attorney Anderson — noted that if the helipad is eliminated, the Conditional Use Permit must be amended). Need to be able to open office building prior to construction of helipad since the old hospital must be demolished before the helipad can be built. Magnolia Gardens is and will remain a skilled nursing facility. Will place a comparable number of beds in facility to the number removed. It will be a new state of the art facility. Did not count parking on Magnolia Gardens site. Number of beds will be reduced; is only an internal remodel at this time. A larger project to upgrade the mechanical systems will occur in a year. Glass canopy of the office building will meet seismic codes. Additional Commission comments: • Health and fitness facility; is there a potential location within the office building (Kollerer - are looking at other properties on Trousdale for the facility. The doctors have a higher need). Additional Applicant response: • Larry Kollerer; regarding access from Davis Drive; the hospital is willing to discuss closing this access; could impact employees that live in the area; but if it is an issue, could be vetted at 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 Mitigation Monitoring Panel meeting. Would need to gather opinions from a broader scope of the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: • First inclination is to support changes that will make hospital profitable and flexible to ensure that proper healthcare is provided to the community. A bit nervous that added floor may create need to eliminate other amenities; however, changes inherent in the prior approvals will need to be brought back for further modifications; supportive of specifics presented regarding additional floor. • Would like to see some modification to Condition 118 — allow 6-months for disbandment of Mitigation Monitoring Panel; include demolition of hospital in construction definition. • With respect to the fitness center; can see the trade-off if trying to be competitive. • The proposal is an adaptation to promote better health care. • Bring back sheathing of HVAC design as an FYI. • Clarify treatment of fire access road. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: General: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 10, 2004, Sheets A0.01 through PS7, including topography, grading, utilities, landscape plans, floor diagrams, site plans, phasing plans, site section,elevations, parking structure plans, etc., and as shown on the perspective drawings of the Pedestrian View along EI Camino Rea at Medical Office Building and the View from Davis Drive Property to the South date stamped November 10, 2004 as they may be refined pursuant to Condition#5; and the Office Buildingshall be built as shown on the plans date stamped May 20, 2008, Sheets A1.00, A1.01, A2.00 through A2.06, Canopy Plan and Section, Elevations and Section;and that the design of the sheathing around the rooftop HVAC units on the Office Building shall be brought back to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to final inspection; (Planning, Building) 2. that the project shall include a hospital with a floor area of not more than 441,000 square feet and a medical office building with a floor area of not more than 150,000 180,000 square feet (Planning, Building) 3. that the project shall provide a minimum of 1,4W 1540 parking spaces, with 809 822 spaces in the parking garage and no more than twenty(20) percent of the required parking shall be in compact parking spaces; (Planning, Building) 4. that construction shall be carried out in the phases described in the Environmental Impact Report and the phasing plans dated September 10, 2004; (Planning, Building, Public Works) 5, that the approved exterior design of the hospital, medical office building and garage shall be further refined by the applicant pursuant to Planning Commission and City Council direction, and the refined designs shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage; if the City Planner determines that the submitted exterior designs are inconsistent with the exterior design approved by the Commission and City Council,the design shall be forwarded for review and approval to the Planning Commission; in any event the emerging and final design of the medical office building, hospital and parking garage shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their information; and that any material changes in floor area, design, or use shall require City approval of an amendment to this use permit;(Planning) 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 6. that the applicant shall record an access easement between the Mills Peninsula Health Services property at 1811 Trousdale Drive and the adjacent Peninsula Hospital District property to the south before closing the EI Camino Real access to the existing hospital, and that prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage, the applicant shall record an access easement or otherwise demonstrate legal irrevocable access for construction and parking ingress and egress between the merged Mills Peninsula Health Services properties along EI Camino Real and the Peninsula Hospital District property to the west, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney; (Public Works) 7. that an application shall be submitted and recorded for a lot line adjustment for the exchange of 35 feet of street frontage along Trousdale Drive from the east side to the west side of Magnolia Gardens Care Center between Mills Peninsula Health Services and Magnolia Gardens Care Center prior to the issuance of a building permit for the parking garage; (Public Works) & that the two parcels with frontage on EI Camino Real that are owned by Mills Peninsula Health Services shall be merged and the map recorded prior to issuance of a building permit forthe parking garage; (Public Works) 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building, the three parcels remaining after compliance with Condition #8 shall be merged, the map shall be recorded, and the zoning shall be changed to Unclassified for the resulting parcel; (Public Works) 10. that if the actions described above in Condition #9 and all prerequisite conditions are not complete within five years of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the City shall review and modify the Conditional Use Permit as appropriate; (Planning) 11 , that no building permit shall be issued to any structure whose required parking is on a separate parcel;(Building) �-- 12, that any improvements for the replacement hospital structure shall meet all requirements of California law and shall be approved by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development; (Building, Planning) 13. that within three years of completion and occupancy of the new hospital facilities and medical office building, the existing hospital structure and its support facilities shall be demolished and all on-site and off-site improvements completed, inspected and approved by the city; (Building, Planning, Public Works) 14. that no later than the last phase of hospital construction (demolition of the existing hospital), the applicant shall meet with the property owners in the Davis Drive neighborhood to discuss whether or not the proposed landscaped area and improved pedestrian access from Davis Drive to the hospital site, which is shown on the approved plans, shall be provided or the site shall be used for an alternative use; and that if the parties cannot agree, the issue shall be decided by the Planning Commission; and that the use and treatment of the fire road shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item once the use of the Davis Drive access is determined; (Planning, Neighborhood) 15. that any future development on the 4. 15 acre undeveloped area to be left for future use or disposition by the Peninsula Hospital District shall require a conditional use permit from the City of Burlingame and shall be subject to review underthe California Environmental Quality Act; (Planning) 16. that the applicant shall apply for and receive approval, including required permits, from all other regulatory public agencies as necessary and required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the parking garage, including but not limited to the California Department of Transportation, the San Francisco Water District/ SF PUC, the Federal Aviation Administration, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the San Francisco Air Quality Control Board, the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, and San Mateo County Transit Authority; (Planning) 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION-Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 17. that in the event of any discrepancy between adopted EIR mitigation measures for the project and these conditions of approval, or between any of these conditions of approval, the most stringent requirement shall apply; (Planning) 18, that the applicant shall pay for and designate an appropriate area to locate a significant piece of public statuary, art or fountain in the gateway area along EI Camino Real at a location no further south than the medical office building approved by the Planning Commission;this proposed artwork shall be selected and reviewed using a process with public input developed by the City for the selection and placement of public art and shall be installed at the time of the final landscaping and hardscape on this corner of the site; the public art shall be substantial enough to become a focal point for the gateway and site and to help mitigate the location of the parking structure;the applicant shall pay to install the artwork and maintain it after installation; (Planning) 19. that the surface parking area which is a part of the lease agreement for this development should be available through good faith negotiations with the lessor and hospital operator to facilitate future development of the remaining 4.15 acre site by the Peninsula Hospital District and reduce the extent of surface parking on the total site; required parking for the hospital can be met after CEQA review byjoint use of an appropriately located and sized multi-level parking structure by amendment to this conditional use permit; (Planning) Traffic, Parking and Transportation: 20. that neither the hospital or medical office building nor any other use on the site shall charge employees, clients, patients or visitors for the use of on-site parking without an amendment to the conditional use permit, for which the application shall include traffic and circulation studies documenting the impacts of a pay-for-parking program on the site access, on-site circulation, use and shift of use of on-site parking, impact on access to and from any part of the site, and any --� possible impact on off-site and on-street parking in the vicinity of the hospital and medical office building; (Planning) 21, that the applicant shall develop a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the hospital and medical office building which shall be approved by C/CAG and the City of Burlingame consistent with C/CAG requirements, and that the required facilities for the TDM program shall be included in the plans for each facility prior to filing the plans for the new hospital structure with the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development or issuance of a building permit for the parking garage, whichever comes first, and shall be installed and/or implemented prior to occupancy of each structure; (Planning) 22. that the applicant shall do a baseline study and then monitor parking usage quarterly throughout construction, and if the monitoring reports, resident complaints and/or staff observations demonstrate that parking for this project is occurring off-site,the hospital shall propose modifications on-site to address the increase above the baseline which shall be approved by the City Engineer; and the approved necessary changes shall be implemented as soon as feasible by the hospital operator; and that the hospital shall abide by the Mills Peninsula Health Services Parking Policies and Guidelines as revised 6/08, which prohibits parking by employees on public streets and establishes disciplinary action for employees who violate this policy;(Planning, Public Works) 21 that following the completion of construction and occupancy of the replacement hospital, the applicant shall monitor parking usage quarterly for the first three years; if any quarterly study indicates that the on-site parking required is inadequate, the applicant shall identify solutions in consultation with the City Engineer and shall implement the approved improvements in a time frame established by the City Engineer; (Planning, Public Works) -� 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 24. that no construction traffic shall use the Davis Drive access to the hospital, and no employees associated with the construction shall use the Davis Drive entrance to the site or shall park on Davis Drive or nearby residential streets; (Public Works, Neighborhood) 25. that to monitor the effectiveness of traffic access, circulation and parking during the entire construction period, including construction trucks and equipment, the applicant shall hire an independent traffic consultant to conduct a baseline parking and traffic study prior to the start of garage construction and to update the study quarterly during each critical phase of construction, and the baseline and intermediate studies by the traffic consultant shall be reviewed by the City Planner prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; and that the applicant shall resolve any unanticipated problems identified through these traffic and parking studies and/or by the City Engineer within 15 days; (Public Works, Planning) 26. that the recycling deposit for the demolition of the existing hospital structure that is required pursuant to Condition #96 will be retained until the Davis Drive entrance is closed and landscaped to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Arborist, and that the City may use these funds to close the Davis Drive entrance as required; 27, that the applicant shall include language in all construction documents prohibiting all construction traffic from using the Davis Drive entrance; (Planning) 28. that the applicant shall provide a plan for traffic control for each phase of construction, to be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the next set of permits required for the project; (Public Works) 29, that at no time shall any person connected with the operation of the hospital direct, order or encourage parking off-site, and the hospital shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that staff and employees park on the site itself in the parking provided pursuant to this approval; (Public Works, Planning, Neighborhood) 30. that the relocation and reconstruction, including paving and striping, of the Magnolia Gardens Care Center's required parking (west side lot) shall be done prior to the time that the construction entrance at Magnolia/Trousdale is built, with the final provision of a total of at least 26 on-site parking spaces for Magnolia Gardens; (Planning, Building) 31. that existing parking on the east side at the Magnolia Gardens Care Center shall not be demolished or restriped until the new west side lot parking is in place, construction of the west side lot shall not commence until the City has approved all required permits, and all construction shall be completed within 90 days;(Planning, Building) 32. that use of the fire access lane on the south side of the property shall be limited to pedestrians and emergency vehicles only; (Planning) 33. that trucks shall not be left more than 48 consecutive hours on the hospital site, either at the loading docks or in the parking areas; however, this condition shall not apply to a truck that is directly attached to the technology dock; (Planning) 34, that the hours for delivery at the hospital loading dock off EI Camino Real shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays; these hours do not apply to non-routine delivery of medical equipment or consumable medical supplies that are required for urgent or emergency use in the following 24 hours; holidays are defined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 13.04.100; these hours shall be posted in clear public view and each vendor shall be notified of the hours of delivery; (Planning) 35. that the applicant shall install and/or replace streetlights along the project frontage on EI Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, and the size, design and location of the streetlights shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and shall have CalTrans permits prior to installation; (Public Works) 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 36. that the hospital operator shall permanently maintain an off-site supply warehouse to be used to stage deliveries to the hospital in smaller trucks for the duration of this permit, and that if this warehouse supply system is materially altered, the hospital shall pay for an independent traffic analysis of the change in the number and size of trucks used for deliveries, and shall provide appropriate mitigation as determined by the Planning Commission by amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; (Planning) 37, that the hospital shall inform and require all vendor trucks to use EI Camino Real and city- designated arterial streets and not to use adjacent residential streets (collector or local) in traveling to or from the hospital, and failure to comply shall result in a review of the use permit; (Planning ) 38. that the applicant shall pay the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee based on peak hour trips generated by the hospital and medical office building;with the fee for the hospital paid in two installments, one-half at the time of city approval of the project and one-half before demolition permits are issued for the existing hospital building; and the fee for the medical office building paid in two installments, one-half within 90 days of City Council certification of the Final EIR and one-half before the final inspection is scheduled for the medical office building; (Planning) 39. that the applicant shall replace the bus shelter on EI Camino Real as directed by SamTrans and shall obtain all approvals for adjusting the location of the bus stop from required agencies prior to installing the curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements on the EI Camino Real frontage of the site; (Public Works) 40. that, because of the importance of providing continued access to the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center from Trousdale between EI Camino Real and Magnolia, the applicant shall prepare a traffic study to modify the left-turn movement/lanes into the hospital site to retain the existing left-turn pocket on Trousdale eastbound into the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center, and,working with the —� City Engineer, determine how these changes can be most safely implemented including modifications to the mitigation monitoring plan which will clarify and improve access to both the hospital and shopping center; the identified solution shall be incorporated into the roadway improvements on Trousdale to be installed by the applicant; (Public Works) Signals: 41, that the applicant shall design, install and pay for any and all necessary upgrades to traffic signals including at Trousdale/Magnolia and EI Camino Real/Trousdale intersections, as well as roadway restriping, and other transportation improvements required by the project, as described in the project plans dated September 10, 2004, the EIR for the project, and in the transportation Mitigation Measures set forth below; (Public Works) 42, that traffic signal plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for all changes to traffic signals due to the project, and the plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to implementation pursuant to encroachment permits; (Public Works) 43. that prior to issuance of the demolition permit for the existing hospital building, the applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security acceptable to the City Attorney to cover the estimated cost of installation of a single traffic signal at the new Trousdale Drive emergency/staff entrance, which improvements, if necessary, shall be installed within three years of the date the security is provided. The applicant shall conduct traffic counts at the Trousdale/emergency entrance intersection approximately twelve months after the start-of-service date of the new hospital to determine whether the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices peak hour signal warrants are met or exceeded at the new entrance, and if so, the applicant shall pay for the cost of installing said traffic signal improvements to City standards and requirements. In the alternative or in combination with improvements at the Trousdale/emergency entrance and if determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, the applicant shall pay for the cost of installing appropriate traffic control improvements at the intersection of Trousdale and Ogden or Marco Polo 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 Way, provided that in no event shall the applicant be responsible for total costs, construction or installation greater than the dollar amount of the security provided for the one traffic signal; (Public Works) Helipad: 44. that a State Heliport permit shall be issued by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, for the replacement helipad prior to the issuance of a building permit for the medical office building; (Planning) 45. that the helipad shall be operated within the criteria of the State Heliport Permit and that no more than eight helicopter trips shall arrive at the hospital within any single month,with a maximum of 24 trips per year and that the only exception without amendment to this permit shall be in the event of natural or declared emergency; (Planning) 46. that helicopter service to the site shall cease during construction as required by the Federal Aviation Administration and the CalTrans Division of Aeronautics; (Planning) 47. that the primary helicopter flight path shall be the approach from the northeasterly direction over the intersection of EI Camino Real and Trousdale Drive as shown on the Flight Path Layout dated September 29, 2004, prepared by Heliplanners Aviation Planning Consultants, and that the westerly flight path arc shall only be used when strong wind conditions prevent the use of the primary flight path; helicopters shall not use the westerly flight path arc without Planning Commission review and approval except in emergency situations; (Planning) 48. that before the Peninsula Medical Center is identified and/or licensed to operate as a regional trauma center, the Planning Commission shall review and rule on any physical changes caused, including changes in helicopter and emergency service vehicles, and determine how the "-- implementation of these changes will have the least impact on the safety and environment of the residents and businesses in the area; (Planning) Public Works/Engineering: 49. that curb and street elevations and detailed driveway profiles, as well as driveway transitions, for each phase of work shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of construction permits for that phase of work; (Public Works) 50. that detailed plans for the curb, gutter and sidewalk realignment at the Marco Polo entrance shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the commencement of work on the entrance and in the Marco Polo staff parking lot and that the driveway at Marco Polo Way shall be redesigned to be perpendicular to the street to provide safe sight distance for vehicles exiting from the parking lot, and the design shall be approved by the City Engineer before issuance of an encroachment permit; (Public Works) 51. that all changes required within the right-of-way of Trousdale Drive for this project shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works pursuant to the encroachment permit process and approved for each phase by the Department of Public Works prior to implementing each phase; (Public Works) 52. that any damaged asphaltic concrete pavement along the project frontage on Trousdale Drive, EI Camino Real and Marco Polo shall be repaved to pre-project conditions; (Public Works) 53. that, for each phase of construction, the applicant shall post a performance bond payable to the City of Burlingame for an amount sufficient to construct all required improvements for that phase of the project which are located within the public right-of-way including, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, road way construction, utilities, traffic signals and street lighting to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to issuance of any permits for that phase; (Public Works) 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 54. that detailed plans for the modifications proposed to the medians along EI Camino Real shall be reviewed and approved by CalTrans and the Burlingame Department of Public Works pursuant to the encroachment permit process and approved for each phase by the Department of Public Works prior to implementing each phase; (Public Works) 55. that the applicant shall, at its own cost, design and construct public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphaltic concrete pavement, street furniture and other necessary appurtenant work along the EI Camino Real frontage of the site, Trousdale Drive between EI Camino Real and the Magnolia Gardens Care Center property, and the entrance at Marco Polo Way in compliance with the streetscape guidelines in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and the improvements shall be designed by a civil engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and installed by the project, and that the design of these improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage; (Public Works) 56. that the applicant shall submit detailed plans for the loading dock entrance on EI Camino Real, including a complete dimensional layout,to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building;(Public Works) Water, Sewer and Drainage: 57. that the hospital shall design in and employ water conservation measures as adopted for the region or specifically by the City during construction and operation; ( Planning ) 58. that the applicant shall submit detailed plans for the proposed new water connection and sizing to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage, and shall incorporate any on-site or off-site improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works) 59. that prior to the issuance of the building permit for the parking garage, the applicant shall provide plans as approved by the San Francisco Water Department for the realignment of the SFPUC water line, including details of tie-ins and turn-outs, and all work associated with the realignment shall be coordinated with the Department of Public Works; (Public Works) 60. that, before issuance of the building permit for the medical office building,the applicant shall submit an updated sanitary sewer analysis of the public sewer system at the project site to assess the project flow effect of the proposed new sanitary sewer connection to the Department of Public Works, together with anticipated demands on the sanitary sewer system and the 1740 Rollins Road pump station, and shall incorporate any on-site or off-site improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works) 61. that the applicant shall relocate, restore or replace any City facility affected or damaged by the project, or of insufficient size, and shall replace any such facility in kind; (Public Works) 62. that prior to issuance of the building permit for the parking garage the applicant shall submit detailed plans to address storm and surface drainage on the site which identify potential impacts on CalTrans, the adjacent neighbors and the City's storm drain system, and shall comply with NPDES requirements to keep as much drainage on-site as possible, and shall incorporate any improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works; (Public Works) 63. that, for each phase of construction, the applicant shall submit detailed plans for all City utilities in public rights-of-way adjacent to and affected by the work to the City Engineer,who shall approve the plans prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of the project; (Public Works) 64. that all irrigation systems and plantings shall follow the City's water conservation guidelines and each facility within the project shall be appropriately metered as determined by the City Engineer; (Public Works) 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23,2008 65. that all on-site catch basins and drainage inlets shall be protected during construction so that no debris can enter them,and all catch basins shall be stenciled with a City-provided stencil;(Public Works) 66. that the applicant shall submit an overall site drainage and erosion control plan for approval priorto the issuance of the building permit for the garage,and the plans shall conform to the guidelines and requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program;(Public Works) 67. that,for each phase of construction,the site drainage and erosion control plan shall be refined and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any permits for that phase of the project;(Public Works) 68. that the hospital shall store a minimum of 30,000 gallons of water for firefighting,plus an additional 150 gallons of drinkable water per licensed bed on the site at all times; Safety and ADA Access and Compliance: 69. that the hospital shall work with the Burlingame Police Departmentto identify and inspect installation of appropriate security surveillance devices along the all pedestrian pathways including the fire access lane,and the effectiveness of these devices in providing security shall be reviewed jointly each year,with improvements made as necessary;(Police Department) 70. that a safety and security measures shall be installed over or around the cooling towers and that there shall be an alarm system and surveillance provided for oxygen storage bunker;(Planning Department,Building) 71. that a pedestrian access way that is compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act shall be provided from EI Camino Real to the main entrance area of the hospital and medical office building; (Building,Public Works) 72. that all work shall be done in conformance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act(Building,Public Works) 73. that pedestrian access along all street frontages shall be provided continuously throughout construction and shall comply with ADA requirements;(Pubic Works) Building Division: 74. that a set of plans clearly showing the division between the portions of the project that are underthe jurisdiction of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development(OSHPD)and the portions that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame shall be approved by both OSHPD and the Burlingame Building Official and provided to the Building Official before plans for the medical office building shall be accepted by the Building Department for plan check;(Building) 75. that the applicant shall verify compliance with the California Building Code for building type, occupancy group,allowable area,allowable area increases, height,sprinklers,property lines or assumed property lines,exiting plan,accessibility,and minimum plumbing facilities according to Appendix Chapter, Table 29-A, for both the parking garage and the medical office building; (Building) 76. that all improvements for the Medical Office Building and garage shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; (Building) Fire Department: 77. that Fire Department access shall be consistent with Section 902 of the 2001 California Fire Code, including clearly identified fire lanes and curb parking restrictions consistent with the Burlingame Municipal Code Section 17.04.025;(Fire) 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 78. that canopies and vegetation along fire lanes shall maintain clear heights of 13'-6" to provide clearance for fire and emergency equipment; (Fire, City Arborist) 79. that tum radii and surface support capabilities of fire lanes shall accommodate the largest fire department apparatus within San Mateo County and fire lanes shall not exceed sixteen(16) percent in slope at any point; (Fire) 80. that fire flow requirements shall be consistent with Appendix IIIA and 1116,and fire sprinklers shall be provided for all structures over 2000 square feet,with consideration for fire sprinklers being applied to fire flow reductions to be negotiated with the Fire Marshal, and additional considerations shall be made to ensure roof tip standpipes achieve a minimum pressure of 100 psi at the outlet; (Fire) 81. that fire pumps shall be diesel driven or have secondary power supplied by emergency generators with an on-site fuel supply of 48 hours of more;(Fire) 82. that Fire Department connections for standpipes and fire sprinkler systems shall be located within 50 feet of a fire hydrant;(Fire) 83. that a post indicator valve shall be provided for each separate building and so located as to be at least two-thirds the height of the building away from the building, and control valves and separate shut-off valves shall be provide for each floor of each building and electronically monitored;(Fire) 84. that fire alarm annunciation shall be identified by each smoke compartment and/or by each floorfor buildings equipped with a fire alarm system (required for all buildings in excess of 20,000 square feet), and that activation shall clearly identify the location of the device and remote annunciation shall be visible from the exterior of the building, in a location to be approved by the Central County Fire Department;(Fire) 85. that the applicant shall receive approval by the Central County Fire Department for the location of 1 the fire control room in the hospital structure, and the fire control room shall be clearly shown on the floor plans, prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building; (Fire) Landscaping: 86. that any land area which is to remain undeveloped and not specifically landscaped as shown on the approved plans, including the 4.15 acre area to be left for future use by the Peninsula Hospital District, shall be hydromulched and planted with materials which will meet NPDES erosion control requirements and shall be properly irrigated and maintained with ground cover until the use of the land changes; (Public Works) 87. the applicant shall submit a report from a certified arborist citing measures to be taken to protect trees during construction, particularly the redwood grove behind the Magnolia Gardens Care Center, and that report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage and that protection shall be installed for each phase of construction as required by the City Arborist before grading and/or building permits are issued for the phase of work; (City Arborist) 88. that planters with irrigation shall be installed as approved by the Planning Department and City Arborist on the upper roof level of the parking garage as shown on the landscape plans before an occupancy permit shall be issued for the garage, plant materials shall be approved by the City Arborist; and vines shall be planted at various locations at the base of the parking garage structure on both the EI Camino Real and Trousdale sides to break up the mass of the building and blend it into the gateway landscaping and design at this corner and along these street frontages, the City Arborist shall review the selection of vine and its irrigation and proposed maintenance program; (Planning, City Arborist, Building) 89. that the landscaped setback areas along EI Camino Real and Trousdale Drive and along the entire south property line parallel to Davis Drive shall be irrigated and maintained by the hospital operator; (Public Works) 18 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 90. that the approved landscape plan for the site shall be further refined in the following stages by the applicant pursuant to Commission direction prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit for(1)the construction of the new emergency/replacement entrance to the existing hospital, (2)the installation of the San Francisco water main on the south side of the property, (3)the construction of the new main entrance and parking garage (to include landscaping construction detail along Trousdale and EI Camino Real street frontages) and (4) the demolition of the existing hospital (landscaping of the remainder of the site); and the refined plans at each of these stages shall include detailed tree protection measures including long-term maintenance programs,and planting, irrigation and hardscape plans and shall be submitted to the City Planner and reviewed by the City Arborist who will make recommendations, the plans will then be forwarded to the Planning Commission for information; during each period of construction the City Arborist shall inspect the site for compliance with the approved installation plan; if the project landscaping causes an unusual level of inspection by the City Arborist,the costs for inspection shall be reimbursed by the applicant to the City; (Planning, City Arborist) Noise: 91. that truck deliveries, pick-ups, collection of trash and other wastes and other truck service noise- generating activities shall be prohibited prior to 7:00 am and after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. on Saturday, Sundays and holidays or as stated in the Municipal Code, Section 10.40.039; (Planning, Neighborhood) 92. that the testing of the emergency generators shall be limited to once per week or the minimum required by law, whichever is more frequent, and if possible, shall occur between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays only; (Planning, Neighborhood) 93. that the oxygen storage tanks adjacent to the loading dock shall be filled no more than three times a week, and only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.; (Planning, Neighborhood) Construction Noise: 94. that because of the impact on the residential neighborhood along the southern property line of the hospital site,there shall be stricter construction hours imposed for this project;construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and holidays as defined in CS 13.04.100;the construction noise restriction in the condition shall not apply to work done within the building after it is fully enclosed; prior to 9:00 a.m.,work should be focused on the northern portions of the site and the buildings; Recycling: 95. that the applicant shall submit to the City a recycling plan for each structure to be approved prior to issuance of the demolition permit for that structure, and a site inspection for compliance shall be required prior to each new phase of construction; (Building) 96. that a recycling deposit and compliance report shall be required for each phase of the project; (Building) 97. that the hospital and medical office building shall have a recycling plan approved by Allied Waste and the City and shall continuously recycle as much of their waste stream as is possible and insures the public health; (Building) CONDITIONS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Traffic, Parking and Transportation 98. that during construction and demolition of the existing hospital, at the direction of the City Engineer, the applicant shall evaluate the operation of the Marco Polo/Trousdale intersection whenever a 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 traffic safety/operation problem is identified by the City, and the applicant shall install whatever'" interim solution the City Engineer determines to be appropriate for the duration of the phase of construction or the event causing the problem; (Public Works, Neighborhood) Davis Drive Access: 99. that the Davis Drive access to the hospital shall be open only to hospital staff during construction and when demolition is occurring; the Davis Drive access shall be regulated by kiosk with security officer or by card actuated gate between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily; outside of these hours the entrance shall be closed by a gate or chain;the use of this staff access shall be monitored prior to any construction to establish a current baseline of the use and then quarterly during construction; should the usage during construction exceed 100%of the current baseline usage,the applicant shall review with the City Engineer ways to reduce the level of use; the determination of the City Engineer may be appealed to the Planning Commission; should the staff gate access prove to be inadequate or exceed the 100%of current baseline and become a neighborhood nuisance the applicant shall meet with the neighbors and the City Engineer to discuss appropriate and safe alternatives,the City Engineer shall determine an appropriate and safe the alternative solution,and the applicant shall install or construct the necessary facilities; (Public Works, Neighborhood) Landscaping: 100. that before the end of 2004, the applicant shall undertake a feasibility and cost study for undergrounding and connecting to the houses the electric and any other utilities currently placed along the shared property line between the hospital site and Davis Drive and, provided it is possible and economically feasible to underground just the utilities behind the north side of Davis Drive; and based on the conclusions of the feasibility and cost study, the applicant shall work with all the affected parties to determine if the utility work is feasible, how the costs to underground would be'"� shared and its effect on landscaping; all of the affected parties must agree on the program and the timing for accomplishing the work in the context of the landscaping and other construction and operations on the hospital site; (Planning, Neighborhood) 101. that the applicant shall investigate the feasibility including P.U.C. approval of moving the San Francisco Water Line Easement along the rear of the properties facing Davis Drive north to increase the planting area between the property line and easement to at least 15 feet,the City Engineer shall review the study and shall determine the viable setback; however that setback shall be no less than 10 feet at any point except where the existing line connects to the new line at Balboa extended; (Public Works, Neighborhood) 102. that the applicant shall build a wall or fence between the rear of the Davis Drive residences and the replacement hospital's landscaped areas along the southern property line of the hospital,the wall or fence shall be built at a location and of a common design agreed to by all parties; if the parties cannot agree the Planning Commission shall select the location and type ofwall orfence priorto the completion of the installation of the San Francisco Water Main in the new easement; (Planning, Neighborhood) 103. that the landscaping within the area between the rear of each of the property lines on Davis Drive and the San Francisco Water Line Easement shall be selected by each property owner from a palette of trees and shrubs provided by the applicant and approved by the City Arborist, with each property owner receiving individual assistance from the project's licensed landscape architect; selection of all trees and shrub sizes shall be based on achieving the design intention of the landscape plan including the maximum growth in a reasonable time given the species, location including utilities and landscape objectives, and any discrepancies between property owner and applicant shall be arbitrated by the City Arborist;the applicant,with permission,shall install trees on private property if it is determined that such planting is a reasonable or better way to address the wind or visual impacts caused by the project; the entire planted area on the hospital site shall be 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 irrigated with irrigation in place within 30 days of planting, and the landscaping shall be installed as soon as the segment of the water line along the hospital's south property line is installed unless it is necessary to wait for a better planting season or timing as determined by the City Arborist; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) 104. that the parking lot landscaping on hospital property at the southern property line west of the San Francisco Water Line Easement shall be selected by each adjacent Davis Drive property owner from a palette of trees and shrubs provided by the applicant and approved by the City Arborist,with the objective of providing a 20 foot tall vegetative screen for the property line fences and to extend the overall pattern of landscaping for the replacement hospital site;this landscaping and its irrigation system as approved by the City Arborist shall be installed in a planter area no less than 4 feet in width on the hospital side of the replacement property line wall or fence;the plant size at installation shall be based on achieving the design intent of the landscape plan including the maximum growth in a reasonable amount of time given the species, location including utilities and landscape objectives, disputes shall be resolved by the City Arborist; planting and irrigation shall be installed no later than the second phase of construction of the replacement hospital; and that the applicant shall provide individual landscape consultation to each property owner in order to determine the best solution for screening along the hospital property line, with mutual agreement this could include plantings on the private property side, if it is agreed that it is the best location to achieve the landscape goals for the location; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) 105. that because the maintenance landscaping is so important to achieving the growth goals and to the quality of the hospital project,the property owner shall be required to provide intensive professional maintenance of all landscaped areas and to maintain all irrigation systems in operating condition, failure to do so shall result in Planning Commission review of the use permit; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) 106. that if the eucalyptus trees at the end of Albemarle Drive cannot be retained, the applicant shall investigate relocating them within the planting area between the hospital's southern boundary and the San Francisco Water Easement; if this is not a viable option as determined by the City Arborist, the applicant shall with the cooperation of the City plant a tree variety selected by the City Arborist, at a size selected by the City Arborist, which will achieve at height of at least 25 feet in six years and a maximum height of at least 60 feet, irrigation shall be provided to this cluster of trees and they shall be planted with irrigation when the water line installation is completed and before a building permit is issued for the medical office building; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) 107. that the area on the north side of the San Francisco Water Main Easement adjacent to the replacement hospital shall be raised with the approval of the P.U.C. by an earthen berm and planted with a massing of redwood trees and other varieties of tall growing trees and shrubs which will grow to a height to screen the view of the lower and closer portions of the new hospital structure from view of the near by residents;the selection and various sizes of plant material and trees as well as the irrigation system, shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to installation, no trees installed shall be smaller than 24 inch box size, and this landscaping and its necessary grading shall be installed before issuance of the demolition permit for the existing hospital structure; (Planning,City Arborist, Neighborhood) 108. that the design of the grading and landscaped area between the replacement hospital and the rear of the properties along Davis Drive shall include drainage which will retain all surface and subsurface drainage on the hospital site and which will accommodate as necessary existing natural surface and subsurface drainage now occurring from adjacent private properties;the City Engineer shall approve all site grading and drainage plans affecting this area prior to commencement of the work to relocate the San Francisco Water Main; (Public Works) 109. that the applicant shall evaluate the impact of the proposed hospital structure on the wind velocity and turbulence on the properties adjacent to the south property line of the hospital site, this study 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 shall be completed by the mid-point of Phase Two of the construction (installation of the San Francisco water line) so that landscaping along the southern property line east of the Davis Drive access can be adjusted to mitigate any changes to prevailing wind velocity or turbulence caused on the adjacent properties, landscape consultations with individual property owners shall include this information and address the wind issue; (Planning, City Arborist, Neighborhood) Noise: 110. that noise levels of the future cooling towers will not exceed the noise levels of the existing cooling towers during full operation along the southern property line of the hospital. The baseline ambient and design criteria is to be defined as an hourly measurement during a 24-hour continuous measurement period. In addition,the ambient is to be defined as the L10 as required in the General Plan; (Planning, Neighborhood) 111. that the future ambient noise of the project shall be designed to not exceed the existing baseline ambient by more than 3 dBA during full operation along any property line of the hospital. The baseline ambient and design criteria is to be defined as an hourly measurement during a 24-hour continuous measurement period. In addition,the ambient is to be defined as the L10 as required in the General Plan; (Planning, Neighborhood) Construction Impacts 112. that the applicant shall adhere to all NPDES and air quality requirements throughout construction, and shall meet with homeowners ortenants at their request and provide individually negotiated and reasonable on-site mitigation for observed impacts of dust and particulates from the replacement hospital construction, landscape installation or demolition of the existing hospital; (Public Works, Building, Neighborhood) 113. that during the construction of the replacement hospital, the demolition of the existing hospital and the final landscaping of the site, parking on the Peninsula Hospital site shall be limited to employees, staff, patients, patient visitors and construction workers only during the hours of their employment on the site; on site parking shall not be used for off-site parking for any other facility or service and shall not be used by any employee, staff, or member of the community for extended parking when they are not on the premises; (Planning, Neighborhood) 114. that for the duration of the project construction and any use of the site for a hospital and medical office building, no on-site parking required by the municipal code or by city approval for staff, employees, or users of Peninsula Hospital shall be leased, loaned or otherwise obligated to any other user or business; (Planning, Neighborhood) Construction/Design 115. that the south tower of the hospital facing Davis Drive shall be clad in translucent spandrel glass with a low reflectivity rating (reflectance out)of 9%to limit the amount of interior light emitting to the exterior, and that all hospital rooms above the third floor level facing the Davis Drive side of the property shall include interior design which shall encourage occupants to stand back at least 3 feet from the window, all windows shall be provided with blinds or coverings, and glazing shall reduce light transmission at night; (Planning, Neighborhood) 116. that, if feasible given the location of protected trees,the agreement of adjacent commercial property owners to the north, the amount of grading/fill required to achieve appropriate slope and the approval of the PUC regarding appropriate protection of the San Francisco water line and its facilities in the area as determined by the City Engineer, to reduce the heavy truck traffic immediately adjacent to the single family residences on the south side and west end of Davis Drive during the phase of construction which includes the demolition of the existing hospital,there shall be a truck entrance to the site established and maintained from Marco Polo Drive, in addition to the existing Marco Polo staff entrance; and should it be feasible and necessary during other phases of 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 construction for more than two days a week for heavy trucks to stage or access the site from Marco Polo the applicant shall provide a second access to Marco Polo sooner; if this additional entrance causes a relocation of staff parking on site,the applicant shall submit a plan to the City Engineer for approval to show how this parking will be accommodated elsewhere; the approved plan will be implemented immediately as directed by the City Engineer; (Public Works, Neighborhood) 117. that prior to removal of hazardous materials and demolition of the existing hospital, the applicant shall meet with the neighbors to discuss the methods of removal to be used,the precautions being taken, the timing of the various activities, and how possible impacts on their properties can be cooperatively addressed; (Public Works, Building, Neighborhood) 118. that the applicant shall propose a mitigation monitoring panel composed of District, applicant, City, and neighbor (including both residential and commercial) representatives to coordinate issues regarding compliance with conditions of approval and mitigation measures as well as neighborhood concerns and questions related to the construction of the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project(including demolition of the existing hospital,landscaping and associated parking). The panel shall operate during the period that the project is under construction and shall be disbanded six months afterproject completion. The applicant shall also appoint a single point of contact to respond to questions and complaints regarding the construction and operation of the hospital under this approval. The proposed panel and contact process shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; (Planning) 119. that the applicant shall establish a mitigation fund to address concerns of immediate neighbors regarding issues such as dust, noise, and landscaping during construction of the project. The proposed mitigation fund and process shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage; (Planning) 120. that the project sponsor shall install planters at the upper deck(roof level)of the EI Camino Real and Trousdale Drive sides of the garage upon completion of garage construction; (visual quality; Planning) (VQ 1.1) 121. that the project sponsor shall agree to develop and implement a Construction Visual Improvements Plan that would make visual improvements to construction zones within a given construction phase and between phases if the zone is not scheduled for construction activity or will remain unused for a period greater than six months; construction zones subject to this mitigation measure shall be defined by the City Planner, and shall consider the size of the area, the nature of the construction activity, and the proximity or visibility of the area to public vantage points or residential uses; the Construction Visual Improvements Plan shall be implemented by the project contractor(s)and must be approved by the City Planner; the intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of the project site that would remain unimproved for an extended period and screen the construction zone from view by passersby along the public streets and sidewalks, or to make the zone usable for MPHS employees, patients, and the public; possible improvements in the plan include, but are not limited to, the following (if timelines other than six months are specified below, the shorter of six months or the time specified below shall apply): a. the project sponsor shall clear a construction zone of construction debris and remove construction equipment whenever construction is not anticipated for at least two weeks; b. if a site is a construction zone, but no construction activities are scheduled for more than one month,the project sponsor shall be responsible for regular garbage removal and watering of any existing landscaping; C. the project sponsor shall ensure fencing is removed or visually treated around construction zones that front onto EI Camino Real,Trousdale Drive, Marco Polo Way, or Davis Drive in a 23 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 manner deemed acceptable by the Chief Building Official, in order to promote safety, connectivity through the site, and pedestrian friendliness; d. if a site is not in use as a construction zone for more than six months due to demolition or construction of a structure,the project sponsor shall improve the site with landscaping(e.g., trees, shrubs, and groundcover), passive recreation/open space facilities (e.g., benches, picnic tables), decorative fencing and/or seating walls, and pedestrian and bicycle routes that connect to adjacent open spaces; pedestrian/bicycle networks shall be defined by and to the satisfaction of the City Planner; e. the project sponsor shall install all landscaping as early as possible to decrease visual impacts of construction; (visual quality; Planning, Building) (VQ 6.1) 122. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for lengthening the left-tum pocket on northbound EI Camino Real (to westbound Trousdale Drive) from about 180 feet to 375 feet; this improvement would eliminate left-turning vehicles from blocking traffic flow along northbound EI Camino Real and satisfy the queue storage requirement; note that under cumulative conditions, a lengthierturn pocket (475 feet) is required, as described in Mitigation Measure TR-12.1 below; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.1) 123. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for converting the eastbound through lane on Trousdale Drive at EI Camino Real to a shared left-through lane; the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the existing dedicated left-turn lane to provide 145 feet of storage (a 35- foot extension)for vehicles turning left; the left-turn pocket (145 feet) and the extra capacity in the shared left-through lane (about 380 feet) would be sufficient to accommodate the 400-foot queue length; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.2) 124. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the southbound left-turn pocket on EOE Camino Real at Trousdale Drive an additional 100 feet;this measure would require the removal of a portion of the median strip;this measure is necessary because, by adding project traffic to the other turning movements at this intersection, signal green time is taken away from the southbound left- turn movement; longer turn storage is needed; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.3) 125. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the eastbound left-turn pocket on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue to 175 feet; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.4) 126, that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the westbound left-turn pocket on Trousdale Drive at Magnolia Avenue/Main Entrance to 175 feet; adequate distance is available between the main entrance and the EI Camino Real intersection to accommodate the left-turn pocket requirements identified in Mitigation Measure TR-2.2 and this measure (in a back-to-back configuration) plus a 20-to 60-foot taper; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 2.5) 127, [DELETED (see Conditions 41 and 124)] 128. that the project sponsor shall implement an attendant parking program to increase the parking supply during critical phases of construction; the project sponsor shall fully fund a mitigation monitoring program (Program)that will enable City of Burlingame to monitor parking demand on a quarterly basis throughout the critical phases of construction; the Program shall also provide an alternative that could be quickly implemented should the monitoring show that the parking deficit remains; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 9.1) 129. that the project sponsor shall adjust the property line and construct the proposed replacement parking area at the northwest end of the Magnolia Gardens Care Center property prior to demolishing existing parking area and both property line adjustments may occur on the same map; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 9.2) '1 24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 130. that the project sponsor shall complete the roadway improvements needed to mitigate the project traffic impacts (i.e., Mitigation Measures TR-2.1 through TR-2.5) before the end of Phase 2, to ensure that construction traffic would have a less-than-significant impact; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 10.1) 131. that the Revised Project with cumulative development would result in LOS E operations on the EI Camino Real/Trousdale Drive intersection during the AM & PM peak hours; one tum lane is insufficient to accommodate this high turn volume; the project sponsor shall be responsible for ensuring that sufficient capacity is available by converting the eastbound Trousdale Drive through lane to a left-through lane,which would require the signal to operate in a split phase scheme in the east-west direction; converting this lane would improve operations to LOS D,reducing this impactto a less-than-significant level; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 11.1) 132. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for lengthening the left-tum pocket on northbound EI Camino Real (to westbound Trousdale Drive) from about 180 feet to 475 feet; this improvement would eliminate left-turning vehicles from blocking traffic flow along northbound EI Camino Real and satisfy the queue storage requirement; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 12.1) 133. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for extending the southbound left-turn pocket on EI Camino Real at Trousdale Drive an additional 100 feet;this measure would require the removal of a portion of the median strip; (transportation; Public Works) (TR 12.2) 134. that the project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor, and these practices shall be provided to the City Planner for approval prior to the issuance of building permits; a. maximizes the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors; such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: • use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; • use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; • locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and • minimize backing movements of equipment; b. use quiet construction equipment whenever possible; C. impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools; compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment; other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible; d. prohibits unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; e. select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences, hotels,and outdoor recreation areas, are avoided as much as possible; include these routes in materials submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to the issuance of building permits; f. designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction;the telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and shall be provided to the Burlingame Planning Director; copies of the construction schedule shall also be posted at nearby noise-sensitive areas; (noise; Planning, Public Works, Building) (NO 1.1) 25 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 135. that to reduce particulate matter emissions during project demolition and construction phases, the '1 project sponsor shall require the construction contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); the project sponsor shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; b. water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; C. use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; d. pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; e. sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork phases of construction; f. provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site; g. enclose, cover,watertwice daily,or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt, sand, etc.); h. limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; i. install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and j. replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; (air quality; Public Works, Building) (AQ 1.1) 136. that Mills-Peninsula Health Services(MPHS)shall retain a qualified environmental specialist(e.g.,a Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual) to inspect existing buildings subject to demolition forthe presence of asbestos,polychlorinated byphenyls(PCBs),mercury, lead, or other hazardous materials; MPHS shall submit the report to the City prior to demolition, together with an explanation of how the project will address any issues identified in the report; if found at levels that require special handling(i.e., any building material containing 0.1 percent asbestos, paint that contains more than 5,000 parts per million of lead,or any building materials known or suspected to contain PCBs or mercury), MPHS shall manage these materials as required by law and according to federal and state regulations and guidelines, including those of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), BAAQMD, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), County of San Mateo Health Services Agency(CSMHSA), and any other agency with jurisdiction over these hazardous materials(hazardous materials;CSMHSA, Building, Planning)(HM 1.1) 137. that in the event that contamination is visually discovered during construction activities, MPHS shall be required to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; this investigation shall involve the collection and analysis of soil and groundwater samples as directed by the site assessment consultant; sampling shall extend at least to depths proposed for excavation, and samples shall be tested for elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons,VOCs, or lead, if any;soil and/or groundwater samples shall be collected throughout the project site as directed by the site assessment consultant; this assessment shall be completed by a Registered Environmental Assessor, Registered Geologist, Professional Engineer, or similarly qualified individual prior to initiating any further earth-moving activities at the project site; if it were determined by sample collection and analysis that petroleum hydrocarbons,VOCs, or lead is present in soil and/or groundwater samples,the impacted materials shall be segregated and stockpiled separately from non-impacted soils throughout the construction phase; if deemed necessary by the local oversight agency, some impacted materials shall be mitigated prior to construction; soils with elevated petroleum hydrocarbon, VOC, or lead concentrations may require excavation and off-site disposal; soils with concentrations above 1 regulatory threshold limits for petroleum hydrocarbons,VOCs, or lead shall be disposed of off site in accordance with California hazardous waste disposal regulations (CCR Title 26) or shall be 26 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 managed in place with approval of DTSC, CSMHSA orthe Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board; (hazardous materials; CSMHSA, Building, Planning) (HM 2.1) 138. that in the event that contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered, MPHS shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities regulatory requirements for hazardous materials/waste health and safety plans; the Site Health and Safety Plan shall establish policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from potential hazards posed by residual contamination issues at the site; the plan shall include items applicable to site conditions, such as: • identification of contaminants; • potential hazards; • material handling procedures; • dust suppression measures; • personal protection clothing and devices; • controlled access to the site; • health and safety training requirements; • monitoring equipment used during construction to verify health and safety of workers and the public; • measures to protect public health and safety; and • emergency response procedures; • if petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the soil or groundwater proposed for the use of backfill or disposal,the handling and disposal of the contaminated soil or groundwater shall be governed by the applicable local and federal hazardous materials regulations; (hazardous materials; Public Works, Planning, CSMHSA) (HM 2.1) 139. that in the event that runoff induced by the Revised Project implementation would enter the Caltrans storm drainage system under SR-82, the project sponsor would immediately contact Caltrans for necessary review and approval; (hydrology; Public Works, Caltrans) (HY 1.1) 140. that the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent polluted runoff from flowing into public drainage facilities during construction of the proposed facilities; the SWPPP shall include Best Management Practices (BMPs)that include schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution in storm water runoff during construction; the SWPPP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Burlingame and other appropriate agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB), prior to issuance of any grading or building permit; (hydrology; Public Works) 141. that the project sponsor shall submit an application to the City of Burlingame's Parks and Recreation Department Director for a tree removal permit and meet the replacement requirements of the Tree and Vegetation Ordinance (Municipal Code, Title 11.06.020); included with the permit application shall be a landscaping plan that illustrates species, numbers, and sizes of replacement trees; (biological resources; City Arborist, Building) (BR 1.1) 142. that the project sponsor shall be responsible for maintaining and protecting the existing on-site trees to be retained;the following specific actions shall be followed to maintain the health of the remaining trees: a. any pruning shall be done according to the direction of a certified arborist and all pruning shall comply with International Society of Arboriculture,Western Chapter Standards or other comparable standards deemed acceptable to the City Arborist; b. any abandoned utility lines (water, electrical, etc.) in the root zones (radius of ten times the trunk diameter) shall be cut and left in the ground to the satisfaction of the City Arborist; 27 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 C. any surfacing material inside the root zone shall be pervious and installed on top of the existing grade; as an example, pervious pavers are acceptable provided the base material is also sufficiently pervious; base rock containing granite fines is not sufficiently pervious; d. temporary construction fencing shall be erected to protect the retained trees of a size to be established by the City Arborist; the fencing shall be placed at the perimeter of the root zone unless the pavement is supervised by a certified arborist; the fencing shall be in place prior to the arrival of construction materials or equipment; e. the landscape irrigation shall be designed to prevent trenching inside the root zones of retained trees; f. supplemental irrigation shall be provided during construction; approximately 10 gallons of water for each inch of trunk diameter should be applied at or near the perimeter of the root zone every two weeks during the dry months(any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall on average); g. retained trees shall be thoroughly mulched with a 3-inch layer of bark chips with the exception of a 6-to 12-inch area around the base of the root collar, which must be left bare and dry; (biological resources; City Arborist) (BR 1.2) 143. that the removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible; if no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required; if it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity; survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey; therefore, if vegetation or building removal is not started within 21 days of the survey,another survey shall be required; the area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist; in the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries,clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; (biological resources; City Arborist, Planning) (BR 2.1) 144. that the project sponsor shall revise the preliminary planting plan to give preference to native trees; suggested native tree species, subject to approval by the City Arborist, include California sycamore, box elder, Monterey cypress, and Monterey pine; (biological resources; City Arborist, Planning)(BR 3.1) 145. that the project sponsor shall include methods of water conservation in the Proposed Project's buildings and landscaping; these methods shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. install water-conserving dishwashers and washing machines, and water-efficient centralized cooling systems in the hospital and MOB; b. install water-conserving irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and automated irrigation systems); C. design landscaping with drought-resistant and other low-water-use plants; d. install water-saving devices such as water-efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads; (utilities; Public Works, Building) (UT 5.1) 146. that the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts: a. if potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 50 feet) shall be suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project applicant; construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources 28 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered; b. if the find is determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected; the plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations; the work shall be performed by the archeological or cultural consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports;such reports shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center; construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed; C. the project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law; prehistoric or Native American resources can include: chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials; historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits; d. if human remains are discovered,there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e); in general, these provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately; if the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours; the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains; if the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance; if recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. (cultural resources; Planning) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica Discussion of motion: • None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:11 p.m. Chair Cauchi indicated that he wouldrecuse himself from participation on Item 7 since he lives within 500- feet of the property. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 337 CLARENDON ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOSE JIMENEZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER: AND JOSE TAPIA, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN 29 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 Reference staff report dated June 23, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Jose Jimenez, 178 Ravenswood Court, Lathrop; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Question regarding roofing material; will it be wood shake roof, plans are inconsistent (Jimenez — would like to know preference). ■ Right side elevation; what is happening; there is a cantilevered piece over the garage, but couldn't find it on the proposed rear elevation; correct and verify on plans. ■ Would like to see something more happening on the front of the house; but realize that the front is not being touched. ■ A lot of stucco with vinyl windows; if windows were of a higher quality it would help the design; vinyl typically discouraged; match the existing windows. ■ Consider a higher quality garage door; it is a very prominent feature. ■ There is an opportunity to improve the flow of the house; one sink servicing all bedrooms upstairs will not serve the occupants well; not improving the pathways in the house, may wish to consider. ■ The side fagade of the house is important; consider looking at right elevation to see if there is another option to make the addition look less like it is planted onto the rear. ■ Look at massing over the garage door; it is a face to the house. ■ Suggested lights in the garage door to enhance the appearance from the street and functionality. ■ Consider improving access to rear yard from the interior of the home. Public comments: ■ Eunice Schoenamsgruber, 332 Clarendon; concerned regarding noise from construction process (Jimenez — willing to work with neighbor to attempt to reduce noise during construction). There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion. ■ Could be a candidate for design review, need improved drawings. • Offered design review expertise of consultants if applicant wishes to consult. ■ Is a relatively simple addition, but needs to be well thought out. Vice-Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent, Commissioner Cauchi recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:43 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. 30 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23,2008 8. 235 PARK ROAD,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE (ACE HARDWARE) (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;AND BRUCE HORN,PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 23,2008,with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Jerry Winges, 1219 Howard Avenue;represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Will awning structure be replaced(Winges—though main one over the door will remain and be recovered). • Will side door remain open(Winges-yes);think about an awning over that door. • Will items be out front even after windows are installed(Winges-would like to have some items displayed on the street frontage);be careful,not an especially wide sidewalk. • Will windows allow view into the store(Winges-yes). Public comments: • Pat Giorni,1445 Balboa Avenue;don't display trash cans in front of the store. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: • None Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1(Commissioner Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:54 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS'REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: • Community Development Director Meeker noted that effective July 1,2008,the Planning Division staff will be reclassified as follows: Maureen Brooks—Planning Manager Ruben Hurin—Senior Planner Erica Strohmeier—Associate Planner 31 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes June 23, 2008 Lisa Whitman —Assistant Planner Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 16, 2008: • Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council introduced the recent amendments to the Sign Ordinance. • An appeal hearing was set for July 21, 2008 for the project at 1790 Escalante Way. FYI: 1243 Cabrillo Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved design review project: • Accepted. (Staff was directed to request that the applicant extend the stone veneer down to the end of the driveway) City Attorney Anderson, noted encroachments into public right-of-way will become an issue overthe course of the downtown planning effort; be cognizant of this issue. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 32 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California July 14, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the July 14, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director,William Meeker;Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier;and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: • Page 4, final bullet at bottom of page; delete "while blocking neighbor's views". Page 30, bottom of page (vote on the motion), delete "Chair Cauchi", insert "Vice-Chair Terrones". Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1480 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT SERVICE BAYS TO RETAIL SPACE AT AN EXISTING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION (SHATARA ARCHITECTURE INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;AND 1480 BROADWAY PROPERTY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Associate Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report, dated July 14, 2008. Commission comments: • Who owns the light pole at the front of the property? It appears that the light pole could become an obstacle for vehicles backing out of parking spaces; could it be moved (who is responsible if it is to be moved)? 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 • Two existing doors in storefront; clarify if the two doors on the front are absolutely necessary at this time, or should one, the other or both be blocked off now, rather than later, triggering the need for design review. • Would like to applicant to address anecdotal evidence that traffic cuts through the site during rush hour; what do they anticipate will happen after the conversion; how will cut-through traffic be addressed. • Include a condition that the facility remain accessible to handicapped individuals during all hours of operation. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar- Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Terrones noted that he listened to the recording of the June 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting and would vote on Item 2b, which was discussed as a study item at that meeting. 2a. 235 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE (ACE HARDWARE) (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND BRUCE HORN, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 2b. 1524 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE AND VARIANCES FOR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING FOR AN INDOOR SPORTS FACILITY (NOTHING BUT HOOPS, APPLICANT; EDWARD AND MADELINE ROBERTS TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER;AND JERRY WINGES,ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of the Consent Calendarbased on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TOA PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TOAN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(SAMUELAND ELAINE WONG,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND T. PETER LAM, AIA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 Peter Lam, 848 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. ■ The proposed roofing material exists on other structures in the area. ■ The opposing neighbor notes that the residence is at an important entry point to the neighborhood. ■ Provided photos that were distributed to the Commission. Commission comments: ■ Asked for reason for making the change (Lam — applicant likes the style and wishes to use it). ■ Has the applicant considered a similar material that is shake style; ranch-style homes typically would have had shake-style shingles. ■ If applicant is interested in a Spanish tile type roof, why not use Spanish style materials (Lam — doesn't believe it to be Spanish in style). Public comments: ■ None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Tile roofs are common in Asia, but they are really tile, not the material proposed by the applicant. Simply using the proposed tile because others have done it, is not a reason to use the material. ■ Suggested denial of application. N The house is on a corner and is very visible. ■ Have consistently requested tile roofs with variable colors; there are other variations that could be considered by the applicant. Commissioner Terrones moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. Chair Cauchi noted that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion of Item 4, since he lives within 500-feet of the subject property. He left the Council Chambers. 4. 717 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIEL EWALD, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BARRY SUDBECK AND JENNIFER HERTZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the �. report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11 ) conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 Daniel Ewald, 1175 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. -� ■ Revisions due to cost and dynamic state of construction lending. ■ Most changes occur at the rear of the property; have attempted to recompose the rear fagade while still leaving the option open to build the original project. Commission comments: ■ South elevation; are there windows on the stairway (Ewald — the drawings do not show the clerestory windows). ■ Seems like a good home for a generous front porch (Ewald—the issue was left open; the applicant was more interested in using something more transparent like a trellis). ■ The roof over the stairwell is too unique;were other alternatives to the shed roof considered (Ewald —the roof doesn't meet the larger gabled form and doesn't lend itself to being a dormer style). ■ There is a possibility that the second phase will never happen; the design should stand on its own; the stairway appears awkward (Ewald—referenced elevations; may read better from other views). ■ Like the design; appears like an old-style sunroom. Public comments: Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way spoke: ■ Interested in seeing the plans (referred to plans in rear of chambers). There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. —� Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 9, 2008, sheets A1.0 through A3.3, 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 June 17, 2008 and July 3, 2007 memos, the Fire Marshall's June 16, 2008 and July 5, 2007 memos, the NPDES Coordinator's June 16, 2008 and July 5, 2007 memos and the City Engineer's June 16, 2008 and July 9, 2007 memos 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 changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes July 14,2008 details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued, 7. 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; 8. 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 FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 9 that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer,or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 10. 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;and 11. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: • None Vice-Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent,Commissioner Cauchi recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. Chair Cauchi returned to the dais. 5. 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ORA HATHEWAY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ADIB AND SYLVIA KHOURI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 14,2008,with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven(11)conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had listened to recording of the June 9,2008 meeting at which this item was previously discussed and would participate in the deliberations this evening. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION- Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 Commission comments: • Does the same type of 10-foot easement (public right-of-way) exist along other lots on Kenmar Way? • Existing fence history (Meeker- legally in place via an encroachment permit). Ora Hathaway, P, O. Box 150432, San Rafael; represented the applicant. • Surveyor found the property lines and determined that Kenmar Way has a 10-foot easement(public right-of-way) from the curb into the property. • Tried to meet with all of the neighbors to address concerns expressed from neighbors and the Commission. • Also tried to address the bulk and mass and eliminated the need for the Variance; no longer proposing to extend the fence, but will continue to request approval of an engineered retaining wall on the rear with a wood fence above to match existing; pillars are being removed. Additional Commission comments: • Clarified scale of site plan. • When encroachment permit applied for, was the design called out in the permit (Hathaway- not known; though she suggested applying stucco and brick elements to improve appearance; applicant would agree if conditioned); also remove lighting from the fence. • The fence is an eyesore because of the bollards being off kilter and the lights; obtrusive. Public comments: -� Peter Davidson, 2694 Summit Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Steve Sterling, 12 Kenmar Way; Joel Weise, 3 Kenmar Way; and Cliff and Anne Righetti, 2705 Summit Drive spoke: • Objections to view impacts. • This applicant has been involved in four construction projects since 1989, none of which were issued building permits. The encroachment onto Kenmar and Summit is most bothersome. The original proposal that was withdrawn would have continued this encroachment. • The family includes both an attorney and a structural engineerthat are involved in the project; is this a conflict. • There has been a pattern of withdrawing controversial items, then coming back again later for approval. • Questioned structural engineer's qualifications to certify the story poles. • Need to verify the existence of the ten foot easement (public right-of-way). The encroachment permit issued in 2002 does not reference an existing easement, it should have been referenced. The extrapolation of the same encroachment down EI Prado may be justified on the grounds that the original encroachment permit did not specify. The encroachment should be looked at to be certain that it is represented accurately. Perhaps the fence should be removed. • Neighbors are concerned with the addition and the fence. • Has heard that multiple families are living in the house. • People are trying to understand the accuracy of the story poles. Who certifies the story poles (Cauchi - certified by a licensed surveyor). Concerned about having a family member certify information. • Majority of people on Kenmar Way would like another opportunity to provide more commentary. Thinks everyone is entitled to do something with their property, but likes status quo (Cauchi-view policy protects distant view; doesn't appear to be a significant impact). 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 • Homes in the area are not grand. A larger home doesn't appear to fit into the neighborhood. The addition would reduce some views and eliminate sunlight and reduce privacy. Not directly impacted by proposal. Further Commission comments: • Requested clarification of route of stairway from deck; will the base be another stucco wall (Hathaway—could be in order to provide more privacy. Proposed to continue the finish of the rear wall). • Will same railing be used on wood deck (Hathaway—yes). • Landing of the staircase; how will it be treated (Hathaway— railing and a window for ventilation). • Will there be a daycare center(Hathaway—grandchildren stay during the day, will not be a daycare center). There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. More Commission comments: • Have received clarification and commitments regarding the fence from the applicant. • Noted that average of block is taken from curb on plans, not from easement (note: average front setback was calculated from property line). • Applicant has worked well to modify the design, has eliminated Variances. • The view intrusion from the Davidson property is no more significant than existing impact. • Only outstanding design issue is the detailing of the rear stairway(materials,etc.). Can condition as stucco base with wood rail. • Should include a condition that the lights be removed from the post, stucco columns and add brick elements; also do not extend the fence. • Should include a condition that ensures that any change to the fence to extend it be brought back to the Commission for review. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 7, 2008, sheets A-1 through A-10 and C-1, 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 detailing of the rear stairway shall have a stucco base with a wood rail, and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to construction, 3. that the existing fence shall be modified to be made of stucco with brick caps and all light elements shall be removed, and the revised fence shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to construction; further, the fence shall not be extended unless the design of the extension is first reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and NPDES Coordinator's November 19, 2007 memos, and the Fire Marshal's April 3, 2008 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; 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 11, that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. 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; and 13. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: • None Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Auran recused himself due to a business relationship with the applicant for Item 6. He lef the Council Chambers. 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 6. 350 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B —APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF RETAIL SPACE TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (WACHOVIA BANK) (ROB SHINE, APPLICANT;ANN SABATINI, PROPERTY OWNER;AND CHRISTY BATES, CALLISON ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008,with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: • How is parking handled for Wells-Fargo Bank (Strohmeier— unknown how parking works on Fox Plaza Lane). Andy Crosdale, Callison Architects, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Seattle; represented the applicant. • Noted access from both sides of property to street parking. Average time for customers is three to five minutes. Feels that the parking Variance should be accepted given the business characteristics. Additional Commission comments: Concern about permitting a banking operation in a prime pedestrian area; concern about walkability, concerned about the elevations on both sides, are putting in ATMs that will take away from the pedestrian character. Most banking activity is done on-line, according to the property owner. Consider a more pedestrian oriented treatment of the facades. • Could add awnings to elevations to allow color to the building (Crosdale—awnings and planters are simple options for the applicant) (note: planters will require an encroachment permit through the Public Works Department). • The recessed doors will be dark, the ATMs will impact pedestrian character; encourage more pedestrian treatment to encourage people to walk from Steelhead Brewery to Stacks. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Bill Peterson, 2701 Mason Lane, San Mateo (representing the property owner) spoke: • Suggested placing the ATM at a location in the doorway so that it is more secure. The bank may generate a bit of business. • Agreed with improving the appearance of the building, but doesn't think it is a bad business to have downtown. • Provided information to support the parking Variance. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City Attorney Anderson noted that the request does not include Design Review, any findings and conditions should relate to the findings necessary for granting the parking Variance. Further Commission comments: 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 • Agree with comments regarding architectural design and window treatment. Though in favor of bank use, is concerned about the potential traffic impacts. • If it is true that Wachovia is intending to be a neighborhood business, there is an opportunity for modifications to facades to add life to the building; amenities to attract people to the property. • Further thought needs to be given to the architectural design. • The design is very flat at the moment. Find ways to break of the planes of the building and provide more architectural detailing. • It would seem that there would be several mitigations for the parking Variance; would be comfortable with requiring architectural treatments that would encourage pedestrian design changes that mitigate the lack of parking and encourage walking to the facility. Should be continued with direction to the applicant to look at creative options for fagade treatment. • This particular use will not be as parking intense as other uses, but the treatment of the building does not encourage pedestrian activity. Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: • None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the matter. The motion passed 4-0-2-1. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent, Commission Auran recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner A uran returned to the dais. 7. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26.30 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION FROM STOCK COOPERATIVE TO CONDOMINIUM STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER(NEWSPAPER NOTICE—PUBLISHED IN SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES 7/4/08) Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: • Asked how many other properties are affected (Meeker—only one to his knowledge). Public comments: • None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 26.30 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to specify requirements for conversion from stock cooperatives to condominiums. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: • None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of adoption of the proposed ordinance to the City Council. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). This item concluded at 9:04 p.m. 8. PRESENTATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN — STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker introduced Kevin Gardiner and Matt Flynn of Kevin Gardiner&Associates, and described the purpose of the presentation; an update to the Planning Commission regarding the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) regarding the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. Mr. Gardiner presented the CAC recommendations. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; John Root, 27 Crossway Road; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue, Charles Voltz, 755 Vernon Way; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue; Joe Putnam, 3 California Drive; and Sarah Mahorter, 816 Peninsula Avenue spoke: • Thanked citizens for their input. • Applauded the idea of housing downtown. • A 75-foot height limit allows a lot of building. Feels that 75-foot heights start to say"small city'; we are a small town. Once we begin approaching 55-feet, we will start to look like parts of San Mateo and Millbrae; will start to lose some of the human scale that currently exists downtown. Feels 55- feet should be the maximum height allowed. This has, in theory been allowed since 1955, however, very few buildings of this height have been built. If other development standards are revised, this could encourage taller developments. • The north end of the City is the appropriate place to add more people. If we build opportunities, more people will come. • Noted that high-speed rail ballot measure may pass; if it does, there will be grade separation that could affect commercial uses on the east side of the railroad; this must be taken into consideration. Noise is an issue; when electrification arrives, CalTrain is planning to run up to twelve trains per hour during peak time; where housing is placed should take into account this change. • The plans for California Drive open space (near Stacks)would improve traffic conditions in the area. • It should be easier for future development to occur since there will be a current vision of how we wish to have development proceed. • Design review downtown is important, need to have some oversight. The proposed Building heights have existed for years (in most instances), will not raise height limits except for a small portion of Chapin Avenue. • The specific plan process has been a good process. • Expressed concern regarding the City's separation of the Safeway Working Group and the Downtown Specific Plan processes. Has resulted in a"no man's land", underground parking is not 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 being addressed by either group. The Safeway site will encompass the largest development in the downtown. Parking is a nexus that must be addressed. The current configuration of parking lots could not accommodate a single large structure, with the possible exception of the lots adjacent to the Library. It is conceivable that the Safeway site could accommodate an underground lot of a sufficient size. There is no place for this approach to parking to be evaluated in either of the processes. Encouraged the Commission to look at the issue. Look at values of existing parking lot assets that could be sold, or otherwise leveraged to obtain funds for a large underground parking lot. • Regarding property at 1100 Peninsula Avenue(vehicle storage for Putnam Volvo). Pointed outthat it is currently used for storage purposes, but is zoned for residential use. Seems inconsistent and perhaps unfair to limit height to 55-feet on this property. Financial institutions are more thorough than in the past, and are looking at the value of assets much more closely; if the height limit changes for this property, it will affect its value. Need the 75-foot height limit, will affect the ability for the business to function financially. Encouraged changing the 75-foot height limit to encompass the property in question. Supports placing housing uses over auto showroom uses. • Encouraged policies to ensure that Burlingame is a safe place for bicyclists. Commission comments: • Noted that CAC looked very closely at each of the subject areas presented bythe consultant; height limits weren't arbitrarily recommended; but were thought through. All issues that were addressed by CAC necessarily must work within the framework of other aspects of the planning for the downtown area; all issues must work together to meet the overall requirements of the specific plan. • With respect to streetscape; the CAC looked closely at tree placement and species selection, this needs to be addressed in the plan. • Evaluation of line between Subareas A and B; need to capture a potential re-evaluation of this dividing line, or whether such a differentiation needs to exist. • Neighborhood serving commercial uses; needed in area south of downtown, but also why not in the other areas. Mixed-use in the Anita Road/Myrtle Road area should also be an option. • Not particularly supportive of having the post office eliminated as a use downtown; thinks it is a good, walkable downtown use, but site could use some reworking. • Very little has happened with past planning efforts in the City. The Plan needs to also focus on how investment/development in the area can occur and be encouraged; particularly with City assets such as the parking lots. • Howard Avenue does not appear to be fully analyzed; what is the vision for Howard Avenue, this must be addressed; how will it be enlivened. • With respect to parking; the recommendations don't appear to specifically support underground parking; the CAC should go on record as stating a position regarding this issue. Don't leave things off the table because the CAC doesn't think it can be done. Where do the employees park;where is long term parking. The parking scheme is not revolutionary. Make certain that adequate parking exists. Be more aggressive with parking solutions to ensure adequate parking exists and to promote investment in the downtown. • Encouraged housing downtown, but provide affordable opportunities. Consider ownership; condominiums versus rental. • Should the guidelines be continued along California Drive northward, outside of the study area. • Design review should be required for all projects within the Downtown area. • Need to identify funding sources and cost for improvements. • With respect to Howard and Chapin,the CAC did discuss connections between the areas; amenities (e.g. open space opportunities, etc.)that keep you moving through the area. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 No action was required. All comments are noted by the consultant team and will be included with the information presented to the City Council on July 21, 2008. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1600 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES NEUBERT,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;AND JAKE AND VICTORIA CACCIATO, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. • Chair Cauchi noted the lack of a site posting for design review. Jake Cacciato, 1600 Adeline Drive and James Neubert, 1291 Hillsdale Boulevard, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Generally supportive of request for Special Permit for the garage. • The design is well integrated. Questioned trim around windows; will the existing simple stucco molding be replaced with the new design (Neubert—yes, will leave the existing windows, but replace the trim). • In the landing area above the stairs,why is there a change in the plane of the wall next to the garage (Neubert—the garage is substandard in length,wanted to extend length, thought the design looked better). • Like the design and the materials called out; will the vent be wood (Neubert — will look like pre- fabricated wood). • The design of the roof over the garage; has thought been given to providing brackets under the eaves (Cacciato —willing to consider). • Suggested adding windows to stairwell at rear fagade; add light to stairwell (Neubert—suggested adding a skylight in order to prevent impacting neighbor's privacy). • Would be nice to add a window in bedroom 4 to break up the wall in front (Neubert—due to budget, attempting not to disturb existing house). • Consider adding a transom window on the southwest elevation. • Add clerestory windows on the west elevation. • Commission has been supportive of encouraging front porches even if a slight Variance is needed in order to improve the entry to homes (Neubert — the proposed design was partly affected by setback and the budget). • Offset at 2n floor landing doesn't appear to match at the ground floor;will be difficult to waterproof; clarify. • The garage door selection is good; be certain that the design shown is used in the end product. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 • Applauds the design work. Lost a lot of privacy with the house at 1505 Balboa Avenue. Most of his living is now viewed by the neighbors. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: • Provide direction as noted in Commission commentary. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:26 p.M. 10. 1461 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (VIVIAN AND AMANDA LARKIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND BARRY RAFTER, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Amanda and Vivian Larkin, 1461 Balboa Avenue and Barry Rafter, 130 EI Bosque Drive, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Need a more detailed landscape plan; will want to soften the building line where the building meets the ground. Is there a way to reduce the amount of lawn area proposed? Typically a planter area is provided in front of the home to soften the transition between the ground and the base of the home. • Close the maximum FAR;there is a bit of inefficiency to the ground floor, rooms could be integrated without hallway space; could provide a more gracious porch if the floor plan were more efficient. • There are large areas of stucco; could be taken closer to a Tudor design; the belly band on the west elevation could be terminated better, currently doesn't turn the corner. • Could create a larger front porch. • There is a lot of blank stucco on the south elevation; wood brackets/corbels should be provided below the bays. • On the north elevation, there is a blank stucco wall below; look at a means of improving the appearance of the stairwell. • The Tudor design needs a lot of work; there may not be enough Tudor elements to truly define it as such. The half timbers look like an afterthought. Each of the window sills need to be heavy wood. A diamond patterned window on the front would look good. Tudor is not a box with a few windows. • At the kitchen and dining room, center the windows on the first floor to the bay windows above. • Would like to see material sizes called out on the plans. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 • Attic vent is placed in the middle of a beam, and it is metal; use another style that is more appropriate. • Consider using pervious materials for the driveway in the rear(Larkin — using cobblestones). • Garage should be designed consistent with the style of the home. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Jeffrey Wright, 1465 Balboa Avenue spoke: • The new home design bears no resemblance to what is being removed; it would be nice to keep the same style as the existing home. • Look to a nearby Tudor style house for design references if a Tudor design is proposed. • Four bedrooms and four bathrooms place a lot of strain on the small lot; the rooms are small. • Generally supportive, but not of the window on the stairwell because it would look into bedroom at 1465 Balboa Avenue. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: • Questioned why the existing floor area information was provided (Strohmeier — the Planning Commission had previously requested existing square footage information for existing homes to be provided). • Appears to be a declining height violation in the cathedral over the stairway (Strohmeier—it is roof area so it does not count toward declining height envelope). • Should be sent to design reviewer who has Tudor style design experience, Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: • Not certain that Tudor design is the correct choice for the lot. • Design reviewer may steer design to another style. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:52 p.m. 11. 2015 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DAVID HIRZEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND SUSAN AND DAVID TUDONI PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 14, 2008, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 David Hirzel, 5009 Palmetto Avenue, Pacifica; represented the applicant: • The parcel is odd shaped. • The existing garage cannot accommodate two cars,would like to reconfigure it and expand to allow widening of garage door. • The laundry area is original to the house; wish to convert to a more useable space. • The diagonal wall on the first floor is reflected on the second floor as well. • The second story wall is stepped back due to the Declining Height Envelope. • To have right angled walls on the second floor would be inconsistent with the first floor design. Commission comments: • Asked if the fence on right-hand side is to stay (Hirzel —yes) • Asked if stairs are to be installed to provide access to rear yard (Hirzel—not intending to do so; the rear-porch is at the same level as the first floor). • Three foot clearance in the kitchen is not really accessible(Hirzel—not intended to make it fully ADA accessible, only looking at the needs of the client). • Odd-shaped lot is partial justification for the Variance; but justification for additional 26-square feet is not as strong (Hirzel —expansion of garage to permit two cars is intended, but not necessary). • General concerns about extending kitchen into the front porch; renders the porch essentially unusable; reduces it to a stoop; could push kitchen back into the living room and expand at rear, while still keeping utility of porch. • Nothing extraordinary about the addition; limited support for the Variance. Public comments: Dennis Creedon, 2012 Devereaux Drive spoke: • Concerned about loss of light and privacy to his lot. • The lot is not conducive to the addition proposed. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: • Trying to place alot on the lot. • There is an opportunity to expand the kitchen elsewhere without reducing porch. • Should visit 2012 Devereaux to determine impacts; not enough information to make a judgment. • Given the odd shape lot and proximity to neighbor, require preparation of a shadow study to complete the application. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to refer to the project to a design reviewer with direction to prepare a shadow study to assist in assessing impacts upon neighboring properties. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: • None Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2. (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes July 14, 2008 advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Chair Cauchi noted that he met with Community Development Director Meeker to discuss subcommittee assignments. An item will be placed on the next regular meeting agenda for discussion related to this topic. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ Due to the potential for a lack of a quorum, the July 28, 2008 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. Actions from Regular City Council Meeting of July 7, 2008: ■ The July 7, 2008 City Council meeting was cancelled. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — June, 2008: ■ Accepted FYI: 1537 Howard Avenue — changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted FYI: 1427 Chapin Avenue — change to a previously approved Design Review project to remove pathway to rear of site: ■ Schedule for hearing. Consider alternatives including retention of the walkway. Other items: • City Attorney Anderson noted the recent ruling from Judge Weiner regarding Sisters of Mercy Conditional Use Permit. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 11 :29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Vice-Chairman 17 POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L. Van Etten Chief of Police July 2, 2008 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Police Department statistics and highlights for the month of May, 2008 DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS: -One new officer is currently in our field training program -Two officers are currently in the 6 month police academy (at least two more to hire) -Another Parking Enforcement Officer will be hired on July 7 to fill a retirement vacancy -One sworn officer (8 months) and one dispatcher (19 months) continue on long-term disability -Three sworn officers are coming off disability and should return in July -A second donated K-9 has been obtained and the officer will begin training in July -Neighborhood Watch presentations continue (new neighborhoods — Acacia and Hillside) -Added department training continues and more is planned in the 2008/2009 FY -Citizen crime notification system "Crimereports.com" has gone public TRAFFIC MATTERS: -Moving citations have steadily increased from the same time last year (selective enforcement) -Parking citation totals continue to be down, due in part to our replacing of a vacant PEO position -A second motorcycle officer has completed training and will be assigned to motorcycle duty in July -Citizen Speed Watch has been delayed, due to limited interest by the public in the Winchester area -The pilot daytime parking permit program has begun MONTHLY STATISTICS: -Remember that the monthly police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages. When reviewing the police department report remember to consider the actual numbers of various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Kindly feel free rb7conta me if you have any questions. OYY` o Chef Jack Etten __ \ Burlingame Police Department 1111 Trousdale Drive - Post Office Box 551 - Burlingame, California 94011-0551 - (650) 7774100 - Fax (650) 697-8130 07-01-08 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: MAY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change E Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 1 0 3 1 2 200.00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 1 4 2 6 -4 -66.67 Robbery Knife 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00 Robbery Strong-Arm 2 0 5 3 2 66.67 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 0 0 1 0 1 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 1 6 8 -2 -25.00 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 0 1 5 4 1 25.00 Assault - Other (Simple) 10 12 52 80 -28 -35.00 Burglary - Forcible Entry 4 4 27 14 13 92.86 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 3 8 33 33 0 0.00 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 4 0 4 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 1 0 1 Larceny Shoplifting 0 4 7 15 -8 -53.33 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 21 20 101 88 13 14.77 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 7 15 44 69 -25 -36.23 Larceny Bicycles 3 2 8 8 0 0.00 Larceny From Building 5 13 31 39 -8 -20.51 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 0 0 9 -9 -100.00 Larceny All Other 9 9 33 37 -4 -10.81 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 7 6 22 31 -9 -29.03 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 1 1 8 1 7 700.00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 1 1 4 1 3 300.00 ------- ------ ------ ------ 76 102 399 450 76 102 399 450 i f )7-01-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD '_rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change \11 Other Offenses 48 28 190 135 55 40.74 lnimal Abuse 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 lnimal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 lrson 0 0 4 2 2 100.00 lesists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 3icycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 3igamy 0 0 0 0 0 3omb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 3omb Threat 0 0 1 0 1 3ribery 0 0 0 0 0 :heck Offenses 0 0 3 4 -1 -25.00 2hild Neglect/prot custody 6 8 25 38 -13 -34.21 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Death Investigation 1 1 11 12 -1 -8.33 Disorderly Conduct 0 0 3 0 3 Driver's License Violations 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Driving Under the Influence 9 7 45 39 6 15.38 Drug Abuse Violations 1 5 11 18 -7 -38.89 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Drunkeness 5 3 18 30 -12 -40.00 Embezzlement 1 0 2 2 0 0.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 False Police Reports 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Forgery and Counterfeiting 7 2 27 14 13 92.86 Found Property 6 9 30 23 7 30.43 Fraud 5 0 10 12 -2 -16.67 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 2 6 8 25 -17 -68.00 r '7-01-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD ,rime Classification.................... Current Year. . YTD... YTD... Change Change Iit and Run Accidents 5 6 15 18 -3 -16.67 mpersonation 0 0 1 6 -5 -83.33 :ncest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 2 4 -2 -50.00 :ntimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Cidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Liquor Laws 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 wittering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 4arijuana Violations 3 4 7 15 -8 -53.33 4ental Health Cases 3 9 26 36 -10 -27.78 4issing Person 5 8 16 31 -15 -48.39 4issing Property 6 8 21 39 -18 -46.15 4unicipal Code Violations 2 6 20 43 -23 -53.49 4arcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 1 0 1 lffenses Against Children 1 2 3 5 -2 -40.00 )ther Assaults 10 12 52 80 -28 -35.00 3ther Juvenile Offenses 4 0 11 1 10 1,000.00 Dther Police Service 1 1 12 14 -2 -14.29 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 3 2 1 50.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 1 0 1 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00 Prowling 0 0 0 0 0 Resisting Arrest 1 0 3 1 2 200.00 Restraining Orders 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Sex Offenses 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 2 0 2 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 i7-01-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE? 3 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change 'tatutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;POssess 0 3 2 6 -4 -66.67 suspended License 7 1 22 14 8 57.14 Cax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Cerrorist Threats 0 0 4 1 3 300.00 Cowed Vehicle 34 45 150 159 -9 -5.66 Crespassing 0 0 2 3 -1 -33.33 Cruants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 JS Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 17 20 78 89 -11 -12.36 Vehicle Code Violations 1 2 18 10 8 80.00 Violation of Court Order 2 0 9 2 7 350.00 Narrants - Felony 1 1 8 6 2 33.33 Narrants - Misd 6 5 33 22 11 50.00 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 3 0 5 6 -1 -16.67 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------ ------ 206 205 922 984 206 205 922 984 07-01-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 2148 4 , 265 13 , 231 19, 564 Moving Citations 555 109 2 , 230 '842 ------- ------ ------ ------ 2703 4 , 374 15,461 20,406 2703 4 , 374 15, 461 20 , 406 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 07/01/2008 at 02 : 06 : 14 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 05/01/2008 to 05/31/2008 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid All Voids % All Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cot Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 124 6.70 2 5.56 98.41 DOTSON 509 409 22.11 5 13.89 98.79 FEITELBERG 508 281 15.19 4 11.11 98.60 GARRETT 501 57 3.08 3 8.33 95.00 ROSCOE 5.03 45 2.43 1 2.78 97.83 SERRANO 510 934 50.49 21 58.33 97.80 Total 1850 36 Page 1 of 1 City of Burlingame MAY PERMIT ACTIVITY Permit activity was strong during the month of May due, in large part, to permits issued for non-residential alterations. Only one permit was issued for a new single family dwelling during May. A pre-application meeting was held with Penske Automotive for a proposed project at 1635 Adrian Road (Peter Pan BMW.) THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2008 F. Y.2007 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % WATER HEATER 5 5,872 1 1,098 435 33 54,459 42 65,513 -17 SWIMMING POOL 1 21,500 7 172,500 2 86,500 99 SIGN 6 24,150 4 32,300 -25 43 173,165 45 262,395 -34 ROOFING 18 263,597 20 401,308 -34 209 3,005,440 242 3,433,578 -12 RETAINING WALL 1 75,000 3 274,020 -73 PLUMBING 7 37,800 13 46,900 -19 122 459,985 156 584,428 -21 NEW SFD 1 500,000 4 2,030,000 -75 7 3,895,000 14 7,399,000 -47 NEW COMMERCIAL 1 42,000,000 NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 3,500,000 NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT 1 650,000 MECHANICAL 7 113,282 34 229,523 52 674,640 -66 KITCHEN UPGRADE 2 60,000 5 113,500 -47 48 1,582,543 35 1,074,253 47 FURNACE 2 23,220 20 93,949 20 154,716 -39 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 1 3,500 2 4,800 -27 25 104,465 21 46,730 124 City of Burlingame MAY PERMIT ACTIVITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2008 F. Y.2007 DIFF Permit Type # # `0 # # % ELECTRICAL 3 28,900 3 13,100 121 49 252,729 52 402,361 -37 BATHROOM UPGRADE 5 92,000 3 54,000 70 50 858,259 40 570,300 50 ALTERATION RESIDENTI 39 2,006,451 32 1,835,630 9 368 15,711,828 298 15,678,366 0 ALTERATION NON RES 6 3,202,000 10 384,533 733 95 17,827,664 86 14,629,307 22 Totals: 94 6,245,770 106 5,053,671 24 1,112 86,496,510 1,110 49,486,107 75 City of Burlingame JUNE PERMIT ACTIVITY ** No permits for new commercial buildings were issued in June. A permit with a valuation of about$12,000,000 was issued in June 2007 for the Sunrise Assisted Living Facility at 1818 Trousdale.This is the reason for the apparent gap between the permit activity for June 2007 and June 2008. Construction activity is down in many categories. However, despite the economic downturn permits for three new single family dwellings were issued in June 2008. ** No pre-applications were held in June. THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2008 F.Y.2007 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % WATER HEATER 1 700 33 54,459 43 66,213 -18 SWIMMING POOL 1 38,900 7 172,500 3 125,400 38 SIGN 1 7,000 2 10,900 -36 44 180,165 47 273,295 -34 ROOFING 16 300,111 15 313,050 -4 225 3,305,551 257 3,746,628 -12 RETAINING WALL 1 30,000 1 75,000 4 304,020 -75 PLUMBING 14 50,652 13 62,395 -19 136 510,637 169 646,823 -21 NEW SFD 3 1,555,000 1 650,000 139 10 5,450,000 15 8,049,000 -32 NEW COMMERCIAL 1 11,890,000 1 11,890,000 NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 3,500,000 NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT 1 650,000 MECHANICAL 6 39,303 40 268,826 52 674,640 -60 KITCHEN UPGRADE 4 178,500 7 227,746 -22 52 1,761,043 42 1,301,999 35 FURNACE 1 1,959 20 93,949 21 156,675 -40 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2 2,500 3 34,000 -93 27 106,965 24 80,730 32 City of Burlingame JUNE PERMIT ACTIVITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2008 F. Y.2007 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % ELECTRICAL 6 67,500 4 18,000 275 55 320,229 56 420,361 -24 BATHROOM UPGRADE 2 17,500 4 63,640 -73 52 875,759 44 633,940 38 ALTERATION RE.SIDENTI 30 3,838,854 34 1,783,802 115 398 19,550,682 332 17,462,168 12 ALTERATION NON RES 10 1,183,270 4 122,460 866 106 61,010,934 90 14,751,767 314 Totals: 94 7,240,190 92 15,247,552 -53 19206 93,736,700 1,202 64,733,659 45 CITY OF B URLINGAME INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO TO: Jim Nantell, City Manager FROM: Jack Van Etten, Police Chief DATE: June 16, 2008 RE: Staff Recommendation - Smart Meter Study Attached is a summary and recommendation relative to Burlingame's study to consider implementing "smart meter"technology. The study of various vendors (which is also attached) was completed by Sergeant Don Shepley who was the police departments' staff representative at the time of the study. There was also input from other city sources at the time of the study (finance and traffic engineering). As you can see in the attached documents, there are both pros and cons when considering the implementation of smart parking technology. Staff has recommended against implementing smart meter technology at this time. The recommendation against changing to smart meter technology is based on several main important factors that need to be considered and are listed as follows: 1) The complexity of meter use which leads to inconvenience (and frustration) on the part of the public (inconvenient for those with change as it takes added time to operate, and especially during times of inclement weather, as the location of the meters are farther away from the parking stall). 2) The high cost to purchase and maintain the meters (during uncertain economic times); 3) The additional fees associated with (and required to operate), the machines; 4) The potential increase cost in meter time to help off set the added costs of the new technology; 5) The possible addition of finance or other personnel for the additional support that will be required to monitor the finance and payment portions (and repair) of the systems. Cc: City Council Burlingame Police Department Inter-Oce Memorandum TC? Chief Jack Van Etten FROM: Sergeant Don Shepley DATE: 5/22/2008 RE: Smart Meter Summary and Recommendation BACKGROUND: In 2006,the police department,finance department,and engineering department were involved in a joint"smart meter"meeting and study. The police department's portion of this study was completed in 2007(attachments A, B,&C).This memo serves as a summary of the police department's study and the police department's recommendation. The involved departments looked at two basic systems from differing vendors. The simplest system was a debit card system The second system was a pay-by-space system. Each system was studied and summarized in attachments A,B and C.Additionally,attachment D is a recent newspaper article about the status of the Redwood City smart meters and some of the citizen user issues associated with their use. DEBIT SYSTEMS: "Parcxmart"and"POM"are both debit card oriented systems. Debit cards can be sold by our city and/or our merchants. These are the only debit cards that can be used in the meters. The two main issues with debit card systems are they have to be marketed and they will require an upgrade to our meters. Currently,Burlingame has approximately 1650 meters.Only 150 of these meters are debit card ready.However, even these newer meters will require a$75/upgrade to be fully debit card ready. The additional 1500 meters will need to be replaced with new mechanisms costing$225.00 each.Existing meter housings will also need to be replaced at a cost of$250 per meter.This system and partial conversion will cost the city approximately$723,750 in meter upgrades.This cost doesn't take into account any labor costs necessary for the upgrade.Additionally, Parcxmart will collect 10%of the revenue we collect through debit card usage. Once past the fiscal cost of the system,it will only be used as much as the success of the marketing of the system. People residing in areas other than Burlingame may never hear of this parking system, so the main benefit will be for those in town who hear of the system and would be willing to purchase debit cards. PAY-BY-SPACE SYSTEMS: Two vendors for pay-by-space machines were also considered and examined.The first vendor was"VenTek." The second vendor was"Digital." Digital is the same vendor the City of Redwood City is using. Both vendors/brands have similar features and costs.VenTek is the manufacturer of our long term parking pay-by- space machines.The vast majority of our current pay-by-space machines are not state of the art with the exception of one machine. Our newest machine is not utilizing its full potential for reasons that will soon be clear. The state of the art pay-by-space machines have such features as being able make change,accept credit card payments,cell phone payments,provide expiration noticing, etc.The features mentioned above are what the public seems most interested. Thus,they fill the need that most citizens desire when they say they want"smart meters." These features are rather expensive.The machines are approximately$9,000 each. For Burlingame Avenue alone, the city would need to install 7 to 10 machines as they service 10 to 15 parking spaces.Thus,Burlingame Avenue alone would cost the city$63,000 to$100,000 in initial equipment costs.In addition to this,there is the reoccurring monthly cost of$65 a machine per month($780 a machine per year)for cell phone and credit card connection.Use of cell phones to pay a parking fee would cost 25 to 50 cents per transaction.The credit card institutions would also charge 2%to 3%of the collected revenues. "Smart meters"also require additional maintenance. Malfunctions can take up to a week to repair.We may find the need for additional personnel to maintain these machines. The other significant issue with"smart meters"is that they are more difficult to operate.Our current pay-by-space machines had a learning curve for the parking public who use them.The current pay-by-space parking machines are located in our long term parking areas where the users are repeat users.If we were to utilize pay-by-space machines for on street parking,in Burlingame's shopping districts,there would be a higher ratio of new to repeat users. New users will have to go through this learning curve.One should also keep in mind that as features are added to our"smart meters,"potential for increased frustration is also added. RECOMMENDATION: Each system that has been explored has its share of advantages and disadvantages. However,none of these systems are free.There will be a financial cost that the City of Burlingame which will either have to absorb or pass onto our citizens.There are two costs.The first cost is the direct cost of purchasing and maintaining each system.The second cost is the increased cost of personnel to maintain each of the systems. A smarter parking system will have a higher cost. The second issue is that"smart meters"offer a higher degree of frustration for the users.Redwood City has moved to the pay-by-space"smart meter"system. It has been well publicized that the public in Redwood City has been frustrated by the pay-by-space system Thus,the police department is recommending against replacing our current parking system for two reasons.Any new system will be expensive,and our City continues to face uncertain financial times.Secondly,it has been shown that"smart meters"are more difficult to use and may cause the public we serve more frustration than our current parking system. CC: Attachments A—"Patcxmart Technologies" B—"POM" C—"Pacific Parking Solutions"and"VenTek" D—Redwood City Meters News Article rclxm Technologies Inc System The meters on Burlingame Ave will not accept debit cards. However, they are in need of replacement. The need for replacement is what brought this issue up as our current meters are nearing the end of their life expectancy. POM is our current vendor for parking meters. POM has their own proprietary debit card system, but has referred us to parcxmart if Y, we wish to expand the debit card capabilities. One important feature is auditing. We initially thought we could add debit card usage to our pay-by-space machines. However, this is not an option. Pay-by-space technology is oriented towards credit card use. This will be discussed under the pay-by-space portion of this report. Debit card use will require merchants, City Hall, the Police Department, and/or an entity such as the Chamber of Commerce to sell and reload debit cards. Parcxmart debit cards can be used for meters and purchase merchandise from the merchants who are members of this system. * ; To be successful, this program must be :-�`— marketed. parcxmart says they will help with the initial marketing. They will provide approximately 10 terminals for the first merchants who sign up for this system. parcxmart states we will save money by not having to collect as may coins. This is due to the handling of less change. This system also protects from skimming, which is not occurring, and loss of money due to the theft of meters and the change in the meters. - ra $anX ox'Low e,w Method of Use Users of the parcxmart system will purchase debit cards from participating merchants and other access points. They can put any amount of money on the debit cards. Typical amounts would be$25 to $100 per deposit. They can be purchased with cash or credit cards. The cards are then inserted into the front of the meter and the citizen determines how much time they wish to put on the meter by pushing a button on the front of the meter. They cannot exceed the maximum time limit. Citizens will not receive a refund for unused time. It should be noted that meter personnel still need to visit each and every meter to for revenue collection. Two collection activities need to take place. The first activity is the collection of coins. The second activity is an electronic activity. The meter Thus, it does not seem likely the City of Burlingame would save money by cutting personnel costs. Our main benefit would be the limiting of losses when a meter, and the coins deposited within, is stolen. Costs parcxmart technology requires the City of Burlingame replace our meters. New meters mechanisms are $150 each. The card reader for these meters is an additional $75.00. Our oldest meters do not accept parcxmart debit cards. Currently, we only have about 150 meters that can be updated to accept parcxmart cards. These meters will need the $75.00 card reader to be installed. In addition to this, the overwhelming majority of our meter housings will also have to be replaced as they do not have a slot for debit cards. The housings are approximately$250 each. Cons • This is a locally marketed system. It requires parcxmart marketing to be a success. • Cards issued in other cities can be used in Burlingame meters. However, these are few and far between. The closest is Truckee California. • Not very hi-tech. Debit card options only. • No refund to the citizen for unused time. • 10%of parcxmart meter revenue is collected by parcxmart. • $500 to upgrade each meter to parcxmart capability. Pros • Merchants are reported to enjoy this system as they do not have to make change for customers. • Merchants who agree to charge debit cards are reimbursed by parcxmart for credit card fees. • Can use existing meter system (only the meter mechanism needs to be replaced) . Thus,the initial set-up will be cheaper and easier. • Meters do not have the same reliability issues as pay-by-space machines. When a meter goes down, it impacts only one parking space. Pay-by-space machines suffer increased failure rates during wet weather. When a pay-by-space machine goes down, and they do go down frequently, multiple spaces are impacted. This causes stress on our public and meter maintenance staff. 11 System POM is the current manufacturer of our parking meters. They offer a much simpler system than parcxmart for debit card use in our meters. However, POM has audit issues. Also, POM does not offer merchants the ability to sell merchandise through the debit card feature parcxmart offers. This may be a moot point as this parcxmart feature may have extremely low usage for making purchases from merchants. Also, this feature has nothing to do with parking other than it may help market the pacxmart system. This could generate higher usage of debit cards in single space parking meters. This debit card system uses POM's Card Manager software. POM will provide this to the City of Burlingame free of charge. They will issue as many copies of this software that !'.l we request. In turn,we can issue this software to entities such as the Chamber of Commerce and merchants. Effectively, the Chamber and merchants would become access points for purchasing and reloading debit cards. However, it will have to be a very motivated entity that handles this function for us. When a person charges a debit card with the Card Manager software and reader, the money goes into the entities bank account. For example, if a citizen puts $50 on a debit card, the money would then go into the Chamber's bank account. The City will have to go the Chamber on a periodic basis to see how much money was collected. The City would then request that this money be transmitted to the City of Burlingame. One way of doing this would be requesting the Chamber issue a check to the City of Burlingame. As there are credit card fees associated with credit cards being used to charge the debit card, the City would have to reimburse the Chamber for their credit card merchant fees. A theft issue also exists. The software tracks how much money was received at an access point. However, it can be manipulated by the user. Eventually, it will be discovered as the revenues at meter collection sites will not match the revenues reported by each access point. An involved investigation will be needed to figure out where the theft is occurring. Thus, the City will have to be very careful in the distribution of access points (Card Management software and readers). I spoke with George Reynolds of San Francisco's Department of Transportation. They use a system similar to POMs. However, they are using MacKay meters. He says the system seems to be working. However, marketing has been a challenge. It is difficult to get access points, and it is difficult to put citizens in touch with access points. Method of Use Citizens will use this system by purchasing rechargeable debit cards at City defined access points. Typically, a citizen will load a debit card with$25 to $100. The cards are then inserted into meter. The meter removes the maximum amount of time/money that a meter can legally be used. For instance, Burlingame Av is 25 cents for 20 minutes, and the maximum amount of time that a citizen can park there is 1 hours. Thus, 75 cents will be removed from the card. A ten hour meter would also remove 10 hours of time/money. When the citizen returns, he/she inserts his/her card into the meter and unused time is placed back on the card. Time/money can only be refunded to the card it was taken from. Costs The Card Manager software can be installed on any PC. We will have to purchase Card Manager debit readers for each access point. The cost of these readers is $150 each. In addition to this, we will need to purchase debit cards. These are $3 to $5 each depending on the artwork that is placed on the cards. These cards can be reloaded multiple times. To ensure the cards are reloaded, and not thrown away, a deposit can be charged. POM also manufactures ATM style loading stations. These cost approximately $7,000 to $10,000 each. These could be installed in a downtown area. As with the parcxmart system, we will have to update our meter mechanisms and meters. Again, the meter mechanisms are $150 each, and the housings are $250 each. The card readers, which need to be installed in each meter, are $30. The POM debit card readers are cheaper than the $75 parcxmart debit card readers. Cons • Credit card fees assessed to entity managing access points. This will make it difficult to generate interest with entities such as merchants and the Chamber to become an access point. • May be difficult to find trustworthy businesses/organizations to load debit cards. • $450 to upgrade each meter to be compatible with POM debit cards. • Banking fees are lower than parxmart, but collection of parking fees and audit issues will be problematic. Pros • Other than setup cost and credit card charges, City keeps all revenues collected through this system. • Citizen is only charged for the time used as unused time on a meter is refunded to the card used to charge the meter. Pacific Parking 1 . Solutions - and VenTek z System The City of Burlingame has been purchasing pay-by-space machines manufactured by VenTek. With today's technology, pay-by-space machines provide the only parking solution that comes close to using the term "Smart Meter". We also looked a Digital pay-by-space machines. We found these had the same functionality, costs, and operating costs as VenTek machines. VenTek will install a machine for a 90 day test and evaluation period. They will strongly request we staff the machine with a PEO during peak parking hours to aid citizens in using the evaluation machine's features. This is to ensure they machine's successful use and implementation. VenTek's machines have the following features: �' #" • Internet-enabled • Optional Wireless Connectivity • Real Time Credit Card _ • Cell Payment Option � ' • Accepts Bills & Coins • Makes Change k • Audible Instructions • ATM Style Interface • Remote Notification • Intrusion Alarm • Real Time Auditing • ADA Compliant • Solar Powered • Extensible For Future Expansion When substituting on street meters with pay-by-space machines, our vendor, Pacific Parking Solutions, suggests that one pay-by-space machine should be installed for every 10 to 15 parking spaces. Pacific Parking Solutions has found if the ratio of parking spaces to pay-by-space machines is higher than this, citizens will suffer frustration. Pacific Parking Solutions also states that debit cards with parking solutions are not effective. They need to be marketed. The limitations cities face in marketing debit cards results in low citizen usage. Credit cards (VISA, Master Card, American Express, etc...) are already marketed and are recognized worldwide. Thus, anyone who visits Burlingame would understand they can use a credit card to pay for their parking privileges. This will not be true if we use parcxmart or POM debit cards. These systems will only be recognized by frequent visitors to Burlingame. Audit Features There are numerous audit reports that can be produced with the pay-by-space machine's software. These can be used to determine vehicle turn over. They can also be used to determine how much money has been collected, when it was collected, and where it should be (in the machine through coin and bill acceptance or the bank through credit card transactions). !M U., aiu uaC Tnansamon Fbw Intemet R ejd n g .d • ul C.ad1 Ahotlalbn 6 Sal hn VenTek Pay rink Stations `ead Cab-LM OMKIws S-1-P—iid.O Cnd.uv oh.d:+a Aamurw CmdN Paym— Depodl In addition to this, cell phone enabled pay-by-space machines can be programmed to notify our meter technicians when there is a failure or status that needs attention. Currently, we have to wait for citizens to contact us when they experience a problem to repair a machine. This new system will decrease citizen frustration with machines suffering a failure. The messages a smart meter can send are system states such as coin and bill acceptors full, low change for the public, low battery, complete shutdown, etc... They can also notify us when meters suffer vandalism (impact) or are broken into for cash. Meter technicians can be contacted by e-mail, landline (our dispatch center), and cell phone. Method of Use These machines will operate similar as our current pay-by-space machines. However, they can be programmed for timed parking. If they were to be placed on an area such as Burlingame Av, they can be set for 1 hour parking. They will also offer many more features than our current machines do. The PEO will no longer look for meters displaying a red flag. The PEO will need to print out a receipt from each pay-by-space machine. The receipt will show when each parking space has or will expire. Citations will be issued based on this report. Costs Smart pay-by-space machines cost $8,000 to $10,000 each. We cantrade in our current pay-by-space machines to replace the machines in our long term parking lots. We will receive approximately a$3,000 credit for our old machines. When a credit card is used, there are usage fees. Each transaction will be 5 to 15 cents depending on usage. It is anticipated that Burlingame's usage fee will be closer to 15 cents a transaction. This is due to low usage. In addition to this, 2 to 3 percent of parking revenues will be levied on each transaction. Each parking space will need to have the space number painted on the ground. Citizens will then go to the closest machine and deposit coins, bills, or credit cards for the amount of time they wish to park. They will have to enter the parking spot they park in. Cell phones can also be used to pay for parking. It is anticipated that a 25 to 50 cent charge will be levied on each cell phone transaction. This is in addition to the above mentioned credit cards. These machines also offer the ability to notify citizens, via their cell phone, when their time is about to expire. Credit card features come with monthly fees. There are two fees. The first is a $35 a month cell phone bill as each machine has a built in cell phone to communicate with credit card companies and citizen cell phones. In addition to this, there is a$30 a month fee for the banking features (credit card transactions and deposits into City bank accounts). Cons • High operating cost will either impact City revenues or be passed onto the citizen/user. • Citizens will have to walk to a pay-by-space machine to pay for parking. They may find this inconvenient. • The smarter the meter, the more opportunity for citizens to make errors in their use. This causes frustration when citizens receive citations. The administrative review officer will have to fairly decide if, when, and why to dismiss citations. • Pay-by-space machines have reliability issues. This is especially true during periods of inclement weather. Even during good weather, the smart meter has more features to selectively fail or completely fail. When smart meters fail they cause inconvenience for citizens and staff. • Smart meters are subject to game playing. For example, cell phone technology enables citizens to watch for PEOs then pay as they approach. • $780 (cell connection and banking features) a year per machine for cell features and banking. Pros • Only parking system that can be considered smart. Citizens that use these meters will find an enhanced parking system. • Credit card based system has marketing in place to aid in higher citizen participation of smart meter features. • Strong audit features. sanmateocountytimes.com Contacting us Editor I Glenn Rabinowitz 650.348.4325 Fax:650.348.4446 A grabinowitz@bayareanewsgioup.com rx ete o is r mchaaft" 'aft Ad&= mb,t, a N. Redwood City weighs Instead of operatinfrom 10 a.m.-to. the programa Officials estimate-the will be worth the cost.. 8 p.m.Monday thro I aturday,the council will have-to spend between' "We were trying to see.what more.parking, (Ower rates meters will stop collecting at 6 p.m. $700,000 and $1.2 million fromIthW works best for the city and the people Parking is freeon Sundays. city's reserves the next four.years to, _downtown," Councilmeinber Alicia By Shaun Bishop The meters' variablepricing Sys- subsidize the parking program. -Aguirre said. MEoIANEws STAFF WRITER tem —which charges motorists be- Chu .Chang,' acting director of Aguirre.said, she believes in the Redwood City's computerized tween 25 and 75 cents an hour; de-� community development. -services, reasoning behind meters, mainly parking.,meters. soon will be eating pending on where they park—will said that under its contract with to increase turnover in prime spots fewer coins and turning off two hours also be changed so no one has to pay Ampco,which manages two garages nearest to -the cinema complex at earlier every night. more than 50 cents an hour. that offer shoppers free validated Broadway and Middlefield Road. - In.an effort to quell shoppers'frus- The new rates and times go into, parking, the city pays the company Residents have complained that the tration with the.year=old machines, effect after the ordinance's second about$600,000 per year. . . meters'interface is cumbersome,the the City Council Monday night ap- reading, likely at the next council Reducing the hours and.rates of screen is hard to read or that the old proved several changes to the down- .meeting May 12. parking meters means the city.could practice.:of hunting for meters with town pay-by-space meters, including; What the changes won't do is ease. lose about $50,000, though council- shortening the hours of enforcement. the finahcialhit.the city is taking from members'said they hope the changes See.PARKING; Page 7 Bay Area News Group OBITUARIES 8e LOCAL Wednesday Apri � P��]ri n but now lives m Hayward. "I can improve We can still see had before,"Bain said. Wallace has not. - GL1 L1LLlg think it's`a contrivance to grab people .haYe difficulty," he. Several:residents roaming "I,think they're a total nui money from the citizenry." said. From Page 3; Chang said the program's Councilmember Ian Bain downtown Tuesday afternoon sane," Wallace said, adding deficit shows it is not,amoney . said the shorter hours should agreed_that haying two more some unprintable comments a time left has been all but elimi= making venture and the. city piease'bus`messes.and patrons hours of free parking is an im- bout the device as.she plunked nated; Business owners; have is working with the manufac- . alike. provement,but some noted the . in a few coins. said some customers stay away turer to address lingering con- "Six o'clock is the norm in because of the machines. cerns. terms of when.parking meters meters are still.inconvenient. f "They're hard to get used "The meter'itself, the me- normally stop operating.. ..: I Suemi Shin said she has got-. E-mail Shaun Bishop at to, said Patrick Hilliard,who chanibal side, we-still.need to, think;that's what people are - ten used to=the machines. But sbishop@dailynewsgroup. — grew up in Redwood City figure out if there's a way-we used to, :and that's what.we Emerald Hills resident Mary coin. C4;omcast Comcast Cable 4450 E.Commerce Way Sacramento,CA 95834 June 26, 2008 Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: FCC Regulatory Fee Change Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: Although, in August 2007 we adjusted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory fee, we are sending you this letter as a courtesy. The prior, 2007 annual fee was $0.79 per customer. The revised annual fee for the period October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008 is $0.75 per customer - a total annual decrease of $0.04. The revised annual FCC fee of $0.75 was recovered as a $0.06 pass-through item on customers' bills beginning October 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. Beginning July 1, 2008, through September 30, 2008, the FCC regulatory fee will increase to a $0.07. This annual regulatory fee is assessed by the FCC to recover the costs of such activities as policy and rulemaking. This fee is recovered by the cable operator from all regulated and unregulated systems as a separate, line item pass-through on the customers' bills. If you have any questions, please contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee- Ann Peling at (415) 715-0549. Sincerely, U6 V--\—� Mitzi Givens-Russell Franchise Compliance Manager Bay Area Market, Comcast