HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2008.05.19 CITY G
BURUNGAME
m
"FwTm.'uNE 6
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Monday May 19, 2008
CLOSED SESSION— 6:00 p.m., Conference Room A
a. Pending Litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(a))—Ostini vs. City of Burlingame, U. S.
District Ct N.D. Calif. No. C 07 1011 WHA
b. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
City Negotiators: Deirdre Dolan, Jim Nantell, Glenn Berkheimer
Labor Organization: Fire Administrators
C. Personnel Matter: Performance Review of City Attorney (Government Code § 54957)
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 May 5, 2008
5. PRESENTATION
a. Caltrans presentation on long-term plan for planting and maintenance of the trees along El
Camino Real
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
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.
a. Adopt Resolution levying assessments for the second half of the 2008 year on all categories of
Half Moon Bay Hotels within the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District—
Adopt
b. (i)Adopt Ordinance providing that application and renewal fees for various business permits
will be set by Council Resolution and explicitly requiring annual inspections of taxicabs (ii)
Adopt Resolution approving revisions to master fee schedule to affirm police permit fees and
building moving fee and revise fees for Parks & Recreation permits to clarify application of fees
and service provided -Adopt
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. Report on the Beautification Commission's meeting and recommendation for the plan to have
streets with themed trees
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Resolution accepting 2007 street resurfacing program by C. F. Archibald Paving, Inc.
b. Resolution accepting Trousdale Drive Transmission Pipeline Project by Shaw Pipeline, Inc.
c. Resolution approving Professional Services Agreement with Metcalf& Eddy Consultants for
construction management of the new Trousdale Pump Station Project
d. Resolution awarding a construction contract to Spencon Construction for the Recreation Center
sidewalk and miscellaneous handicap ramps, curbs and gutters at various locations throughout
the City
e. Warrants and 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
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.
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Parks &Recreation, April 17, 2008; Planning, April 28 &May 12, 2008;
Beautification, May 5, 2008
b. Department Reports: Building, April, 2008; Police, April, 2008; Finance, April, 2008
C. Letter from Comcast concerning programming services adjustment
15. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours
before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose
Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burling-ame.org.
Agendas and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT MEETING—WEDNESDAY MAY 28 2008—BUDGET SESSION
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.
CITY G
BVRLINGAME
om
9
�gOFwrco.+ue N
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 5, 2008
STUDY SESSION
a. STORM DRAIN FEE
DPW Murtuza presented Council with the scope of work prepared by Willdan Financial Services to provide
a storm drain fee ballot.
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 Bill Toci of Veolia West Operating Services.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Deal, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. MINUTES
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 21, 2008 regular Council
meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
5. PRESENTATIONS
a. FIRST DAY ISSUE OF TROPICAL FRUIT STAMPS IN BURLINGAME
Mayor O'Mahony presented a framing of the new stamps given to the City of Burlingame by the United
States Postal Service (USPS) commemorating the First Day of Issue Stamp Ceremony on April 25, 2008, in
Burlingame. The USPS unveiled the new Tropical Fruit stamps during the annual Westpex Stamp Show held
at the Marriott Hotel.
1
Burlingame City Council May 5, 2008
Unapproved Minutes
b. RECOGNITION OF THE 2007/08 CITIZENS ACADEMY PARTICIPANTS
P&RD Schwartz and COP Van Etten introduced 19 citizens who participated in the City of Burlingame's
first Citizens Academy. Mayor O'Mahony presented each citizen with a proclamation to commemorate their
experience.
C. COUNCIL RECOGNITION OF THE VOLUNTEER EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE THE
CENTENNIAL ART/PHOTOGRAPHY/VIDEO SHOW AND CENTENNIAL WINE & HOT
CHOCOLATE WALK AND CENTENNIAL PASSPORT TOUR
P&RD Schwartz thanked the following citizens for presiding over recent Centennial events:
Burlingame Art Society members co-chaired the Visions of Burlingame Art/Photography/Video Contest in
conjunction with their annual art show at the Recreation Center; and Diane Condon-Wirgler and
Raziel Ungar co-chaired both the Wine and Hot Chocolate Walk and the Centennial Passport Tour. Janice
Wolfe designed the Walk and Tour posters displayed throughout the city.
Raziel's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Irvin Ungar, commemorated their son's civic accomplishments and the city's
100th anniversary by presenting to the city an historic Arthur Szyk painting depicting a visual history of the
United States.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. HOLD FIRST PUBLIC HEARING ON RENEWAL OF BROADWAY BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND INTRODUCE ORDINANCE RENEWING THE
BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) FOR FIVE YEARS
CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and to introduce an
ordinance renewing the Broadway BID for five years.
Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing and thanked Ross Bruce, Broadway BID President, for his
leadership. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed.
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance renewing the Broadway
Area BID for five years. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed
ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman
Nagel. 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.
b. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1822 AMENDING SECTION 9.04.014 TO ALLOW FOR DOGS
TO BE OFF LEASH FOR THE AREAS OF THE UPPER FIELD AT CUERNAVACA PARK
AND THE EASTERN-MOST LAWN IN WASHINGTON PARK FOR A PERIOD OF 90
DAYS
P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1822 amending the Municipal Code to allow dogs off leash from 6 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. in areas
of Cuernavaca and Washington Parks for a trial period of 90 days.
2
Burlingame City Council May 5, 2008
Unapproved Minutes
Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way;
Jack Easterbrook, 409 Dwight Road; and Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way. There were no further comments
from the floor, and the hearing was closed.
COP Van Etten advised that there were a total of 39 dog complaints for 2006 and 2007 combined.
After Council discussion, Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1822
amending Section 9.04.014 to allow dogs to be off-leash in designated areas of Cuernavaca and Washington
Parks; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved by roll call vote, 3-2 (Baylock and
Keighran dissented). Mayor O'Mahony directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance
within 15 days of adoption.
C. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE
CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the appeal of the
application for Amendment of a Design Review Permit for changes to a previously approved first and second
story addition at 3066 Hillside Drive.
Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Mimi Sien, owner of 3066
Hillside Drive; Michael Ma, project architect; and Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue. There were no further
comments, and the hearing was closed.
Council discussion followed: though the applicant indicated that the paved area had been reduced following
construction, it appears that the "after" condition includes more paved area and the landscaped areas on the
front portion of the property have been reduced; the City wants enhanced landscaping to reduce the impact of
the amount of paving; the work was not done according to approved plans; procedures weren't followed that
require approval of changes by the Planning Commission in advance of making changes to plans; appears
applicant had a misunderstanding of procedures; feels there was no intended malice by applicant to deceive
the City; excess paving to the left of the garage should be removed, consistent with the originally approved
plans.
Councilman Deal made a motion to grant the appeal, and direct the applicant to remove concrete to the west
of the garage, consistent with the original approved plan, and replace the concrete with landscaping; the
design of the area shall be approved by the Community Development Director; seconded by Vice Mayor
Keighran. The motion was approved by roll call vote, 4-1 (Nagel dissented).
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Terry Horn, 405 Primrose Road, spoke on Item 9.a. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Item 9.b.
Lorne Abramson, 1129 Oxford Road, spoke on Item 9.b. and recommended that agenda packets be provided
online. Tom O'Connor 411 Rollins Road spoke on Item 9.a. There were no further comments from the floor.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT APPLICATION AND RENEWAL FEES
FOR VARIOUS BUSINESS PERMITS WILL BE SET BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND
EXPLICITLY REQUIRING ANNUAL INSPECTIONS OF TAXICABS
3
Burlingame City Council May 5,2008
Unapproved Minutes
CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance providing that most
business permit fees would be established by Council resolution and expressly providing for annual taxicab
inspections.
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 6.24,
6.30, 6.36, 6.38, 6.40, 6.42, and 18.07 to provide that the fees for permit applications and renewals will be
set by City Council resolution and amending chapter 6.36 to explicitly provide for annual inspections of
taxicabs. 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.
b. UPDATE ON THE BAYSIDE PARK SYNTHETIC FIELD PROJECT
P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council to direct staff to begin a fundraising
campaign for the necessary funds for the Bayside Park Synthetic Field Project. If Council is willing to shift
the funds ($275,000) that were allocated for the Burlingame High School back field project to Bayside Park
and if the non-profit groups donate $350,000 as pledged, $175,000 would be needed to complete the project.
After Council discussion, Council concurred to support staff in starting the fundraising effort.
C. TWO LIBRARY BOARD VACANCIES
CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and recommended that Council call for applications for the Library
Board. The application deadline was set for May 30, 2008.
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor O'Mahony requested removal of Items a., b. and f. from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 37-2008 AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PROVEN
MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR THE NEW TROUSDALE PUMP STATION PROJECT
DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 37-2008 awarding the contract for the New
Trousdale Pump Station Project to Proven Management, Inc., City Project No. 80910.
d. APPOINTMENT OF ONE MEMBER OF ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE SAN MATEO
COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
CA Anderson requested Council appoint one Advisory Board member for 2008-2010 for the San Mateo
County Tourism Business Improvement District.
4
Burlingame City Council May 5,2008
Unapproved Minutes
e. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 38-2008 APPROVING AN INFORMATION SERVICES
CONTRACT WITH CAINE COMPUTER CONSULTING, LLC, TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT
COP Van Etten requested Council approve Resolution No. 38-2008 approving an agreement with Caine
Computer Consulting, LLC to provide information technology services to the city and authorizing the city
Manager to execute an agreement with Caine Computer Consulting, LLC.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve Items c. through e. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by
Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 35-2008 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT
WITH BURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB (BAC) FOR THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
AQUATIC PROGRAMS AT THE BURLINGAME AQUATIC FACILITY
Mayor O'Mahony thanked Terry Horn for his support of aquatic programs. At Vice Mayor Keighran's
request, P&RD Schwartz clarified that this agreement meets the requirement of having a dedicated lifeguard
on duty or a minimum of two lifeguard-certified coaches on duty for all BAC activities. For all City
programs, a dedicated lifeguard is always on duty.
Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve Resolution No. 35-2008 approving Amendment No. I to the
agreement with the Burlingame Aquatic Club, Inc. for the provision of certain aquatics programs at the
Burlingame Aquatic Facility; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously
by voice vote, 5-0.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 36-2008 AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TO PERFORM PHASE 1
WORK FOR THE STORM DRAIN FEE (SDF) BALLOT
Mayor O'Mahony stated that Council was briefed on Phase I work during the Study Session held earlier this
evening; at which time Mayor O'Mahony and Vice Mayor Keighran volunteered to serve on the Council
subcommittee for this project.
Councilman Deal made a motion to approve Resolution No. 36-2008 authorizing execution of an agreement
with Willdan Financial Services to perform Phase I work for the storm drain fee(SDF)ballot; seconded by
Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
f. RESOLUTION NO. 39-2008 APPROVING A FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT WITH VEOLIA
WEST OPERATING SERVICES (VWOS) FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Mayor O'Mahony commended Veolia for offering the lowest operations cost for treatment of wastewater on
the peninsula. This public-private partnership between Veolia and the City of Burlingame is 36 years old and
is the first such partnership in the nation.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve Resolution No. 39-2008 authorizing execution of an
agreement for professional services with Veolia West Operating Services for a five-year agreement for
5
Burlingame City Council May 5,2008
Unapproved Minutes
operation and maintenance of the Wastewater Treatment Facility; 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 Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke on Bike to Work Day, May 15. There were no further comments.
12. OLD BUSINESS
a. RESCHEDULED ANNUAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council select its preferred date for the re-scheduled
annual City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting. Council agreed to set the date of Saturday, May
17, 2008, at 9 a.m. for the joint meeting. Councilwoman Baylock advised that she would not be available to
attend the joint meeting.
13. NEW BUSINESS
Councilman Deal received complaints that the speaker unit in the Council foyer is not working. Staff will
follow up on this problem.
Mayor O'Mahony received complaints that residents are leaving their recycling and garbage bins out for
extended periods of time after Allied Waste makes their collection. CA Anderson stated that the city follows
up on containers left out overnight on a complaint basis.
Mayor O'Mahony rode Burlingame Trolley and suggested more trolley stops on the route. CM Nantell stated
that the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance will be looking into providing more stops.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. City Librarian's report, April 15, 2008
15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at 10:22 p.m. in memory of Winifred"Win"
Quilty, who retired from the Police Department after 23 years of service.
CLOSED SESSION
Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following:
a. Threatened Litigation: Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C))—Claims of Jack Giusto and Linda
McDonald
6
Burlingame City Council May 5,2008
Unapproved Minutes
16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Doris J. Mortensen
City Clerk
7
Burlingame City Council May 5,2008
Unapproved Minutes
awmiz
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM# 5a
MTG.
DATE 5/19/08
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBNWTED r
BY
DATE: May 13,2008
APPRO
FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY
e
SUBJECT: CALTRANS' PLANTING OF TREES ON EL CAMINO REAL
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the report from
Caltrans' regarding their plan for tree plantings on El Camino Real.
BACKGROUND:
In 2007, Caltrans removed 22 trees from El Camino Real; 9 at the start of the year and 13 near
the end. After several meetings between City staff, Caltrans officials and representatives from
the State Office of Historic Preservation (SOHP), it was agreed to replant the trees on a 1:1 basis
and then look at a long-term plan for the trees. The planting of the 22 trees is nearly complete.
As part of the long-term plan, Caltrans has identified more trees to be removed because of safety
or health issues. Staff continues to work with Caltrans and the SOHP to develop the long-term
plan that will ensure El Camino Real to have the tall, full canopy it has historically had.
At the May 19, 2008 City Council meeting, representatives from Caltrans will update the
Council members on the short-term actions and the status of the long-term plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
HOWARD-RALSTON EUCALYPTUS TREE ROWS
PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION PLAN
El Camino Real
State Route 82, P.M. 13.00/15.20, Burlingame
San Mateo County, California
Jr
i
zzzzzzz
p
f
r--
x State Highway 82, 1912,Cover Photo Courtesy of the Burlingame Historical Society
May 2008
— Prepared by
Office of Cultural Resource Studies
District 4
_ California Department of Transportation
w
w
— 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . ..4
2. DEFINITION OF PRESERVATION PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . .5
a. Preservation and Rehabilitation Plans
b. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
3. PURPOSE AND GOALS . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ...7
4. REGULATORY SETTING. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .7
a. Interested Parties. Caltrans, City of Burlingame, City of Hillsborough,
Burlingame Historical Society. Consultations with SHPO
b. Compliance with PRC 5024; CEQA
5. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
a. History of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows
b. Cultural Landscape
C. Cultural Setting
6. CURRENT SETTING. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14
-" a. Description of Resources
b. Boundaries of Eligible Property
c. National Register Eligibility
d. Integrity
e. Types and Numbers of Trees
7. PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION PLAN. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . .18
a. Selected Approach
_ b. Responsibilities:
- Notification of Scheduled Work and Maintenance
- Record Keeping
_
C. Guidelines from Caltrans Highway Design Manual
d. Periodic Assessment of Trees
e. Tree Removal and Replacement
- Criteria for Determining Removal
- Safety Concerns, Emergency Tree Removal and Replacement
- Scheduled Tree Removal and Replacement
- Incorporation of New Trees into Maintenance Plan
- Replacement Ratios
- Suitable Tree Varieties, Sizes
- Existing Mature Trees, other than Eucalyptus or Elm
f. Tree Removals and Biological Concerns
g. Tree Removals and Potential Archaeological Concerns
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, Caltrans District 4, May 2008
3
8. GENERAL MAINTENANCE PLAN...................................................22
a. Description of Typical Maintenance Work —
b. Pruning
c. Water and Fertilizing
9. CONCLUSION..............................................................................23
10. BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................24 —
11. PREPARER'S QUALIFICATIONS.....................................................25
12. ATTACHMENTS...........................................................................26
1. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties
2. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes
3. Public Resource Code 5024 —
4. California Register Criteria
5. National Register Criteria
6. Photos and Maps -'
7. Protecting Cultural Landscapes, National Park Service Preservation Brief 36
8. Map of Tree Row
9. Field Survey Information Summary —
10. DPR Resource Inventory Forms, Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows
11. Standard Specifications Section 5.1
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
4
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows border both sides of El Camino Real, State
Route 82, in the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough. Planted circa 1873-
1875 by landscape gardener John McLaren for property owners George H. Howard,
William Ralston, and others, the tree rows are an important cultural resource. The term
cultural resource encompasses archaeological, traditional, and built environment
resources, including buildings, structures, objects, districts, and sites, important to the
culture of a people. Qualified cultural resources professionals, consulting with their peers,
Native Americans, subject matter experts, or review authorities as necessary, conduct
studies of those cultural resources that could have potential to possess significance and
could be affected by transportation projects.
The tree rows were planted along El Camino Real, which was commonly known as the
County Road. For Howard, the planting of the tree rows meant real estate improvements
and beautification for his own enjoyment. For Ralston, who was planning a subdivision
in the area that later became the City of Burlingame, the tree rows would provide a
picturesque grand entrance into an area of predominantly open land.'
McLaren's original design for the tree rows included a mixture of eucalyptus and elm
species, with the intent that the eucalyptus would be removed as the elms became more
established. The exact number of tree rows that were planted is uncertain. By the 1930s it
was evident that the plan to remove the eucalyptus in favor of allowing elms to become
the dominant species had been abandoned. Eucalyptus now comprised the majority of the
rows, with a small number of elms, sycamore, Liquidambar, and other species
interspersed among them.2
The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows have become an important part of the
cultural landscape of the area, contributing to the growth, development and aesthetic of
the cities. The City of Burlingame has long recognized the historical importance of the
tree rows, and have a history of activism with regard to their preservation. The California
State Department of Transportation(Caltrans) recognizes the tree rows as a historical
resource under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).
Pressures from growth, impacts from the highway, damage, age, and safety concerns
have necessitated the development of a historic tree rows preservation and rehabilitation
plan. The purpose of this plan is to document the history of the tree rows, the number of
trees, their current condition, and to develop a preservation and rehabilitation treatment
strategy.
This plan will aid in the preservation and rehabilitation of the tree rows and help provide
_ a safe and efficient travel corridor. To accomplish this, the resource's existing integrity
and condition have been documented and assessed. The significance, period of
' McLaren,John,Letter to Henry W.Poett,December 13, 1935.At the San Mateo County Historical
Museum.
2 Letter to F.M. Stanger,March 3 and 12, 1938.At the San Mateo County Historical
Museum.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
5
significance, and character defining elements have been determined. This preservation
and rehabilitation plan addresses short-term and long-term work needed to address issues _
of damage, disease, age, and impact to and from the roadway. The goal of this plan is the
preservation of the existing trees,rehabilitation of the resource through a planting
program when original trees must be removed, and incorporation of these ideas within a —
highway maintenance program, while continuing to maintain the integrity of the historic
resource. This will be accomplished through a joint effort of the Caltrans Office of
Cultural Resource Studies, the Caltrans Office of Maintenance, and the Caltrans Office of --
Landscape Design, together with the City of Burlingame, and the Town of Hillsborough.
CHAPTER 2. DEFINITION OF PRESERVATION PLAN
a. Preservation and Rehabilitation Plans
Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the
existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property.3 A preservation plan is used —
to guide the preservation process by which a historic resource is managed, which in turn
helps to maintain the historical integrity of the property. Careful planning prior to
undertaking work will not only help to prevent damage to the resource, but also define —
the scope and outline the direction the plan should take. Development of a preservation
plan will provide guidance for the initial work needed, ongoing care and preservation,
and rehabilitation of the site. Rehabilitation in the case of the Howard-Ralston Tree Rows —
is used as a secondary treatment and is part of the preservation plan. The goal of
rehabilitation is to make a historical property compatible for modern use while preserving
historical integrity. —
The treatment and management of a cultural landscape should be considered in
relationship with the management of an entire property, in this case the section of El —
Camino Real, State Route 82, which the tree rows border. The following steps need to
take place in order to develop a plan: historical research; inventory and documentation of
existing conditions; evaluation of integrity and significance; development of a —
preservation approach and treatment plan; development of a strategy for ongoing
rehabilitation; preparation of a record of treatment; and future recommendations.
Research is essential before undertaking any treatment;both physical evidence in the —
landscape and historic documentation guide the historic preservation plan and treatments.
Documentation should include the present condition of the resource to create a baseline —
from a detailed record of the landscape and its features, as they exist at present. These
findings will help determine the period of significance, the history, including ownership
and development of the resource, and changes that have occurred during and after the _
resource's period of significance. All of these contribute to a greater understanding of the
associations and characteristics that make the landscape history significant.4
3U. S.Department of the Interior,National Park Service,(Washington D.C.) 1. _
http://www.ni)s.p-ov/history/local-law/arch studs l0.htm
4 U. S.Department of the Interior,Preservation Brief 36,Protecting Cultural Landscapes Planning,
Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes(Washington,D.C.:GPO, 1994)9.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
6
Field inventory and historical research are two different tasks that are carried out
simultaneously. Field inventory is necessary to identify all that currently exists on the
_ site, while historical research looks at the past use of the landscape and identifies features
that are historic to the property. In the case of the tree rows, the documentation included
using a GPS (global positioning system)unit to plot the location of each tree, and
identifying tree type, circumference, height, age and degree of contribution to the
resource.
The preservation and rehabilitation plan involves incorporating research findings in a
manner that preserves and strengthens the character-defining features of the cultural
landscape and maintains historical integrity of the property as a whole. The Secretary of
_ the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties guides the process,
insuring that the best possible practices are used.
b. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are
principles developed to aid in the protection of our nation's irreplaceable cultural
resources. These standards maybe applied to buildings, sites, structures, and objects,
-- providing concepts for maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, designing
new additions, or making alterations. The standards cannot be used solely to make
essential decisions about which features of a historic property should be saved, or which
might be changed. Once an appropriate treatment is selected, however, the standards can
provide a philosophical consistency to the work through the application of four distinct
but interrelated approaches: Preservation, Restoration, Rehabilitation, and
Reconstruction. Choosing the appropriate treatment for a historic building or landscape is
critical and depends on multiple factors, including historical significance, physical
condition, proposed use, and intended interpretation.5
The Preservation approach should be used when the property's distinctive materials,
features, and spaces are essentially intact and thus convey the historical significance
without extensive repair or replacement, when depiction of a particular period of time is
not appropriate, and when a continuing or new use does not require additions or extensive
alterations. Generally, this approach involves the least change and is the most respectful
of historic materials, maintaining the form and materials of the existing landscape.
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a
_ property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or
features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.6 The Rehabilitation
approach should be used when repair and replacement of deteriorated features are
necessary, when alterations or additions to the property are planned for a new or
continued use, and when depiction at a particular period of time is not appropriate.
The Restoration and Reconstruction approaches attempt to recapture the appearance of a
property. When it is important to portray a landscape at a particular period of time,
5 National Park Service Park Service Cultural Landscapes Program,Can Geotcheus,Introduction: The
Treatment of Historic Landscapes(Washington D.C.: GPO)2.
6 National Park Service Park Service Cultural Landscapes Program,3.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
restoration is the appropriate treatment. The Reconstruction approach is not
recommended unless there are no other viable options available(See appendix 1 and 2). —
CHAPTER 3. PURPOSE AND GOALS
The purpose of this report is to document the current condition of the Howard-Ralston —
Eucalyptus Tree Rows and establish a preservation and rehabilitation plan. The
resource's existing condition and history was documented and assessed through historical
research and field documentation. A plan was then developed that would best provide for
the preservation and rehabilitation of the tree rows. This plan establishes guidelines for
the everyday maintenance of the rows, preservation when the replacement of trees is
needed, rehabilitation of sections with poor integrity, and means to insure that existing -"
integrity is maintained.
The information that was gathered was used in the reevaluation of the resource with —
respect to the crucial issue of integrity, the ability of a historic property to convey its
significance. The existing boundary of the tree rows was examined to explore the
possibility of expanding the resource to include a new section of El Camino Real. —
Although not the primary purpose of the preservation and rehabilitation plan, assessment
of integrity was important in helping to establish the current condition of the tree rows _
and to settle the issue of expanding the resource boundary. This information was also
used to update the California Department of Parks and Recreation(DPR) resource
nomination and evaluation form done in 1999.
CHAPTER 4. REGULATORY SETTING
a. Interested Parties
The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows border both sides of El Camino Real, State
Route 82, in the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough. Its boundaries are —
located within the Caltrans right of way. Under Public Resource Code(PRC) 5024,
Caltrans has the responsibility to maintain the tree rows because they have been
determined to be a historic resource by the California State Office of Historic
Preservation(SHPO). This responsibility includes determining and documenting current
condition and integrity, and a reexamination of the existing resource boundary to
determine if the expansion is warranted. The development of a preservation and —
rehabilitation plan is consistent with Caltrans policy to preserve and maintain historic
resources under their jurisdiction. Caltrans' Offices of Cultural Resource Studies,
Landscape Design, and Division of Maintenance all contributed to this plan. The City of _
Burlingame, the Town of Hillsborough, and the Burlingame Historical Society were
invited to participate in the development of the preservation plan.
Because the tree rows are a state owned resource,the State Office of Historic
Preservation(SHPO) is involved. The SHPO will make the final determination with
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
_ 8
regard to the reassessment of the resource's eligible boundary for the California Register
of Historical Resources.
b. Compliance with Regulations
The California Public Resources Code(PRC), section §5024 states "...each state agency
shall formulate policies to preserve and maintain, when prudent and feasible, all state-
owned historical resources under its jurisdiction listed in or potentially eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or registered or eligible for
registration as a state historical landmark pursuant to Section 5021. "As the lead agency
it is the responsibility of Caltrans to assess if the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows
qualify as a historic resource under criteria defined in Section 5024.1 of the PRC, and to
formulate polices to preserve and maintain them(see appendix 3).
A historical resource is defined as any site or building that meets certain criteria for
listing on local, state and/or federal registers. The California Register of Historical
Resources is a program for use by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to
identify, evaluate, register, and protect those resources within California. This program
encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical,
archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local
planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding, and
affords protection under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA).A resource is
evaluated using Department of Parks and Recreation form 523, which is then submitted
to the SHPO for concurrence.
The National Register of Historic Places is the nation's official list of buildings,
structures, objects, sites, and districts worthy of preservation because of their significance
in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National
Register recognizes resources of local, state and national significance, which have been
documented and evaluated according to uniform standards and criteria. Authorized under
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national
program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and
protect historic and archeological resources. The National Park Service administers the
National Register, which is part of the U. S. Department of the Interior.
Criteria for listing buildings on the California Register of Historical Resources or the
National Register are similar although the state's criteria have been modified to include a
_ range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California. A resource under
Criterion 1 is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Under Criterion 2, a resource is associated with the lives of persons
important to local, California or national history. A resource under Criterion 3 embodies
the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or
represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. Criterion 4 is for a
resource that has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation(See appendix 4). Criteria
for the National Register are similar but do not emphasize California history(see
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
9
appendix 5).
Although the tree rows are under Caltrans'jurisdiction because they are within State right
of way, the opinions of adjacent local governments are taken into account. The City of
Burlingame has an Urban Forest Management Plan,which recognizes the importance of _
heritage trees through designation, protection, and management. Under its urban forest
management plan, the City of Burlingame has designated the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus
Tree Rows as "heritage trees". Any plans for removal of a designated tree within city _
right of way must first be subjected to public review before the Burlingame
Beautification Commission and the Burlingame City Council. The Town of Hillsborough
requires permits for removal of trees with trunks 36"or greater in diameter .r
(circumference 113" or greater)measured at 4'-6" above natural grade, or, when an open-
market valuation of the project involving the tree removal exceeds $5,000.00 on sites
with existing buildings. Any tree removal that is related to the construction of property —
improvements or located on a vacant lot must first be submitted for review. Caltrans
strives to balance the needs of highway users with the needs of the local communities.
Caltrans' policies, practices and mandatory design standards allow sufficient flexibility to --
meet the needs of each situation.7
CHAPTER 5. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
a. History of the Howard-Ralston Tree Rows
The City Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough are located along San Francisco Bay,
in San Mateo County, California. Protected from strong winds and heavy fog, the area
has always been considered an idyllic spot to live. The earliest inhabitants, the Ohlone, _
utilized an abundance of natural resources in the area.' Large herds of elk, deer, and
antelope, and enormous flocks of waterfowl could be found in the marshes that lined the
bay. Oak woodlands provided acorns and seasonal grains. Today little remains of the
original landscape; much of the marshland has been filled and the forests razed.
Some of the first Europeans in the area were Spanish explorers. They helped to establish
California's first road in 1769, El Camino Real, linking the coastal missions founded by
Father Junipero Serra. Called the Royal Road, or the King's Highway, El Camino Real
ran for 600 miles along the length of the State of California. With travel difficult in
California's early development it was a natural choice to use the already-established path
for exploration into sparsely populated areas such as San Mateo County, which by the
1840s was part of the Mexican-era"Rancho San Mateo." _
In 1847, W.D.M Howard purchased Rancho San Mateo from Mexican governor Pio Pico.
This land grant included today's Hillsborough, Burlingame, and northern San Mateo. _
Howard was a New Englander who came to California in 1839,becoming a prosperous
?California Department of Transportation,"Context Sensitive Solutions"Highway Design.,Sacramento,
2005, 1.http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/context/
8 Theron G Cady"Tales of San Francisco Peninsula",Peninsula Life Magazine, 1948. —
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
'i
10
merchant, and earned a fortune in the Gold Rush. He retired to his San Mateo County
rancho, which he named "El Cerrito,"in 1850, and died in 1856. 9
W.D.M. Howard's widow, Agnes Poett,married his brother, George H. Howard, and
lived at El Cerrito after Howard's death. In 1866 the family sold 1,000 acres of the
_ rancho to the diplomat and speculator Anson Burlingame, who intended to subdivide the
land as a suburban tract. Burlingame died before this plan could be carried out,but the
subsequent owner of the 1,000 acres, San Francisco banker William Ralston, fulfilled
Burlingame's subdivision scheme by hiring a civil engineer to survey the property and
divide it into curving avenues and large residential lots.
Ralston was one of the main founders and principal policy-makers of the Bank of
California, the first San Francisco institution to take advantage of a new state law
allowing banks to incorporate and issue checks and promissory notes. The bank loaned
extensively to Comstock Lode silver mines at the nadir of their fortunes, and foreclosed
upon them. When a deeper deposit of ore was discovered, the Bank of California became
the most powerful bank in the west. William Ralston used the bank's wealth and his
personal fortune to stimulate the creation of numerous local industries and real-estate
ventures, such as the execution of Anson Burlingame's suburban real-estate development.
His personal residence, a mansion located in the City of Belmont, is one of the few
structures remaining that can be associated with Ralston.
In 1873 George H. Howard hired John McLaren as the head gardener at El Cerrito. An
emigrant from Scotland, McLaren stayed for fourteen years, locally engaging in a large
number of projects for Howard and other property owners. Supervising large numbers of
Chinese and Irish workers, McLaren planned El Cerrito's gardens, and planted 70,000
trees at Coyote Point on the bayside property owned by Howard. At this time Ralston was
planning the real estate subdivision that later became the City of Burlingame,while
Howard and his family were living at their country estate in the subdivision that later
became the City of Hillsborough.
Howard, Ralston, and several other citizens of the area hired McLaren to plant the tree
rows. McLaren's letters describe the planning meeting that was held in 1873 in the
Howard living room. Among those present were George H. Howard, William Ralston,
Howard's brother-in-law Alfred Poett, who was the civil engineer who surveyed the
parcels and avenues of Ralston's property, Howard's brother-in-law John Redington,
financier Darius Ogden Mills, who owned land that is now Millbrae and was the co-
founder with Ralston of the Bank of California.10 Their plan called for the planting of
rows of trees along the sides of the county highway. It was to be paid for by the property
owners along the route, principally Howard and Ralston. For Ralston, the incentive was
the creation of an attractive boulevard as an approach to his new residential subdivision,
Burlingame, while Howard sought to subdivide and develop his property east of the
9 Postel,Mitchell P.Peninsula Portrait: An Illustrated History of San Mateo County. (Northridge,CA:
Windsor Publications),40-43.
10 McLaren,John,Letter to Henry W.Poett,December 13, 1935.At the San Mateo County Historical
Museum.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
11
highway. In addition to providing aesthetic enhancement, the trees provided a windbreak
and shade for travelers along the road. —
Under McLaren's direction the four-mile eucalyptus and elm tree rows that flank El
Camino Real, State Route 82, in Burlingame and Hillsborough, were planted between
1873 and 1875. Approximately four miles of tree were planted along El Camino Real,
then a county road, which ran from the vicinity of San Mateo Creek north to the
Burlingame-Millbrae city limits. 11 Early photographs,beginning in 1912, are --
inconclusive regarding the number of tree rows. Some appear to show only two rows,
while others show a dense background of the trees behind the rows flanking the highway.
In some of the historic photographs eucalyptus trees are shown growing very closely --
together, an arrangement that persists in some places to this day. In his letters of 1935 and
1938, McLaren stated that there were three rows of trees, or perhaps referring to three on
each side of the highway, whereas today there are only two rows, one on each side of the —
highway. The precise arrangement of these rows remains unknown. McLaren stated that
eucalyptus alternated with elms, with the intention that the fast-growing eucalyptus
would act as a windbreak for the elms, and once the latter were established the former —
would be removed.12
George H. Howard died in 1879, and his widow Agnes spent most of the ensuing years in —
Europe with a new husband, Henry Bowie. In 1887, John McLaren left"El Cerrito"to
become the assistant superintendent of Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Shortly
thereafter(ca. 1890)he became superintendent of the city's parks. He remained at this —
post until his death at age ninety-six in 1943. Today he remains best known for designing
many elements of Golden Gate Park,but he also presided over the creation of several
other parks in San Francisco, including Lafayette Park, Alta Plaza, and Jefferson
Square.13
The death of William Ralston in 1875 resulted in the passing of the Burlingame property
to his associate, William Sharon. Sharon was unable to find buyers for Burlingame lots
and after his death his son-in-law and heir, Francis Newlands, hit upon a novel scheme to
interest well-to-do San Franciscans in the location. He founded and built the Burlingame —
Country Club in 1893, and only then did the City of Burlingame truly begin to develop.14
Its population reached 200 by 1906 and then mushroomed as the result of refugees
fleeing the destruction of San Francisco in the earthquake and fire of that year. From this
point development pressures and the proliferation of the automobile called for the
widening of El Camino Real, requiring the removal of the tree rows. The City of San
Mateo succumbed to these pressures and widened the portion of El Camino Real that runs —
through its city limits, requiring the removal of the majority of their trees. The City of
Burlingame resisted and today has the greatest remaining portion of the tree rows.1 s
11 . Letter to Henry W.Poett,December 13, 1935.At the San Mateo County Historical
Museum. —
12 Letter to F.M.Stanger,March 3 and 12, 1938.At the San Mateo County Historical
Museum.
13 Kostura,William.Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row State Historic Resource Evaluation Forms
(Oakland: Caltrans, 1999),4. —
14 City of Burlingame,Official Website,2008.<http://www.burlingame.org/>
15 No Tree Cutting on King's Highway."Burlingame Advance,Sept. 26, 1913.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
12
The first known controversy over the issue of tree removal arose in 1913, when an anti-
eucalyptus faction was put down by the City of Burlingame. Mayor McGregor
proclaimed"these trees are not alone an ornament; they are of historic importance and
were planted by the pioneers of this region."16 In 1916 a new mayor suggested hiring a
_ single contractor to remove all of the eucalyptus trees on Burlingame public streets when
property owners objected to the trees in front of their houses,but the trustees of the City
and the park commission trustees each declared it their policy to preserve the trees in the
City. In 1923 the Burlingame city and park commission trustees framed an ordinance
imposing substantial penalties for cutting the trees without a permit. The local newspaper,
The Burlingame Advance, as it had often done, supported the preservation of the city's
trees, especially those of El Camino Real. In a 1928 newspaper article, John McLaren
urged the citizens of Burlingame to resist the newest plan to remove the trees on El
Camino Real, and to continue to plant trees on the city streets. 17 In the 1930 election,
candidates for the City Council who wanted to turn Burlingame's portion of El Camino
Real into a commercial strip, thus assuring the removal of the trees, were defeated.
In 1909 El Camino Real became part of the state system; originally called Legislative
Route 2, it became State Route 82 in 1964. In 1958 an unsuccessful attempt was made to
widen the highway through Burlingame. This may have been the last significant threat to
El Camino Real's eucalyptus trees, for in 1965 Alan S. Hart, an engineer with the State
Highway Department's District 4, said that El Camino Real in Burlingame was now
virtually a city street, and no further move to widen it would be made unless specifically
requested by the city.
Burlingame's long history of preservation activism on behalf of the eucalyptus trees on
El Camino Real culminated in 1975 with the Heritage Tree ordinance designating the tree
rows as a"heritage grove,"citing the trees' historic significance, character,beauty, and
rarity. The San Mateo Historic Sites Committee designated them a"point of historical
significance."Not all of the tree rows are protected, however; the portion that is adjacent
to the Town of Hillsborough remains unprotected by local ordinance. (See appendix 6)
b. Cultural Landscape
A cultural landscape is defined in the National Park Service Preservation Brief 36 as "a
geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or
domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or
exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values." There are four general types of cultural
landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites,historic designed landscapes, historic
vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes (see appendix 7).
Historic landscapes include residential gardens and community parks, scenic highways,
rural communities, institutional grounds, cemeteries,battlefields and zoological gardens.
They are composed of a number of character-defining features, which, individually or
collectively, contribute to the landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over
time. In addition to vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include water
16 Burlingame Advance,Sept.26, 1913.
17"John McLaren Tells of How City Appeared Without Trees."Burlingame Advance,March 19, 1928.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
13
features, such as ponds, streams, and fountains; circulation features, such as roads, paths,
steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences, benches, lights and _
sculptural objects. 18
The Howard-Ralston Tree Rows are an example of a historically designed landscape.
Historic designed landscapes present a conscious work of creation. They were designed
or laid out according to design principles or in a recognized style or tradition and may be
important in the field of landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in
assessing designed landscapes. Designed landscapes are typically recognizable and fairly _
straightforward to evaluate. They may come with written documentation, even original
plans and date of construction, or they may have been created on-site,by a
nonprofessional, without drawn plans. In either case, a designed landscape should
represent an important principle, theory, or style of landscape design. Integrity can be
judged by reference to original design, noting intrusions and missing elements, keeping in
mind the dynamic nature of living vegetation. _
c. Cultural Setting
A cultural setting takes into account the factors influencing the development of an area. It
is the pattern of human activity and structures that give such activities significance and
importance. Cultural resources encompass archaeological, traditional, and built —
environment resources, including but not necessarily limited to, buildings, structures,
objects, districts, and sites.
There are many factors that have influenced and continue to influence the cultural setting
of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. EI Camino Real has been an important
travel-way since its establishment. As the population of California increased, El Camino
Real became the principle north-south route through the state. As automobile usage +
increased, local governments were urged to pave and widen area roads originally
designed for horse and buggy traffic. The City Burlingame has resisted pressure from _
development, in doing so the tree rows have become a character-defining feature of its
section of El Camino Real. The trees have served to restrain urban growth in the area,
acting as a physical impediment to construction. They are an important part of the _
cultural landscape as well, defining the visual aspects of the road and serving as a symbol
for the area. The official seal for the City of Burlingame, which contains a depiction of
the tree rows, exemplifies this. Only a small portion of El Camino Real borders the Town _
of Hillsborough, and this portion retains a fair amount of integrity.
The Tree Rows were recognized as a historic resource under CEQA in 1999, and the City _
of Burlingame has long worked to protect then. Any city plans to remove trees in the past
have quickly been put down. Because of its commitment to the preservation and
replanting of trees within its right-of-way, the City of Burlingame has been designated a _
Tree City by the Arbor Day Foundation, further illustrating the cultural contribution of
the tree row.
18U. S. Department of the Interior Washington, Preservation Brief 36 Protecting Cultural Landscapes
Planning Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes(Washington,D.C.:GPO), 1994, 1.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
14
CHAPTER 6. CURRENT SETTING
a. Description of the Resource
The original design intent of McLaren, in 1874, was to provide a grand entrance into a
newly subdivided portion of San Mateo County. The plan called for the planting of rows
of trees along the sides of the county highway, which became EI Camino Real, from San
Mateo Creek to today's Burlingame-Millbrae city limits.No other elements were added;
therefore the resource is the tree rows themselves. The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree
Rows today runs from Ray Drive/Rosedale Avenue on the northwest end, to Peninsula
Avenue on the southeast end of State Highway Route 82, El Carrion Real. The proposed
new boundary expands the resource to include EI Camino Real from Chapin Avenue to
Peninsula Avenue. The recent tree survey counted a total of 518 trees within the resource.
Of these, 341 are considered contributing trees,both mature eucalyptus and elm, and elm
trees that have been recently planted. The overwhelming majority of the contributing
trees are eucalyptus, 273 (approximately 80%), a small number are mature elms, 40
(approximately 12%), and recently planted, elms, 28 (approximately 8%). Mature trees
are those thought to have been planted within the original tree rows, and recently planted
trees are those planted within the last ten years. Recently planted elm trees are considered
contributors, as the absence of the original vegetation does not diminish integrity if
appropriate replacement plants are chosen. These newly planted elms carry out
McLaren's original design intent of tree rows planted with elms. A small number of non-
contributing trees, (55, or approximately 11%), have been observed within the tree rows,
including sycamore, and Liquidambar.
About 70% of the eucalyptus trees are mature specimens. These older,mature eucalyptus
trees are of two varieties. Blue gums (E. globulus) account for about two-thirds of the old
trees, and manna gums (E. viminalis) account for the rest. Both varieties reach over 100
feet in height and five feet in diameter at breast height, and possess thin bark that curls as
it sheds, long, narrow leaves, and numerous seedpods. Caltrans initially replaced
unhealthy older trees with eucalyptus of other varieties, including orange gum(E.
bancrofti), planted in 1985; and desert box, (E. microtheca),planted in the mid to late
1990s. These account for approximately thirty percent of all eucalyptus trees in the tree
rows. Both of these species are smaller than blue and manna gums, reaching about forty-
five feet in height and up to two feet in diameter. In bark, leaf size, and shape, these trees
are similar to the larger varieties,but they do not contribute to the tree rows because they
are smaller than the blue gum and manna gum. Although the eucalyptus have become
established as the primary trees within the rows, in keeping with John McLaren's original
design, disease resistant elm trees,both Frontier (Ulmus parvifolia) and Accolade (Ulmus
accolade) varieties,have recently been planted. Traditional American elm trees have a
_ broadly V-shaped crown with limbs terminating in numerous slender, often drooping,
branches, 60 to 80 feet high with a canopy spread of up to 72 feet.19 The Frontier and
Accolade varieties were chosen to best represent these characteristics. Staked saplings of
15 gallon size or greater will be installed.
19U.S.National Arboretum,U.S.Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Research Service,(Washington,
DC 2002),pg I.http://www.usna.usda.gov/Newintro/american.html
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
e
15
On both sides of the road most of the flanking properties are houses and apartment
buildings, interspersed with commercial buildings and churches. The Hillsborough City —
Hall sits at the intersection of El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue. The highway
itself is two-lane, with an asphalt road surface. The placement of the trees varies in
relation to the highway, and in most places there is a sidewalk between the trees and the —
curb. In other places, the trees are planted between the sidewalk and the highway within a
narrow, grassy strip, the boles of the trees often meeting or overflowing the highway
curbing. In one block, the west side of El Camino Real between Bellevue and Floribunda —
Avenues, there is no paved sidewalk, and trees are planted within a wide strip of unpaved
land. A dirt path owned by adjacent properties runs just west of the trees and is used by
the public as a sidewalk. At three locations, the west side of El Camino Real south of —
Willow Avenue, the east side of El Camino Real north from Palm, and the west side of El
Camino Real north from Arc Way, the trees are planted within ground raised above the
adjacent sidewalk and bounded by retaining walls of two feet in height, and from 75 to —
300 feet in length.
The spacing between contributing trees varies throughout the length of the tree rows. —
McLaren's original spacing of the trees is not known. On the west side of El Camino
Real, south of Willow Avenue, the trees are very close together and the boles of adjacent
trees almost touch. More frequently the gaps between the trees are wider,but the spread
canopy of adjacent trees creates a strong feeling of continuity. The average original
spacing and set backs of the historic trees is hard to determine due to the inconsistency in
the integrity of the resource. In general, it can be said that while driving down El Camino —
Real in an automobile, the dominant feeling is one of continuous tree rows, while to a
pedestrian the occasional wide gaps are more apparent(see appendix 8 and 9).
b. Boundaries of Eligible Property
The original boundary of the resource was from Ray Drive/Rosedale Avenue on the
northwest end, to Chapin Avenue on the southeast end of State Highway Route 82, El
Camino Real. Upon reviewing the integrity of the trees on El Camino Real from Chapin _
Avenue to Peninsula Avenue on the southeast end, the existing resource boundary should
be expanded. The proposed new boundary of the eligible property runs from Ray
Drive/Rosedale Avenue on the northwest end, to Peninsula Avenue on the southeast end _
of State Highway Route 82, El Camino Real, and these boundaries taken in the section of
the tree rows that retain the best integrity. The width of the resource is the Caltrans right-
of-way, and the majority borders the City of Burlingame. A small section of the tree —
rows, from north of Floribunda Avenue to Bellevue Avenue on the southwest side of El
Camino Real,borders the Town of Hillsborough.
c.National Register Eligibility
In 1999, Caltrans evaluated the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, and found them
to be both eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and a historic resource
under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The National Register
eligibility was justified under Criteria A and C. The period of significance begins ca.
1874 when the trees were planted, and extends to 1949, which at the time of the original
documentation was the fifty-year cutoff, meeting Caltrans and the California Office of
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
16
Historic Preservation definition of the minimum age of a historic resource(see appendix
10).
Criterion A, association with an event, was applied for the tree row's importance in town
planning, specifically the founding and development of the City of Burlingame and the
Town of Hillsborough. Recognized as a valuable local resource by the city of
Burlingame, the tree rows have a long history of protection within the city's limits. Under
Criterion C, distinctive characteristics of a type, etc., the tree rows were documented for
_ Landscape Architecture as designed historic tree rows. Along their portion of El Camino
Real, the trees create a visual tunnel, creating a park-like environment that was the
original designer's intent. Criterion C was also applied for their early highway design.
_ Planted between 1873-1874, the tree rows substantially predate the California Highway
Tree Planting Program,begun in 1921. Although they are associated with McLaren, a
gardener famous for his work in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, they are not eligible
_ as his masterwork, under Criteria C. The tree rows are not eligible under Criteria B, as
they are not associated specifically with the lives of an individual or group.
Significant for their association with the founding and development of the City of
Burlingame, the tree rows stand as a reminder of the early importance of El Camino Real
as the main route to the City of San Francisco. El Camino Real, originally known as the
Kings Highway, County Road or the Old Mission road,was the major roadway into San
Francisco from the time of California's Spanish era into the 1930s.
El Camino Real, Burlingame Avenue, Broadway Avenue, and the trolley line were all
lined with trees. The trees helped to convert what once was a wind-swept prairie into a
town with a park-like atmosphere,which has become a town characteristic. Along their
portion of El Camino Real, the trees create a visual tunnel, imparting the park-like
atmosphere that was the original designer's intent. With their prominent visual presence,
and the physical restrictions they have placed on the development of El Camino Real, the
Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows are an important part of the City of Burlingame
and the Town of Hillsborough.
The tree rows' main defining elements are the rows of eucalyptus and elm trees flanking
both sides of El Camino Real, State Route 82. The boundaries are both sides of El
Camino Real, from Peninsula Avenue at the south end to Ray Drive and Rosedale
Avenue at the north end, in the cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough. Contributing trees
include blue gum eucalyptus, manna gum eucalyptus, American elm, frontier elm and
accolade elm. Non-contributors include redwoods and acacia trees, a microtheca and e
-- bancrofti, as well as man-made features such as sidewalks, curbs, and retaining walls.
d. Integrity
Integrity refers to the ability of a historic property to convey its significance. There are
seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and
association. These aspects were applied to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows to
determine integrity. McLaren's original design was thought to have three rows of trees on
either side of the road for a distant of 4 miles. The remaining portion within the historic
resource is less than 2.2 miles and has only one row of trees on each side. However this
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
17
portion of the tree rows has good integrity with regards to design,materials and
workmanship, clearly demonstrating the design of the tree rows. The location of the —
resource has not changed over time, nor has the feeling of the resource when you drive
down El Camino Real. Enough trees remain in the section that runs through the City of
Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough to create visual coherence of the rows when —
driving on El Camino Real. Since the original design of the tree rows was intended to be
viewed from a moving object, the visual integrity is intact.
A number of developments in the twentieth century resulted in the removal of the
majority of the trees along El Camino Real within the City of San Mateo. These included
the arrival of the automobile at the turn of the century, the paving of El Camino Real in
the 1910s, and intensive development. Today, only short rows of elms and some large
individual eucalyptus trees can be found in that city. As they are separated by wide gaps
from the areas of higher integrity to the north, these trees are not considered contributors
to the historic property. Burlingame, aware that the trees contributed to their park-like
character, resisted removal of the tree rows. Development that took place on El Camino
Real had to incorporate the trees into its design. Development has taken place behind the
tree rows, with the trees as a dominant feature flanking the facades of most of the
buildings. This reduces the visual exposure of the buildings, and masks overhead utilities.
There is a predominance of multi-family residence within the area; commercial —
development is mainly small office buildings. A noticeable absence of large-scale
commercial development exists within the area, with the exception of a grocery store.
The tree rows' association with the development of this area remains as it continues to
shape development along El Camino Real.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Landscapes acknowledge the need to alter or
add to a cultural landscape to meet continuing or new uses. The original intention of the
tree row plan was to use the eucalyptus as a windbreak to allow the elm trees to establish
themselves; once this occurred the eucalyptus would be removed. The eucalypti were not
removed and have been allowed to not only crowd out the elm but have also encroached
into the roadway. Both Dutch elm disease and a bark beetle infestation have caused —
many of the elm trees to deteriorate. In keeping with McLaren's original design intent, as
trees have had to be replaced, elm trees have been planted and will continue to be planted —
in the future. Elm trees are considered to be contributing elements of the resource and
will only continue to strengthen the integrity of the tree rows, as they carry out
McLaren's original design of a shaded avenue.
The original boundaries of the eligible property were both sides of El Camino Real, from
Chapin Avenue to Ray Drive, in the cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough. These _
boundaries were recently reexamined, to determine if they should be expanded to include
trees on El Camino Real from Chapin Avenue to Peninsula Avenue. A total of 54 trees
were documented as possible contributors to the resource, 47 historic eucalyptus and 7 —
new contributing elm trees.
The 1999 tree rows evaluation recorded a total length of 1.7 miles; with the addition of —
the newly recorded .5-mile, the total length of the resource would be 2.2 miles, and the
total number of contributing trees would rise by 19%. Of the original 4 miles of tree rows
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
18
planted in the 1870s, this would include over half the original distance. The proposed
addition compares well with the existing sections within the resource boundaries. A
_ comparable section, from Grove Avenue to Rosedale Avenue/Ray Drive, also a distance
of.5 of a mile, contains an identical number of contributing trees, demonstrating that the
integrity of the proposed additional section matches that of the existing resource
boundary.
e. Existing Types and Numbers of Trees
Each tree within the existing boundaries of the trees rows from Ray Drive to Chapin
Avenue, and beyond to Barroilhet Avenue were documented. These trees are the only
character defining elements of the resource. Documentation included using a GPS (global
positioning system)unit to plot the location of each tree, identifying type, circumference
at breast height, height and whether or not it was a mature tree which contributed to the
tree row or a replacement (see appendix 8 and 9).
TYPES AND NUMBERS OF TREES
Mature Historic Eucalyptus 273
Mature Historic Elm 40
New Elm 28
Total Contributing Trees 341
Non Historic Eucalyptus 122
Other non-contributing 55
Total Non-contributing trees 177
Total Number of trees in tree rows 518
CHAPTER 7. PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION PLAN
a. Selected Approach
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are the
main guiding influence with regard to treatment of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree
Rows. The approaches of Preservation and Rehabilitation are most appropriate. The
essential character of the tree rows still exists within the original layout along El Camino
Real, as evident by the number of existing historic trees, which make Preservation a
viable option. The Rehabilitation approach involves replacement of trees as needed, in
keeping with McLaren's original plan; however, only elm species will be planted.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
19
b. Responsibilities
Notification of Scheduled Work and Maintenance
Maintenance procedures performed on historic trees and activities that have the potential
to affect trees will not be performed until the Caltrans Office of Maintenance notifies the
Caltrans Office of Cultural Resource Studies, Caltrans Office of Landscape Design and
the City of Burlingame and/or the Town of Hillsborough. —
Record Keeping
Caltrans Office of Cultural Resource Studies (OCRS) will be responsible for recording
locations and types of trees removed and replaced on the GIS map. OCRS will report on
a yearly basis to the SHPO any changes that occur to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus —
Tree Rows.
c. Guidelines from Caltrans Highway Design Manual
Caltrans has several major objectives with regard to the maintenance of vegetation within
State highway right-of-way. These include maintaining visibility of traffic control —
devices (signs, lights etc.), fire prevention, protection of pavement surfaces, control of
noxious weeds, erosion control, limitation of storm water pollution, and protection of
sensitive species, aesthetics and safety. When selecting types and location of plants it is _
Caltrans policy to factor in issues of maintaining sight distance and clear recovery zone
setbacks. A clear recovery zone is an area clear of fixed objects adjacent to the roadway,
so that if a vehicle leaves the roadway it has less of a chance of impacting something. —
Planting should not interfere with the function of safety features such as shoulders,
barriers, guardrails, traffic or regulatory devices, warning and guide signs or with the
motorist's view of the road. —
While implementing these objectives Caltrans tries to incorporate planting within its _
right-of-way that integrates with the adjacent community. Selected plant species should
be regionally appropriate and visually compatible with local indigenous communities or
surrounding landscape planting. As stated in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, in an —
area with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour or less the following applies: "Where
a curb exists, trees should be planted at least 18 inches from the face of the curb. "20 And
as stated in the Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual: "Trees should be located a
minimum distance of 10'from any driveway, utility pole,fire plug, or rear of any —
highway sign. Trees should be located so they do not restrict the motorist's clear vision
of any highway sign. ,21 In cases with existing mature plantings, new plantings should
_
not cause further sight restrictions.
20 California Department of Transportation,Highway Design Manual Landscape Architecture, —
(Sacramento,2006),5.
21 California Department of Transportation,Encroachments Permits Manual,(Sacramento,2002), 5.10.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008 _
20
These policy guidelines need to be viewed in coordination with laws governing resources
found to be historic under PRC §5024.5, "(a)No state agency shall alter the original or
significant historical features or fabric, or transfer, relocate, or demolish historical
—' resources on the master list maintained pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 5024
without, early in the planning processes,first giving notice and a summary of the
_ proposed action to the officer[the State Historic Preservation Officer] who shall have 30
days after receipt of the notice and summaryfor review and comment.
(b)If the officer determines that a proposed action will have an adverse effect on a listed
historical resource, the head of the state agency having jurisdiction over the historical
resource and the officer shall adopt prudent and feasible measures that will eliminate or
mitigate the adverse effects. "
d. Periodic Assessment of Trees
.,. The City of Burlingame and Caltrans will perform periodic inspection of the trees' health
at intervals of not less than annually; Caltrans Maintenance Division will keep records of
these inspections. Any proposed removal of historic trees shall be reported to the Office
of Cultural Resource Studies, who will notify the SHPO of any significant changes. The
City of Burlingame has two staff licensed arborists and one on contract that may be
utilized.
Caltrans will investigate funding for contracting with a consulting arborist to prepare an
arborist report and conduct a periodic risk assessment of the historic trees rows. The
purpose of the assessment is to identify the highest risk features in the tree population.
Once a risk is identified, Caltrans must take prompt action to remove the tree(s) and will
notify the City of Burlingame of the required tree removals.
e. Tree Removal and Replacement
Replacement shall follow landscape safety guidelines from Caltrans Highway Design
Manual regarding sight distance, clear recovery zone, etc., for trees planted along
conventional highways, except where design exceptions are needed. The Caltrans Office
�- of Landscape Architecture will make the final determination for removal and replanting.
Signatures or approvals from the landscape maintenance specialist and above may be
required prior to the removal of live trees. Dead plants or hazardous trees within the right
of way shall be promptly removed when required for safety or protection of adjacent
property.
Criteria for Determining Removal
Unauthorized trees planted within Caltrans right-of-way within the boundaries of the
historic resource will be removed. Any future unauthorized planting, identified by
Caltrans, will be removed immediately. The City of Burlingame will begin an outreach
program to discourage any further plantings.
Removal of any historic trees will be based on public safety, and the health and vitality of
_ the trees. Caltrans Office of Maintenance, Office of Landscape Architecture and Office of
Cultural Resource Studies will determine when this will occur. Notification to the City of
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
21
Burlingame and/or the Town of Hillsborough will be made of all trees proposed for
removal. _
Safety Concerns, Emergency Tree Removal and Replacement
Eucalyptus trees produce a considerable amount of litter. This process is called natural
pruning and can be accelerated when high winds and/or rain are present. Fallen leaves,
bark, seeds and limbs from these trees create not only maintenance problems but roadway
hazards as well. Caltrans will remove any large hazardous items dropped onto the
roadway or sidewalks.
In the event of an emergency, any tree that causes a roadway hazard or has the potential
to do so will be removed by Caltrans Office of Maintenance. Caltrans Office of Cultural
Resources Studies and the City of Burlingame and/or the Town of Hillsborough will —
notified immediately. Replacement of the tree will occur in a timely manner following
stated guidelines.
Replacement elms will be planted no closer than 18" from the curb, and ten feet from any
driveway to comply with Caltrans safety design guidelines.
Scheduled Tree Removal and Replacement
Caltrans Office of Maintenance and Caltrans Office of Landscape Design will schedule r
the removal and replacement of the trees.
Incorporation of New Trees into the Maintenance Plan
Replacement of historic trees, when needed,will take place within the boundary of the
historic property. Trees will be planted as close to the removed historic tree as possible
but no closer to the curb than Caltrans design guidelines allow, 18" from curb. All tree
replacements will be of the variety and size as outlined below.
Replacement Ratios
Trees are to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio when possible, as per Caltrans specifications,
within the historic tree rows. Replacement trees will be planted in the same location as
the removed tree when possible. In areas where sidewalks, curbs, driveways,utility lines _
or other obstructions and/or roadway proximity maybe problematic, replacement will be
within the approximate area of the removed tree.
Suitable Tree Varieties and Sizes
The original intent of the McLaren's plan was to plant the eucalyptus trees, as a _
temporary windbreak to protect and allow the elm trees to become established. Once this
occurred the eucalyptus would be removed. However, they were not removed and have
been allowed crowd out the elms and encroach into the roadway. Both Dutch elm disease
and a bark beetle infestation have also caused many of the elm trees to deteriorate. In
order to reestablish McLaren's original plan, elm trees will be planted as replacement
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
22
trees. The selected tree varieties were chosen due to their similarity in characteristics to
the original variety of elm. They are similar in size, leaf and branch patterns, mature
height, and shape. Traditional American elm trees have a broadly V-shaped crown with
limbs terminating in numerous slender, often drooping,branches. They are 60 to 80 feet
in height with a canopy spread of up to 72 feet.22 Trees will be a minimum of size 15
gallons and supported by stakes. Ulmus accolade(accolade)has been chosen because of
these qualities. Accolade elms reach a height of 50 to 60 feet, with a spread of 50 to 60
feet. Ulmus parvifolia (frontier) elms reach a height of 25 to 40 feet, with a spread of 15
to 30 feet; this smaller variety of elm would be good for more restricted areas. New
varieties are continually being developed. Selection of new trees will not be limited to
those currently available, but can include new elm varieties that fit the historical criteria.
Existing Mature Trees, other than Eucalyptus or Elm
.� Mature liquidambars or other mature trees such as palms or sycamores shall remain. If
and when they pose a safety issue they will be removed and replaced with elms. These
mature trees will be retained as they do not currently cause any maintenance and/or safety
issues and provide aesthetic value.
f. Tree Removals and Biological Concerns
Biological concerns must be addressed through the Caltrans Office of Biological
Sciences. Mature trees should only be removed during the non-nesting season, between
September 1St and January 31St If tree removals during the nesting season(February 1St to
August 31St) must be done,notice will be provided to Caltrans Office of Biological
Sciences and Permits a minimum of 20 days or more in advance. Caltrans biologists will
conduct bird-nesting surveys up to three days before removal. If nesting birds are found,
work must be delayed until the birds have fledged.
g. Tree Removals and Potential Archaeological Concerns
There are no known archaeological sites within the boundaries of this resource, however,
in the event of the unexpected discovery of cultural material, all guidelines outlined in the
Standard Specifications Section 5.1 (Archaeological Discoveries) shall be followed (see
appendix 11). To minimize ground disturbance from the removal of trees, they shall be
— cut off at the base; the roots will not be drilled.
CHAPTER 8. GENERAL MAINTENANCE PLAN AND SCHEDULE
a. Description of Typical Maintenance Work
It is Caltrans policy to maintain highway trees in a safe and aesthetic manner at all times,
by following the best standards of arboriculture, consistent with the practices outlined in
22U.S.National Arboretum,U.S.Department of Agriculture,Agricultural Research Service,(Washington,
DC 2002), 1.http://www.usna.usda.gov/Newintro/american.html
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
23
the Publication: American National Standard(ANSI)A300-1995 and the International
Society Of Arborists (ISA) tree pruning guidelines. The ANSI Institute oversees the —
creation, promulgation and use of norms and guidelines through management
of voluntary standardization systems, such as those outlined in the best standards
of arboriculture. --
b. Pruning
Pruning of vegetation is done to preserve the health and structure of trees and native
shrubs, to prevent damage to Caltrans and adjacent properties, and to provide safety for
vehicular and non-motorized travelers. Trees and shrubs should be trimmed to maintain
site distance requirements, and to provide 17 feet of clearance over the traveled way and
shoulder. Pruning will be done in such a manner as to encourage and maintain the health
of the historic tree row. Pruning of eucalyptus should be done during the fall and winter
when the tree is dormant.23
c. Water and Fertilizing
A watering and fertilizing schedule will be developed once the samplings have been
monitored for growth and water usage. A spreadsheet is currently being used to track —
this information; the results will be analyzed and a schedule determined.
CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION —
The Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows have been an integral part of the cultural
landscape of the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough for almost 140 years. —
They have not only shaped the development of El Camino Real/State Highway 82,but
the highway itself, providing visual and physical definition. Designer John McLaren's
original goal to provide a grand entrance into the area has most certainly been achieved. —
The purpose of this Preservation and Rehabilitation Plan is to protect the character,
integrity and feeling of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows. The formal —
recognition of the tree rows as a living historic resource that has, and will, change over
time calls for a respectful treatment plan to maintain and encourage a healthy landscape.
Documentation of the resource is an important part of this process, determining what —
remains of the original design, and providing a means for tracking changes in tree health,
growth and replacement needs. Through this process, past inappropriate treatment can be
remedied, weakened trees strengthened, and the aesthetic quality of the rows can be —
preserved while working within Caltrans' commitment to providing a safe traffic
corridor. Once implemented, this Preservation and Rehabilitation Plan will ensure the
continued existence of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows for years to come. —
23 Robert L. Santos,The Eucalyptus of California Seeds of good or seeds of evil,(California State _
University, Stanislaus,Alley-Cass Publications Denair,California),section 3.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
24
CHAPTER 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY
_ Aikman, Tom Girvan. Boss Gardener. San Francisco: Don't Call it Frisco Press, 1988.
Bean, Walton E. California:An Interpretive History. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973.
_ Cady, Theron G. "Tales of San Francisco Peninsula". Peninsula Life Magazine, 1948.
California Department of Transportation,Highway Design Manual, Landscape
Architecture, Sacramento, 2006.
California Department of Transportation,Encroachments Permits Manual, Sacramento,
2002.
City of Burlingame. Heritage Grove Designation:All of the Trees Lining El Camino Real.
1975.
Heritage Tree Ordinance, 1975.
Official Website, 2008. <http://www.burlingame.org/>
(Editorial)Burlingame Advance, Feb 21, 1923.
"Eucalyptus Trees Safe."San Mateo County Times, Aug. 18, 1965.
Hoag, Betty Lochrie. "John McLaren at Rancho San Mateo."La Peninsula 14, 1972.
"John McLaren Tells of How City Appeared Without Trees."Burlingame Advance,
March 19, 1928.
Kostura, William. "Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row State Historic Resource
Evaluation Forms. " Oakland: Caltrans, 1999.
"Mayor Says Cut All the Gums in Burlingame."Burlingame Advance, Jan. 28, 1916.
McLaren, John, Letter to Henry W. Poett, December 13, 1935. At the San Mateo County
Historical Museum.
Letter to F.M. Stanger, March 3 and 12, 1938. At the San Mateo County
Historical Museum.
National Park Service Park Service Cultural Landscapes Program, Can Geotcheus,
Introduction: The Treatment of Historic Landscapes. Washington D.C.: GPO.
"No Tree Cutting on King's Highway."Burlingame Advance, Sept. 26, 1913.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
25
Postel, Mitchell P. Peninsula Portrait:An Illustrated History of San Mateo County. —
Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications pp. 40-43.
"Protection for City's Trees."Burlingame Advance, Feb. 21, 1923.
Svanevik, Michael and Shirley Burgett,Burlingame City of Trees, Boutique and Villager
Custom, San Francisco, 2003.
Svanevik, Michael and Shirley Burgett, Special to The Examiner, 2003.
Santos, Robert L. "The eucalyptus of California. Seeds of good or seeds of evil?"
California State University, Stanislaus, Alley-Cass Publications Denair, California: 1997.
U.S. National Arboretum, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service, Washington, DC <http://www.usna.usda.gov/Newintro/wnerican.html >.
U. S. Department of the Interior Washington,Preservation Brief 36 Protecting Cultural
Landscapes Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes Washington,
D.C.: GPO, 1994. —
U. S. Department of the Interior Washington, Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines[As Amended and Annotated] Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1983.
CHAPTER 11. PREPARER'S QUALIFICATIONS
Frances Schierenbeck is a Professionally Qualified Staff Architectural Historian for the
California Department of Transportation, District 4, Office of Cultural Resources Studies.
She has worked for Caltrans since the January 2007 as an Environmental
Planner/Architectural Historian. Frances holds a B.A. in Environmental Studies and —
Planning from Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park CA. and a M.S. in Historic
Preservation from Ball State University, Muncie IN. In addition to her academic
experience she has over 5 years experience working in the cultural resource field as a —
Historic Properties Field Surveyor, Historic Collection Archivist and History Researcher.
Howard Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows,Caltrans District 4,May 2008
ATTACHMENT 1
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
—
§ 68.1 Intent
The intent of this part is to set forth standards for the treatment of historic properties
containing standards for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction.
These standards apply to all proposed grant-in-aid development projects assisted through
the National Historic Preservation Fund. 36 CFR part 67 focuses on "certified historic
structures" as defined by the IRS Code of 1986. Those regulations are used in the
Preservation Tax Incentives Program. 36 CFR part 67 should continue to be used when
property owners are seeking certification for Federal tax benefits.
§ 68.2 Definitions
The standards for the treatment of historic properties will be used by the National Park
Service and State historic preservation officers and their staff members in planning,
undertaking and supervising grant-assisted projects for preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration and reconstruction. For the purposes of this part:
(a) Preservation means the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the
existing form, integrity and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary
measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing
maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive
replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this
treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and
plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is
appropriate within a preservation project.
(b) Rehabilitation means the act or process of making possible an efficient compatible
use for a property through repair, alterations and additions while preserving those
portions or features that convey its historical, cultural or architectural values.
(c) Restoration means the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and
character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the
removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing
features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties
functional is appropriate within a restoration project.
(d) Reconstruction means the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction,
the form, features and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure or
object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its
historic location.
§ 68.3 Standards
One set of standardspreservation, rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction—will
"- apply to a property undergoing treatment, depending upon the property's significance,
existing physical condition, the extent of documentation available and interpretive goals,
when applicable. The standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic
and technical feasibility of each project.
(a)Preservation. (1) A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use
that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial —
relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be
protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.
(2)The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement —
of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial
relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
(3) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work —
needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve existing historic materials and features will
be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly
documented for future research. —
(4) Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will
be retained and preserved.
(5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of —
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
(6) The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the
appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires
repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old
in composition, design, color and texture.
(7) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
(8)Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. —
(b)Rehabilitation. (1) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use
that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial
relationships. —
(2) The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided. —
(3) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. —
(4) Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will
be retained and preserved. _
(5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
(6) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity —
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing
features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. —
(7) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
(8)Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources _
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(9)New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The _
new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic
materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the
_ property and its environment.
(10)New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future,the essential form and integrity of the historic
_ property and its environment would be unimpaired.
(c)Restoration. (1) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use
that interprets the property and its restoration period.
_ (2) Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The
removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize the period will not be undertaken.
_ (3) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work
needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration
period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and
properly documented for future research.
(4) Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other historical periods will
be documented prior to their alteration or removal.
(5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved.
(6) Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible,materials.
(7) Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by
adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that
never existed together historically.
(8) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate,will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
(9) Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place.
If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(10) Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.
(d)Reconstruction. (1)Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving
portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit
accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture and such reconstruction is essential to
the public understanding of the property.
-- (2) Reconstruction of a landscape,building, structure or object in its historic location will
be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those
features and artifacts that are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(3) Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships.
(4) Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and
elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural
designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A
reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic
property in materials, design, color and texture.
(5)A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation.
(6) Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. —
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. ); sec.
2124 of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 1918; EO 11593, 3 CFR part 75 (1971);
sec. 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1262). Source: 60 FR 35843, July
12, 1995,unless otherwise noted. Washington D.C., GPO _
ATTACHMENT Z
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural
Landscapes
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and the Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural
Landscapes
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the
Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes provide guidance to cultural
landscape owners, stewards and managers, landscape architects, preservation planners,
architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to and during the planning and
implementation of project work.
The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing professional standards and
providing advice on the preservation of cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places. In partial fulfillment of this responsibility, the
—' Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects were developed in
1976. They consisted of seven sets of standards for the acquisition, protection,
_ stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of historic
buildings.
_ Since their publication in 1976, the Secretary's Standards have been used by State
Historic Preservation Officers and the National Park Service to ensure that projects
receiving federal money or tax benefits were reviewed in a consistent manner nationwide.
_ The principles embodied in the Standards have also been adopted by hundreds of
preservation commissions across the country in local design guidelines.
In 1992, the Standards were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource
_ types included in the National Register of Historic Places--buildings, structures, sites,
objects, districts, and landscapes. The revised Standards were reduced to four sets by
incorporating protection and stabilization into preservation, and by eliminating
acquisition, which is no longer considered a treatment. Re-titled The Secretary of the
Interior 's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, this new, modified version
addresses four treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction.
The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes illustrate how to apply these
four treatments to cultural landscapes in a way that meets the Standards.
Of the four, Preservation standards require retention of the greatest amount of historic
fabric, including the landscape's historic form, features, and details as they have evolved
over time. Rehabilitation standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a cultural
landscape to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the landscape's historic
character. Restoration standards allow for the depiction of a landscape at a particular time
in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing
materials from other periods. Reconstruction standards establish a framework for re-
creating a vanished or non-surviving landscape with new materials, primarily for
interpretive purposes
Careful planning prior to treatment can help prevent irrevocable damage to a cultural
landscape. Professional techniques for identifying, documenting, and treating cultural
landscapes have advanced over the past twenty-five years and are continually being
refined.
As described in the National Park Service publication, Preservation Brief#36: Protecting
Cultural Landscapes, the preservation planning process for cultural landscapes should
involve: historical research; inventory and documentation of existing conditions; site —
analysis and evaluation of integrity and significance; development of a cultural landscape
preservation approach and treatment plan; development of a cultural landscape
management plan and management philosophy; development of a strategy for ongoing —
maintenance; and, preparation of a record of treatment and future research
recommendations.
In all treatments for cultural landscapes, the following general recommendations
and comments apply:
Before undertaking project work, research of a cultural landscape is essential.
Research findings help to identify a landscape's historic period(s) of ownership,
occupancy and development, and bring greater understanding of the associations that —
make them significant. Research findings also provide a foundation to make educated
decisions for project treatment, and can guide management, maintenance, and
interpretation. In addition, research findings may be useful in satisfying compliance
reviews (e.g. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended).
Although there is no single way to inventory a landscape, the goal of documentation
is to provide a record of the landscape, as it exists at the present time, thus
providing a baseline from which to operate. All component landscapes and features _
(see definitions)that contribute to the landscape's historic character should be recorded.
The level of documentation needed depends on the nature and the significance of the
resource. For example, plant material documentation may ideally include botanical name —
or species, common name and size. To ensure full representation of existing herbaceous
plants, care should be taken to document the landscape in different seasons. This level of
research may most often be the ideal goal for smaller properties,but may prove —
impractical for large, vernacular landscapes.
Assessing a landscape as a continuum through history is critical in assessing cultural —
and historic value. By analyzing the landscape, change over time—the chronological
and physical "layers" of the landscape—can be understood. Based on analysis, individual
features may be attributed to a discrete period of introduction, their presence or absence _
substantiated to a given date, and therefore the landscape's significance and integrity
evaluated. In addition, analysis allows the property to be viewed within the context of
other cultural landscapes. _
In order for the landscape to be considered significant, character-defining features
that convey its significance in history must not only be present, but they also must
possess historic integrity. Location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and
association should be considered in determining whether a landscape and its character-
defining features possess historic integrity. —
2
Preservation planning for cultural landscapes involves a broad array of dynamic
variables. Adopting comprehensive treatment and management plans, in concert with a
preservation maintenance strategy, acknowledges a cultural landscape's ever-changing
nature and the interrelationship of treatment, management and maintenance.
The Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive,but are intended to promote
responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation's irreplaceable cultural
resources. They cannot be used to make essential decisions about which contributing
features of a cultural landscape should be retained and which can be changed. But once a
specific treatment is selected, the Standards can provide the necessary philosophical
framework for a consistent and holistic approach for a cultural landscape project.
A treatment is a physical intervention carried out to achieve a historic preservation
goal—it cannot be considered in a vacuum. There are many practical and philosophical
variables that influence the selection of a treatment for a landscape. These include,but
are not limited to, the extent of historic documentation, existing physical conditions,
historic value, proposed use, long and short term objectives, operational and code
requirements (e.g. accessibility, fire, security) and anticipated capital improvement,
staffing and maintenance costs. The impact of the treatment on any significant
archeological and natural resources should also be considered in this decision making
process. Therefore, it is necessary to consider a broad array of dynamic and interrelated
variables in selecting a treatment for a cultural landscape preservation project.
For some cultural landscapes, especially those that are best considered ethnographic or
heritage landscapes, these Guidelines may not apply. However, if people working with
these properties decide that community coherence may be affected by physical place and
space--or if there is potential for loss of landscape character whose significance is rooted
in the community's activities and processes (or other aspects of its history)—this guide
may be of service.
Change and Continuity
There is a balance between change and continuity in all cultural resources. Change is
inherent in cultural landscapes; it results from both natural processes and human
activities. Sometimes that change is subtle,barely perceptible as with the
geomorphological effects on landform. At other times, it is strikingly obvious, as with
vegetation, either in the cyclical changes of growth and reproduction or the progressive
changes of plant competition and succession. This dynamic quality of all cultural
landscapes is balanced by the continuity of distinctive characteristics retained over time.
_ For, in spite of a landscape's constant change (or perhaps because of it), a property can
still exhibit continuity of form, order, use, features, or materials. Preservation and
rehabilitation treatments seek to secure and emphasize continuity while acknowledging
change.
Relative Significance in History
A cultural landscape may be a significant resource as a rare survivor or the work of an
important landscape architect, horticulturist or designer. It may be the site of an important
event or activity, reflect cultural traditions, or other patterns of settlement or land use.
3
This significance may be derived from local, regional, or national importance. Cultural
landscapes may be listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually or as —
contributing features in a historic district. In some instances, cultural landscapes may be
designated National Historic Landmarks by the Secretary of the Interior for their
exceptional significance in American history. —
Geographical Context
The surroundings of a cultural landscape, whether an urban neighborhood or rural —
farming area [see center top left and right], may contribute to its significance and its
historic character and should be considered prior to treatment. The setting may contain
component landscapes or features, which fall within the property's historic boundaries. It
also may be comprised of separate properties beyond the landscape's boundaries, and
perhaps those of the National Register listing. The landscape context can include the
overall pattern of the circulation networks, views and vistas into and out of the landscape, —
land use, natural features, clusters of structures, and division of properties.
Use —
Historic, current, and proposed use of the cultural landscape must be considered prior to
treatment selection. Historic use is directly linked to its significance [bottom left], while
current and proposed use(s) can affect integrity and existing conditions. Parameters may
vary from one landscape to another. For example, in one agricultural landscape,
continuation of the historic use can lead to changes in the physical form of a farm to
accommodate new crops and equipment. In another agricultural property, new uses may
be adapted within the landscape's existing form, order and features.
Archeological Resources
Prehistoric and historic archeological resources may be found in cultural landscapes
above and below the ground [below] and even under water. Examples of prehistoric _
archeological resources include prehistoric mounds built by Native-Americans. Examples
of historic archeological resources include remnants of buildings, cliff dwellings, and
villages; or, features of a sunken garden,mining camp, or battlefield. These resources not r
only have historical value, but can also reveal significant information about a cultural
landscape. The appropriate treatment of a cultural landscape includes the identification
and preservation of significant archeological resources. Many landscape preservation _
projects include a site archeologist.
Natural Systems _
Cultural landscapes often derive their character from a human response to natural features
and systems. The significance of these natural resources may be based on their cultural
associations and from their inherent ecological values. Natural resources form natural _
systems that are interdependent on one another and which may extend well beyond the
boundary of the historic property. For example, these systems can include geology,
hydrology, plant and animal habitats, and climate. Some of these natural resources are _
particularly susceptible to disturbances caused by changes in landscape management.
Many natural resources such as wetlands or rare species fall under local, state, and federal
regulations, which must be considered. Since natural resource protection is a specialized _
4
field distinct from cultural landscape preservation, a preservation planning team may
want to include an expert in this area to address specific issues or resources found within
_ a cultural landscape. Natural systems are an integral part of the cultural landscape and
must be considered when selecting an appropriate treatment.
_ Management and Maintenance
Management strategies are long-term and comprehensive. They can be one of the means
for implementing a landscape preservation plan. Maintenance tasks can be day-to-day,
seasonal, or cyclical, as determined by management strategies. Although routine
horticultural activities, such as mowing and weeding, or general grounds maintenance,
such as re-laying pavement or curbs, may appear routine, such activities can cumulatively
alter the character of a landscape. In contrast, well-conceived management and
maintenance activities can sustain character and integrity over an extended period.
Therefore, both the management and maintenance of cultural landscapes should be
considered when selecting a treatment.
Interpretation
Interpretation can help in understanding and"reading"the landscape. The tools and
techniques of interpretation can include guided walks, self-guided brochures, computer-
aided tours, exhibits, and wayside stations. Interpretive goals should compliment
treatment selection,reflecting the landscape's significance and historic character. A
cultural landscape may possess varying levels of integrity or even differing periods of
significance,both of which can result in a multi-faceted approach to interpretation. In
some cases, interpretation and a sound interpretive strategy can inform decisions about
how to treat a landscape.
Work that must be done to meet accessibility, health and safety, environmental protection
or energy efficiency needs is usually not part of the overall process of protecting cultural
landscapes; rather this work is assessed for its potential impact on the cultural landscape.
Accessibility Considerations
It is often necessary to make modifications to cultural landscapes so that they will be in
compliance with current accessibility code requirements. Accessibility to certain cultural
landscapes is required by three specific Federal laws: the Architectural Barriers Act of
1968, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990. Federal rules, regulations and standards have been developed which provide
'! guidance on how to accomplish access to historic areas for people with disabilities. Work
must be carefully planned and undertaken so that it does not result in the loss of
character-defining features. The goal is to provide the highest level of access with the
lowest level of impact on the integrity of the landscape.
Health and Safety Considerations
In undertaking work on cultural landscapes, it is necessary to consider the impact that
meeting current health and safety codes (for example, public health, life safety, fire
_ safety, electrical, seismic, structural, and building codes) will have on character-defining
features. For example, upgrading utility service, storm or sewer drainage systems requires
trenching which can disturb soils,plants and archeological resources. Special
5
coordination with the responsible code officials at the state, county, or municipal level
may be required. Securing required permits and licenses is best accomplished early in —
project planning work. It is often necessary to look beyond the"letter" of code
requirements to their underlying purpose; most modern codes allow for alternative
approaches and reasonable variance to achieve compliance. —
Environmental Protection Requirements
Many cultural landscapes are affected by requirements that address environmental issues. —
Legislation at the federal, state and municipal level have established rules and regulations
for dealing with a variety of natural resources -- including water, air, soil and wildlife.
Work predicated on such legislation must be carefully planned and undertaken so that it —
does not result in the loss of a landscape's character-defining features. Securing required
permits and licenses should be considered early in project work, and special efforts
should be made to coordinate with public agencies responsible for overseeing specific —
environmental concerns.
Energy Efficiency —
Some features of a cultural landscape, such as buildings, structures, vegetation and
furnishings, can play an energy-conserving role. Therefore, prior to undertaking project
work to achieve greater energy efficiency, the first step should always be to identify and _
evaluate existing historic features to assess their inherent energy conserving potential. If
it is determined that such work is appropriate, then it needs to be carried out with _
particular care to insure that the landscape's historic character is retained.
Preservation Approach _
In Preservation,the options for replacement are limited. The expressed goal of the
Standards for Preservation and Guidelines for Preserving Cultural Landscapes is _
retention of the landscape's existing form, features and materials, provided that such
actions will not result in a degraded landscape condition or threaten historic resources.
Preservation treatments may be as simple as basic maintenance of existing materials and —
features, such as the upkeep of a pedestrian path with a topcoat of crushed shells, or may
be more involved; for example, preparing a cultural landscape report, undertaking
laboratory testing(e.g. pollen analysis to identify past uses of the property or hiring _
conservators to perform sensitive work(e.g. repointing a serpentine garden wall). In all
cases, protection, maintenance, and repair are emphasized, while replacement is
minimized. —
Identify, Retain, and Preserve Historic Materials and Features
The guidance for the treatment Preservation begins with recommendations to identify the —
form and detailing of those features and materials that are important to the landscape's
historic character and which must be retained in order to preserve that character.
Therefore, guidance on identifying, retaining, and preserving character-defining features
is always given first. The character of a cultural landscape is defined by its spatial
organization and land patterns; features such as topography, vegetation, and circulation;
and materials, such as an embedded aggregate pavement. —
6
Stabilize and Protect Deteriorated Historic Features and Materials as a Preliminary
_ Measure
Features within a cultural landscape may need to be stabilized or protected through
preliminary measures until additional work can be undertaken.Stabilization may include
structural reinforcement of a rustic pergola, cabling of a tree, weatherization of a wooden
garden bench, or correcting unsafe conditions. This work should always be carried out in
such a manner that it detracts as little as possible from the cultural landscape's
appearance. Although it may not be necessary in every preservation project, stabilization
is nonetheless an integral part of the treatment Preservation; it is equally applicable, if
circumstances warrant, for the other treatments. Protection generally involves the least
degree of intervention and is preparatory to other work. Such actions would include the
installation of temporary fencing around significant plant materials or the electrical
grounding of a tree.
Maintain Historic Features and Materials
After identifying, protecting and stabilizing those features and materials that are
important and must be retained, maintaining them becomes important. For example,
maintenance includes treatments such as removing rust from an iron light standard,
repointing a stone footbridge, re-application of protective coatings on a wooden patio
deck; pruning to maintain the form of a hedge; monitoring the age,health and vigor of
plant materials; or the cyclical cleaning of drainage inlets. As a foundation for these
decisions, an overall evaluation of a cultural landscape's existing conditions should
always begin at this level.
Repair (Stabilize, Consolidate and Conserve) Historic Features and Materials
When the existing conditions of character-defining features and materials requires
additional work, their repair is recommended. Preservation strives to retain the
maximum amount of existing materials and features while utilizing as little new material
�- as possible. Consequently, guidance for repairing a historic feature, such as vegetation,
begins with the least degree of intervention possible, such as pruning a tree to lighten its
canopy [see opposite]; or, in some cases, pruning back a shrub to the ground to encourage
vigorous and healthy new growth. Similarly, within the treatment Preservation,portions
of a historical structural system could be reinforced using contemporary materials. A
capstone on a retaining wall, or a board in a wooden walkway, may be repaired with
contemporary replacement parts. In all cases, work should be non-destructive, physically
and visually compatible, and documented for future research.
Limited Replacement In Kind of Extensively Deteriorated Portions of Historic
Features
If repair by retention of an entire historic feature and/or its historic materials proves
impossible, the next level of intervention involves the limited replacement in kind of
portions of historic features when there are surviving prototypes. For example, this might
_ involve replacing dead shrubs in a bank planting with same-genus, species/variety
shrubs; or, replacing missing fence members to match surviving components. The
replacement material should match the historic both physically and visually. In all cases,
7
substitute materials are not appropriate in the treatment Preservation. However,
exceptions would include hidden structural reinforcement, new mechanical system —
components (ex. adding irrigation), and the lack of availability or hazardous nature of
original materials. For example, when matching plant materials are no longer
commercially available, may not be hardy to a region, or, are highly disease prone, —
substitute plants may be recommended. In these cases, it is important that all new
material be non-destructive, identified, and properly documented for future research.
Generally, in Preservation, substitute materials should be avoided, unless in-kind —
replacement is not possible.
Special Considerations (Accessibility, Health and Safety, Environmental, and —
Energy Efficiency)
These sections of the Preservation guidance address work done to meet accessibility
requirements; health and safety code; environmental requirements; or limited retrofitting —
measures to improve energy efficiency. Although this work is quite often an important
aspect of preservation projects, it is usually not part of the overall process of protecting,
stabilizing, conserving, or repairing character-defining features; rather, such work is —
assessed for its potential negative impact on the landscape's character. For this reason,
particular care must be taken not to obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining
materials or features in the process of undertaking work to meet code and energy —
requirements.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a —
property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or
features, which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of —
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided. —
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural —
features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall _
be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of —
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
8
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing
features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The
new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic
materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
When repair and replacement of deteriorated features are necessary; when alterations or
additions to the property are planned for a new or continued use; and when its depiction
at a particular period of time is not appropriate, Rehabilitation may be considered as a
treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a documentation plan for Rehabilitation should be
developed.
Restoration
Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and
character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the
removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing
features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties
functional is appropriate within a restoration project.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the
property's restoration period.
2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The
_ removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize the period will not be undertaken.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,place, and use. Work
needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration
9
period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and
properly documented for future research. —
4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will
be documented prior to their alteration or removal. —
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. —
6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new —
feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.
7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by —
documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by
adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that
never existed together historically. —
8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place.
If such resources must be disturbed,mitigation measures will be undertaken. —
10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.
When the property's design, architectural, or historical significance during a particular
period of time outweighs the potential loss of extant materials, features, spaces, and —
finishes that characterize other historical periods; when there is substantial physical and
documentary evidence for the work; and when contemporary alterations and additions are
not planned, Restoration may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a —
particular period of time, i.e., the restoration period, should be selected and justified, and
a documentation plan for Restoration developed.
Reconstruction
Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new
construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape,
building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific —
period of time and in its historic location.
1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property —
when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction
with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding
of the property. —
10 —
2. Reconstruction of a landscape,building, structure, or object in its historic location will
_ be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those
features and artifacts, which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources
must be disturbed,mitigation measures will be undertaken.
3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships.
4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and
elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural
designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A
reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic
property in materials, design, color, and texture.
5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation.
6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.
When the property's design, architectural, or historical significance during a particular
period of time outweighs the potential loss of extant materials, features, spaces, and
finishes that characterize other historical periods; when there is substantial physical and
documentary evidence for the work; and when contemporary alterations and additions are
-- not planned, Restoration may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a
particular period of time, i.e., the restoration period, should be selected and justified, and
a documentation plan for Restoration developed.
Defining Landscape Terminology
Character-defining feature - a prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic
of a cultural landscape that contributes significantly to its physical character. Land use
patterns, vegetation; furnishings, decorative details and materials may be such features.
Component landscape - A discrete portion of the landscape, which can be further,
subdivided into individual features. The landscape unit may contribute to the significance
of a National Register property, such as a farmstead in a rural historic district. In some
cases, the landscape unit may be individually eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, such as a rose garden in a large urban park.
Cultural landscape - a geographic area(including both cultural and natural resources
_ and the wildlife or domestic animals therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or
person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. There are four general types of
cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes,
_ historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes.
11
Ethnographic landscape - a landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural
resources that associated people define as heritage resources. Examples are contemporary —
settlements, sacred religious sites, and massive geological structures. Small plant
communities, animals, subsistence and ceremonial grounds are often components.
Feature - The smallest element(s) of a landscape that contributes to the significance and
that can be the subject of a treatment intervention. Examples include a woodlot, hedge,
lawn, specimen plant, allee, house, meadow or open field, fence, wall, earthwork, pond or —
pool, bollard, orchard, or agricultural terrace.
Historic character - the sum of all visual aspects, features, materials, and spaces —
associated with a cultural landscape's history, i.e. the original configuration together with
losses and later changes. These qualities are often referred to as character-defining.
Historic designed landscape - a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a
landscape architect, master gardener, architect, engineer, or horticulturist according to
design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The —
landscape may be associated with a significant person, trend, or event in landscape
architecture; or illustrate an important development in the theory and practice of
landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in designed landscapes. —
Examples include parks, campuses, and estates.
Historic vernacular landscape - a landscape that evolved through use by the people
whose activities or occupancy shaped it. Through social or cultural attitudes of an
individual, a family, or a community, the landscape reflects the physical,biological, and —
cultural character of everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in vernacular
landscapes. This can be a farm complex or a district of historic farmsteads along a river
valley. Examples include rural historic districts and agricultural landscapes. —
Historic site- a landscape significant for its association with a historic event, activity or
person. Examples include battlefields and presidential homes and properties. —
Integrity-the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evinced by the survival of
physical characteristics that existed during the property's historic or prehistoric period. _
The seven qualities of integrity as defined by the National Register Program are location,
setting, feeling, association, design, workmanship, and materials.
Significance - the meaning or value ascribed to a cultural landscape based on the
National Register criteria for evaluation. It normally stems from a combination of
association and integrity. _
Treatment - work carried out to achieve a particular historic preservation goal.
12
Condensed version, for full test see;
<http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/hli/landscape guidelines/index.htm>
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,
revised in 1992, were codified as 36 CFR Part 68 in the 12 July 1995 Federal Register
(Vol. 60, No. 133) with an "effective"date of 11 August 1995. The revision replaces the
1978 and 1983 versions of 36 CFR 68 entitled The Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Historic Preservation Projects. Washington D.C.; GPO.
13
ATTACHMENT 3
PUBLIC RESOURCE CODE 5024
5024.State-owned Historical Resources;policies to preserve;master list;
documentation.
(a)On or before January 1, 1982,each state agency shall formulate policies to preserve
and maintain,when prudent and feasible,all state-owned historical resources under its
jurisdiction listed in or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places or registered or eligible for registration as a state historical landmark pursuant to
Section 5021.The State Historic Preservation Officer shall provide such agencies with
advice and assistance as needed.
(b)On or before July 1,1983,each state agency shall submit to the State Historic
Preservation Officer an inventory of all state-owned structures over 50 years of age
under its jurisdiction listed in or which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places or registered or which may be eligible for registration as a
state historical landmark.State-owned structures in freeway rights-of-way shall be
inventoried before approval of any undertaking which would alter their original or
significant features or fabric,or transfer,relocate or demolish those structures.
(c)The State Historic Preservation Officer,with the advice of the State Historical
Resources Commission,shall establish standards,after consultation with agencies to be
affected,for the submittal of inventories and development of policies for the review of
historical resources identified pursuant to this section.These review procedures shall
permit the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine which historical resources
identified in inventories meet National Register of Historic Places and state historical
landmark criteria and shall be placed in the master list of historical resources.
(d)The State Historic Preservation Officer shall maintain a master list comprised of all
inventoried structures submitted and determined significant pursuant to this section and
all state-owned historical resources currently listed in the National Register of Historic
Places or registered as a state historical landmark under state agency jurisdiction.The
State Historic Preservation Officer shall inform agencies with historical resources on the
master list of current sources of funding for preservation activities,including
rehabilitation and restoration.
(e)On or before July 1,1984,and annually thereafter,each state agency shall submit
inventory updates to the State Historic Preservation Officer and a statement of its years
preservation activities.
(f)Each state agency shall submit to the State Historic Preservation Officer for comment
documentation for any project having the potential to affect historical resources listed in
or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or registered
as or eligible for registration as a state historical landmark.
(g)As used in this section and Section 5024.5,"state agency"means any agency,
department,division,commission,board,bureau,officer,or other authority of the State
of California.
(h)As used in this section and Section 5024.5,..structure"means an immovable work
constructed by man having interrelated parts in a definite pattern of organization and
used to shelter or promote a form of human activity and which constitutes an historical
resource.
California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series#10
California State Law and Historic Preservation:Statutes,Regulations and Administrative Policies
Regarding Historic Preservation and Protection of Cultural and Historical Resources. p.g.14-15,1999.
ATTACHMENT 4
CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA
California Office of Historic Preservation
Technical Assistance Series #5
California Register of Historical Resources:
The Listing Process
Criteria for Listing
An historical resource must be significant at the local, state or national level under one or more
_ of the following four criteria:
1 . It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;
I It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction,
or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;
4. It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history
of the local area, California or the nation.
All resources nominated for listing must have integrity, which is the authenticity of a historical
._ resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the
resource's period of significance. Resources, therefore, must retain enough of their historic
character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for
—
their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association. It must also be judged with reference to the
particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for nomination.
—
Automatic Listings
Many resources are listed in the California Register automatically. These include resources that
are:
• Listed in the National Register of Historic Places
• Determined eligible for the National Register either by the Keeper of the National Register or
through a consensus determination on a project review
• State Historical Landmarks from number 770 on
Listings by State Historical Resources Commission Action
Other resources can be listed through an action of the State Historical Resources Commission
without requiring the formal nomination process.
• State Historical Landmarks prior to number 770: Procedures for evaluating and listing these
resources will be formulated by the Commission. Until such time as these procedures are in
place, any person who wants a Landmark prior to number 770 listed in the California
_ Register will have to nominate it through the formal nomination process. Some of these
Landmarks will, however, have been automatically listed by virtue of being listed in, or
formally determined eligible for,the National Register. _
• Points of Historical Interest: Points must meet certain criteria before they can be listed in the
California Register. All new Points nominated from January 1998 forward will be required
to fulfill these criteria and so will be jointly listed as Points and in the California Register.
Listings by Direct Nomination
There are four categories of resources that can be directly nominated to the California Register.
• Individual resources
• Historic districts and resources contributing to the significance of a nominated historic _
district
• Historical resources or groups of local landmarks or historical resources designated under a _
municipal or county ordinance. For information regarding the criteria used to evaluate local
ordinances, please see the handout,How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register
of Historical Resources.
• Groups of resources identified in historic resources surveys. Surveys will be reviewed by the
Office of Historic Preservation when they are nominated to ensure that they meet certain
criteria. For a list of those criteria, please request see the handout,How to Nominate a -'
Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources.
The Nomination Process
This process applies to most direct nominations to the California Register. However, in special
circumstances, such as when nominating local ordinances or surveys, other procedures may apply. All
applicants should consult the handout,How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of
Historical Resources.
To determine what information has already been collected regarding a particular resource, interested
parties should first contact the Information Center that serves the county in which the property is
located. A list of the Information Centers is located in the Instructions for Nominating Historical
Resources to the California Register of Historical Resources.
A cover letter must be submitted with the nomination that includes the name of the applicant, resource -"
owner and local government with land-use authority and a concise statement of significance.
After the nomination has been completed,the applicant must send by certified mail a copy of the —
application to the clerk of the local government with land use authority over the resource. The local
government is given 90 days to comment on the application before it may be sent to the Office of
Historic Preservation. Comments from the local government must be submitted with the application
when it comes to the Office.
r..
After receiving comments from the local government or at the end of the 90-day waiting period,the
original nomination may then be forwarded to the Office. At this time,a copy of the nomination should
also be sent by the applicant to the appropriate Information Center.
Upon receipt of the nomination,the Office will review the documents for completion. Within 30
days of receipt of the nomination,the Office will inform the owner(s)--in the event the applicant
is not the owner--that the property has been nominated and will request any further information
needed. After all additional information has been compiled,a hearing date will be set for the
nomination to go before the State Historical Resources Commission and hearing notifications
will be sent. Following the Commission's hearing and decision, notification letters will be sent
to the applicant,owner(s)and local government informing all entities of the Commission's
decision.
6
6.
L
6-
ATTACHMENT 5
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA
Section II: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register ... Page 1 of 2
.�
NATIONAL REGISTER
APPLYHOW To • REGISTER
CRITERIA
I.. r s ♦ '
W114116
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service
II. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Criteria for Evaluation
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and
culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
—
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
—
prehistory.
Criteria Considerations
1
Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious
institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their
original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in
nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be
considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they
_ are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following
categories:
a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction
or historical importance; or
file://F:\Regulations laws\Section II How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evalu... 5/14/2008
Section II: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register ... Page 2 of 2
b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily
significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly
associated with a historic person or event; or _
c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no
appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life; or _
d. A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent
importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic _
events; or
e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and
presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other
building or structure with the same association has survived; or
L A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value
has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or
g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional
importance.
.
National Register Home I Publications Home Previous Page Next
Page
Comments or Questions
JPJ
file://F:\Regulations laws\Section II How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evalu... 5/14/2008
4
ATTACHMENT 6
PHOTOS AND MAPS
s
Yom.
3 �
z
William Ralston, unknown date, The Bancroft
Library, University of California, Berkeley.
r�
{ It,
r• n
F
1 TAT..
1 -
EEv.
t
y
An unpaved El Camino
Real, around 1910. Photo .._ < : _ ' ' =-, - '
Courtesy of the Burlingame
Historical Society.
Ladies serving
y lunch at the
_ ground breaking _
for the paving of
El Camino Real,
f 1912. Courtesy
of the San Bruno
yt Library. _
T
Y pr.
Y 4
1'.
1�
El Camino }
Real,
i
about 1912.
Photo
Courtesy of
the �r
Burlingame
Historical
tv
Society. - '
s
L
View Down Highway 2
-.<. (82), from California
Highways Magazine
1920.
{
-- Early Caltrans Photo of El Camino Real in Hillsborough, 1920's.
t
r
Early Caltrans Photo of El Camino Real in Hillsborough, looking north,
1920's.
f
z �
s g
R
Repairing asphalt El Camino Real, Caltrans Photo 1927.
off.
F
Ilk
3-
� e
Rk-
_ , '
;� •� :t`sem. �t .� s ��� .�+ ��t ��,!�� �..
� �>�•� :{� `4tir� �' ' tom`' \"j�y� 777•�+ � # � f'
x r
u
r
El Camino Real, Burlingame, CaltransPhoto, '
ATTACHMENT 7
PROTECTING CULTURAL LANDSCAPES,NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
PRESERVATION BRIEF 36
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 1 of 17
■ w
Technical Preservation Services
336 Preservation BrieTS National Park Service
U.S. Department of the interior
Protecting
Planning,, Treatment a ,
Management ist rig Landscapes ,-
Charles it ate ' ASLA
>> Developing a Strategy and Seeking Assistance
Preservation Planning for Cultural Landscapes
>> Developing a Historic Preservation Approach and Treatment Plan
>> Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan and Implementation Strategy
>> Recording Treatment Work and Future Research Recommendations
>>Summary
>>Selected Reading
A NOTE TO OUR USERS: The web versions of the Preservation Briefs differ somewhat from the printed versions.
Many illustrations are new, captions are simplified, illustrations are typically in color rather than black and white, and
some complex charts have been omitted.
Cultural landscapes can range from thousands of acres of rural tracts of land to a
small homestead with a front yard of less than one acre. Like historic buildings and
districts, these special places reveal aspects of our country's origins and development
through their form and features and the ways they were used . Cultural landscapes also
reveal much about our evolving relationship withthe natural world .
A cultural landscape is defined as "a
s % geographic area,including both cultural and
natural resources and the wildlife or domestic
animals therein, associated with a historic
event, activity, or person or exhibiting other
cultural or aesthetic values. " There are four
general types of cultural landscapes, not
mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic
designed landscapes, historic vernacular
landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. These
are defined below.
Patterns on the land have been preserved
through the continuation of traditional Historic landscapes include residential
uses, such as the grape fields at the gardens and community parks, scenic highways,
Sterling Vineyards in Calistoga, California.
Photo: NPS files. rural communities, institutional grounds,
_ cemeteries, battlefields and zoological gardens.
They are composed of a number of character-defining features which, individually or
collectively contribute to the landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over
_ time. In addition to vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include water
features, such as ponds, streams, and fountains; circulation features, such as roads,
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 2 of 17
paths, steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences, benches, lights and
sculptural objects.
Most historic properties have a cultural landscape component that is integral to the
significance of the resource. Imagine a residential district without sidewalks, lawns and
trees or a plantation with buildings but no adjacent lands. A historic property consistsof
all its cultural resources--landscapes, buildings, archeological sites and collections. In
some cultural landscapes, there may be a total absence of buildings.
This Preservation Brief provides preservation professionals, cultural resource managers,
and historic property owners a step-by-step process for preserving historic designed
and vernacular landscapes, two types of cultural landscapes. While this process is —
ideally applied to an entire landscape, it can address a single feature, such as a
perennial garden, family burial plot, or a sentinel oak in an open meadow. This Brief
provides a framework and guidance for undertaking projects to ensure a successful
balance between historic preservation and change. —
DEFINITIONS
Historic Designed Landscape--a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out —
by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturist according to
design principles,or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The
landscape may be associated with a significant person(s), trend, or event in landscape —
architecture; or illustrate an important development in the theory and practice of
landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in designed landscapes.
Examples include parks, campuses, and estates. —
Historic Vernacular Landscape--a landscape that evolved through use by the people
whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through social or cultural attitudes
ofan individual, family or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, —
and cultural character of those everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in
vernacular landscapes. They can be a single property such as a farm or a collection of
properties such as a district of historic farms along a river valley. Examples include rural —
villages, industrial complexes, and agricultural landscapes.
Historic Site--a landscape significant for its association with a historic event, activity,
or person. Examples include battlefields and president's house properties.
Ethnographic Landscape--a landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural
resources that associated people define as heritage resources. Examples are
contemporary settlements, religious sacred sites and massive geological structures.
Small plant communities, animals, subsistence and ceremonial grounds are often _
components.
Developing a Strategy and Seeking Assistance
Nearly all designed and vernacular landscapes evolve from, or are often dependent on,
natural resources. It is these interconnected systems of land, air and water, vegetation
and wildlife which have dynamic qualities that differentiate cultural landscapes from
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 3 of 17
other cultural resources, such as historic structures. Thus, their documentation,
treatment, and ongoing management require a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary
approach.
Today, those involved in preservation planning
and management of cultural landscapes M'II
— represent a broad array of academic �
kyr
backgrounds,training, and related project
experience. Professionals may have expertise in
landscape architecture, history, landscape
archeology, forestry, agriculture, horticulture,
pomology, pollen analysis, planning,
architecture, engineering (civil, structural,
mechanical, traffic), cultural geography, wildlife,
ecology, ethnography, interpretation, material The "Boot Fence," near D.H. Lawrence
and object conservation, landscape Ranch, Questa, California, is an example of
maintenanceand management. Historians and a character-defining landscape feature.
g Photo: Courtesy, Cheryl Wagner.
historic preservation professionals can bring
expertise in the history of the landscape, architecture, art, industry, agriculture, society
and other subjects. Landscape preservation teams, including on-site management teams
and independent consultants, are often directed by a landscape architect with specific
expertise in landscape preservation. It is highly recommended that disciplines relevant
to the landscapes' inherent features be represented as well.
Additional guidance may be obtained from
State Historic Preservation Offices, local
preservation commissions, the National Park
Service, local and state park agencies, national
and state chapters ofthe American Society of
_ k Landscape Architects, the Alliance for Historic
Landscape Preservation, the National
Association of Olmsted Parks, and the Catalog
of Landscape Records in the United States at
Wave Hill, among others.
Another example of a very different A range of issues may need to be addressed
landscape feature is this tree planting detail when considering how a particular cultural
for Jefferson Memorial Park,St. Louis, landscape should be treated. This may include
Missouri. Photo: Courtesy, Dan Kiley.
the in-kind replacement of declining
_ vegetation, reproduction of furnishings,
rehabilitation of structures, accessibility provisions for people with disabilities, or the
treatment of industrial properties that are rehabilitated for new uses.
_ Preservation Planning for Cultural Landscapes
Careful planning prior to undertaking work can help prevent irrevocable damage to a
cultural landscape. Professional techniques for identifying, documenting, evaluating and
preserving cultural landscapes have advanced during the past 25 years and are
continually being refined. Preservation planning generally involves the following steps:
historical research; inventory and documentation of existing conditions; site analysis and
evaluation of integrity and significance; development of a cultural landscape
preservation approach and treatment plan; development of a cultural landscape
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tpsibriefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36:Protecting Cultural Landscapes:Planning,Treatment and Manage... Page 4 of 17
management plan and management philosophy;the development of a strategy for
ongoing maintenance;and preparation of a record of treatment and future research
recommendations. —
The steps in this process are not independent of each other, nor are they always
sequential. In fact,information gathered in one step may lead to a re-examination or —
refinement of previous steps. For example,field inventory and historical research are
likely to occur simultaneously,and may reveal unnoticed cultural resources that should
be protected. —
The treatment and management of cultural landscape should also be considered in
concert with the management of an entire historic property.As a result, many other —
studies may be relevant.They include management plans, interpretive plans,exhibit
design, historic structures reports,and other.
These steps can result in several products including a Cultural Landscape Report(also —
known as a Historic Landscape Report),statements for management,interpretive guide,
maintenance guideand maintenance records.
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORTS —
A Cultural Landscape Report(CLR)is the primary report that documents the history,
significance and treatment of a cultural landscape.A CLR evaluates the history and —
integrity of the landscape including any changes to its geographical context,features,
materials,and use.
CLWs are often prepared when a change(e.g. a new visitor's center or parking area to a
landscape)is proposed. In such instances,a CLR can be a useful tool to protect the
landscape's character-defining features from undue wear,alteration or loss.A CLR can —
provide managers,curators and others with information needed to make management
decisions.
A CLR will often yield new information about a landscape's historic significance and
integrity,even for those already listed on theNational Register. Where appropriate,
National Register files should be amended to reflect the new findings.
Historical Research —
Research is essential before undertaking any treatment. Findings will help identify a
landscape's historic period(s)of ownership,occupancy and development,and bring —
greater understanding of the associations and characteristics that make the landscape or
history significant. Research findings provide a foundation to make educated decisions
for work,and can also facilitate ongoing maintenance and management operations, —
interpretation and eventual compliance requirements.
A variety of primary and secondary sources may be consulted. Primary archival sources —
can include historic plans,surveys, plats,tax maps,atlases,U.S.Geological Survey
maps,soil profiles,aerial photographs,photographs,stereoscopic views,glass lantern
slides,postcards,engravings, paintings,newspapers,journals,construction drawings,
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.httn 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 5 of 17
specifications, plant lists, nursery catalogs, household records, account books and
personal correspondence. Secondary sources include monographs, published histories,
theses, National Register forms, survey data, local preservation plans, state contexts
—
and scholarly articles.
Contemporary documentary resources should also be consulted. This may include recent
studies, plans, surveys, aerial and infrared photographs, Soil Conservation Service soil
maps, inventories, investigations and interviews. Oral histories of residents,
managers,and maintenance personnel with a long tenure or historical association can be
valuable sources of information about changes to a landscape over many years. For
properties listed in the National Register, nomination forms should be consulted.
Preparing Period Plans
In the case of designed landscapes, even though a historic design plan exists, it does
not necessarily mean that it was realized fully, or even in part. Based on a review of the
_ archival resources outlined above, and the extant landscape today, an as-built period
plan may be delineated. For all successive tenures of ownership, occupancy and
landscape change, period plans should be generated. Period plans can document to the
greatest extent possible the historic appearance during a particular period of ownership,
occupancy, or development. Period plans should be based on primary archival sources
and should avoid conjecture. Features that are based on secondary or less accurate
sources should be graphically differentiated. Ideally, all referenced archival sources
should be annotated and footnoted directly on period plans.
Where historical data is missing, period plans should reflect any gaps in the CLR
narrative text and these limitations consideredin future treatment decisions.
Inventorying and Documenting Existing Conditions
Both physical evidence in the landscape and historic documentation guide the historic
preservation plan and treatments. To document existing conditions, intensive field
investigation and reconnaissance should be conducted at the same time that
—' documentary researchis being gathered. Information should be exchanged among
preservation professionals, historians, technicians, local residents, managers and
visitors.
To assist in the survey process, National Register
y Bulletins have been published by the National Park
Service to aid in identifying,nominating and
evaluating designed and rural historic landscapes.
l Additionally, Bulletins are available for specific
landscape types such as battlefields, mining sites,
and cemeteries.
Although there are several ways to inventory and
document a landscape the goal is to create a
baseline from a detailed record of the landscape and
m, its features as they exist at the present (considering
understanding the geograpnic context seasonal variations). Each landscape inventory
should be part of the inventory should address issues of boundary delineation,
process. This aerial photograph at documentation methodologies and techniques, the
Rancho Los Alamitos, Long Beach, CA, limitations of the inventory, and the scope of
was taken in 1936. (See, below.)
Photo: Rancho Los Alamitos inventory efforts.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning,Treatment and Manage... Page 6 of 17
Foundation.
, .. . These are most
often influenced —
' by the
timetable,
t budget, project —
scope, and the
purpose of the
inventory and,
depending on
the physical
qualities of the
property, its
This present-day view of Rancho Los scale, detail,
Alamitos shows present-day
encroachments and adjacent and the inter-
developments that will affect the future relationship —
treatment of visual and spatial between natural
relationships. Photo: Rancho Los and cultural
Alamitos Foundation.
resources. For _
example, inventory objectives to develop a treatment plan may differ considerably
compared to those needed to develop an ongoing maintenance plan. Once the criteria
for a landscape inventory are developed and tested, the methodology should be
explained. —
Preparing Existing Condition Plans --
Inventory and documentation may be recorded in plans, sections, photographs, aerial
photographs, axonometric perspectives, narratives, video-or any combination of —
techniques. Existing conditions should generally be documented to scale, drawn by hand
or generated by computer. The scale of the drawings is often determined by the size and
complexity of the landscape. Some landscapes may require documentation at more than —
one scale. For example, a large estate may be documented at a small scale to depict its
spatial and visual relationships, while the discrete area around an estate mansionmay
require a larger scale to illustrate individual plant materials, pavement patterns and
other details. The same may apply to an entire rural historic district and a fenced —
vegetable garden contained within.
When landscapes are documented in photographs, registration points can be set to —
indicate the precise location and orientation of features. Registration points should
correspond to significant forms, features and spatial relationships within the landscape
and its surrounds. The points may also correspond to historic views to illustrate the —
change in the landscape todate. These locations may also be used as a management
tool todocument the landscape's evolution, and to ensure that its character-defining
features are preserved over time through informed maintenance operations and later
treatment and management decisions. —
All features that contribute to the landscape's historic character should be recorded.
These include the physical features described above (e.g. topography, circulation), and
the visual and spatial relationships that are character defining. The identification of
existing plants, should be specific, including genus, species, common name, age (if
known) and size. The woody, and if appropriate, herbaceous plant material should be —
accurately located on the existing conditions map. To ensure full representation of
successional herbaceous plants, care should be taken to document the landscape in
different seasons, if possible. —
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/bn'efs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36:Protecting Cultural Landscapes:Planning,Treatment and Manage... Page 7 of 17
,— Treating living plant materials as a curatorial collection has also been undertaken at
some cultural landscapes.This process,either done manually or by computer,can track
the condition and maintenance operations on individual plants.Some sites,suchas the
_ Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site,in Brookline, Massachusetts have
developed a field investigation numbering system to track all woody plants. Due to
concern for the preservation of genetic diversity and the need to replace significant plant
materials,a number of properties are beginning to propagate historically important rare
plants that are no longer commercially available,unique,or possess significant historic
associations.Such herbarium collections become a part of a site's natural history
collection.
Once the research and the documentation of existing conditions have been completed,a
foundation is in place to analyze the landscape's continuity and change,determine its
significance,assess its integrity,and place it within the historic context of similar
landscapes.
READING THE LANDSCAPE
A noted geographer, Pierce Lewis,stated,"The attempt to derive meaning from
landscapes possesses overwhelming virtue. It keeps us constantly alert to the world
_ around us,demanding that we pay attention not just to some of the things around us
but to all of them--the whole visible world in all of its rich,glorious,messy,confusing,
ugly,and beautiful complexity."
Landscapes can be read on many levels--landscape as nature,habitat,artifact,system,
problem,wealth,ideology,history, place and aesthetic. When developing a strategy to
document a cultural landscape, it is important to attempt to read the landscape in its
context of place and time.
Reading the landscape, like engaging in archival research, requires a knowledge of the
resource and subject area as well as a willingness to be skeptical.As with archival
research,it may involve serendipitous discoveries. Evidence gained from reading the
landscape may confirm or contradict other findings and may encourage the observer and
_ the historian to re-visit both primary and secondary sources with a fresh outlook.
Landscape investigation may also stimulate other forms of research and survey,such as
oral histories or archeological investigations,to supplement what appeared on-site.
There are many ways to read a landscape-whatever approach is taken should provide a
broad overview.This may be achieved by combining on-the-ground observations with a
bird's-eye perspective.To begin this process,aerial photographs should be reviewed to
gain an orientation to the landscape and its setting.Aerial photographs come in different
sizes and scales,and can thus portray different levels of detail in the landscape.Aerial
photographs taken at a high altitude,for example,may help to reveal remnant field
patterns or traces of an abandoned circulation system;or, portions of axial relationships
that were part of the original design,since obscured by encroaching woodland areas.
Low altitude aerial photographs can point out individual features such as the
arrangement of shrub and herbaceous borders,and the exact locations of furnishings,
lighting,and fence alignments.This knowledge can prove beneficial before an on-site
visit.
Aerial photographs provide clues that can help orient the viewer to the landscape.The
next step may be to view the landscape from a high point such as a knoll or an upper
http://www.nps.govihistory/hps/tps/briefsfbrief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 8 of 17
floor window. Such a vantage point may provide an excellent transition before physically
entering the cultural landscape.
On ground, evidence should then be studied, including character-defining features,
visual and spatial relationships. By reviewing supporting materials from historic
research, individual features can be understood in a systematic fashion that show the —
continuum that exists on the ground today. By classifying these features and
relationships, the landscape can be understood as an artifact, possessing evidence of
evolving natural systems and human interventions over time. —
For example, the on-site investigation of an abandoned turn-of-the-century farm
complex reveals the remnant of a native oak and pine forest which was cut and burned —
in the mid-nineteenth century. This previous use is confirmed by a small stand of
mature oaks and the presence of these plants in the emerging secondary woodland
growth that is overtaking this farm complex in decline. A ring count of the trees can
establish a more accurate age. By reading other character-defining features, such as the —
traces of old roads, remnant hedgerows, ornamental trees along boundary roads,
foundation plantings, the terracing of grades and remnant fences--the visual, spatial and
contextual relationships of the property as it existed a century ago may be understood —
and its present condition and integrity evaluated.
The findings of on-site reconnaissance, such as materials uncovered during archival —
research, may be considered primary data. These findings make it possible to inventory
and evaluate the landscape's features in the context of the property's current condition.
Character-defining features are located in situ, in relationship to each other and the
greater cultural and geographic contexts.
Historic Plant Inventory
Within cultural landscapes, plants may have historical or botanical significance. A plant
may have been associated with a historic figure or event or be part of a notable
landscape design. A plant may be an uncommon cultivar, exceptional in size, age, rare
and commercially/unavailable. If such plants are lost, there would be a loss of historic —
integrity and biological diversity of the cultural landscape. To ensure that significant
plants are preserved, an inventory of historic plants is being conducted at the North
Atlantic Region of the National Park Service. Historical landscape architects work with —
landscape managers and historians to gather oral and documented history on the plant's
origin and potential significance. Each plant is then examined in the field by an expert
horticulturist who records its name, condition, age, size, distribution, and any notable
botanic characteristics. —
Plants that are difficult to identify or are of potential historical significance are further
examined in the laboratory by a plant taxonomist who compares leaf, fruit, and flower —
characteristics with herbarium specimens for named species, cultivars and varieties. For
plants species with many cultivars, such as apples, roses, and grapes, specimens may
be sent to specialists for identification. —
If a plant cannot be identified, is dying or in decline, and unavailable from commercial
nurseries, it may be propagated. Propagation ensures that when rare and significant —
plants decline, they can be replaced with genetically-identical plants. Cuttings are
propagated and grown to replacement size in a North Atlantic Region Historic Plant
Nursery.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 9 of 17
Site Analysis: Evaluating Integrity and Significance
By analyzing the landscape, its change over time can be understood. This may be
_ accomplished by overlaying the various period plans with the existing conditions plan.
Based on these findings, individual features may be attributed to the particular period
when they were introduced, and the various periods when they were present.
It is during this step that the historic significance of the landscape component of a
historic property and its integrity are determined. Historic significance is the recognized
importance a property displays when it has been evaluated, including when it has been
-- found to meet National Register Criteria. A landscape may have several areas of
historical significance. An understanding of the landscape as a continuum through
history is critical in assessing its cultural and historic value. In order for the landscape to
have integrity, these character-defining features or qualities that contribute to its
significance must be present.
While National Register nominations
document the significance and integrity of
g historic properties, in general, they may not
acknowledge the significance of the
landscape's design or historic land uses, and
�. may not contain an inventory of landscape
w.
" features or characteristics. Additional
research is often necessary to provide the
detailed information about a landscape's
evolution and significance useful in making
decision for the treatment and maintenance
of a historic landscape. Existing National
Register forms may be amended to
Thelandscape of Lyndhurst, Tarrytown, New
recognize additional areas of significance
.�,
York, is significant in American culture and work and to include more complete descriptions of
of a master gardener, Ferdinand Mangold. historic properties that have significant land
Photo: National Trust for Historic Preservation. areas and landscape features.
Integrity is a property's historic identity evidenced by the survival of physical
characteristics from the property's historic or pre-historic period. The seven qualities of
integrity are location, setting, feeling, association, design, workmanship and materials.
When evaluating these qualities, care should be taken to consider change itself. For
example, when a second-generation woodland overtakes an open pasture in a battlefield
_ landscape, or a woodland edge encloses a scenic vista. For situations such as these, the
reversibility and/or compatibility of those features should be considered, both
individually, and in the context of the overall landscape. Together, evaluations of
significance and integrity, when combined with historic research, documentation of
existing conditions, and analysis findings, influence later treatment and interpretation
decisions.
Developing a Historic Preservation Approach and
Treatment Plan
Treatment may be defined as work carried out to achieve a historic preservation goal--it
cannot be considered in a vacuum. There are many practical and philosophical factors
that may influence the selection of a treatment for a landscape. These include the
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36:Protecting Cultural Landscapes:Planning,Treatment and Manag... Page 10 of 17
relative historic value of the property,the level of historic documentation,existing
physical conditions, its historic significance and integrity,historic and proposed use(e.g.
educational,interpretive, passive,active public,institutional or private), long-and short-
term objectives,operational and code requirements(e.g. accessibility,fire,security)and
costs for anticipated capital improvement,staffing and maintenance.The value of any
significant archeological and natural resources should also be considered in the decision- —
making process.Therefore,a cultural landscape's preservation plan and the treatment
selected will consider a broad array of dynamic and inter-related considerations. It will
often take the form of a plan with detailed guidelines or specifications.
TREATMENTS FOR CULTURAL LANDSCAPES —
Prior to undertaking work on a landscape,a treatment plan or similar document should
be developed. The four primary treatments identified in the Secretary of the Interior's —
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,are:
Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain
the existing form,integrity,and materials of an historic property. Work,including
preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property,generally focuses upon the
ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive —
replacement and new construction. New additions are not within the scope of this
treatment;however,the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,electrical and
plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is _
appropriate within a preservation project.
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for
a property through repair,alterations,and additions while preserving those portions or —
features which convey its historical or cultural values.
Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form,features,
and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the
removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing
features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, —
electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties
functional is appropriate within a restoration project.
Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting,by means of new
construction,the form,features,and detailing of a non-surviving site,landscape,
building,structure,or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific
period of time and in its historic location. —
Adopting such a plan,in concert with a preservation maintenance plan,acknowledges a
cultural landscape's ever-changing existence and the inter-relationship of treatment and
ongoing maintenance. Performance standards,scheduling and record keeping of —
maintenance activities on a day-to-day or month-to-month basis,may then be planned
for.Treatment, management,and maintenance proposals can be developed by a broad
range of professionals and with expertise in such fields as landscape preservation, —
horticulture,ecology,and landscape maintenance.
The selection of a primary treatment for the —
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.httn 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 11 of 17
landscape, utilizing the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, ,Ilj
establishes an overall historic preservation
approach, as well as a philosophical framework from
rh ;
which to operate. Selecting a treatment is based on
F
many factors. They include management ander,
interpretation objectives for the property as a whole,
the period(s) of significance, integrity, and condition
of individual landscape features.
o
For all treatments, the landscape's existing
conditions and its ability to convey historic
significance should be carefully considered. For
example, the life work, design philosophy and extant when the American Elm was plagued
legacy of individual designer should all be with Dutch Elm Disease, many historic
g y an uag properties relied on the Japanese
understood for a designed landscape, such as an Zelkova as a substitute plant (see
estate, prior to treatment selection. For a vernacular below). Photo: NPS files.
landscape, such as a battlefield containing a largely
intact mid-nineteenth century family farm, the uniqueness of that agrarian complex
within a local, regional, state, and national context should be considered in selecting a
treatment.
The overall historic preservation approach and treatment approach can ensure the
_ proper retention, care, and repair of landscapes and their inherent features. In short,
the Standards act as a preservation and management tool for cultural landscapes. The
four potential treatments are described above.
Landscape treatments can range from simple, inexpensive
a , preservation actions, to complex major restoration or
reconstruction projects. The progressive framework is inverse
` in proportion to the retention of historic features and materials.
Generally, preservation involves the least change, and is the
most respectful of historic materials. It maintains the form and
— lmaterial of the existing landscape. Rehabilitation usually
accommodates contemporary alterations or additions without
i
.* altering significant historic features or materials, with successful
projects involving minor to major change. Restoration or
reconstruction attempts to recapture the appearance of a
property,or an individual feature at a particular point in time, as
confirmed by detailed historic documentation. These last two
treatments most often require the greatest degree of
Compared to the American intervention and thus,the highest level of documentation.
Elm (above right), it is
readily apparent that the In all cases, treatment should be executed at the appropriate
form and scale of this tree
is really quite different, level, reflecting the condition of the landscape, with repair work
and would be an identifiable upon close inspection and/or indicated in
inappropriate substitute supplemental interpretative information. When repairing or
plant material within a
restoration or replacing a feature, every effort should be made to achieve
reconstruction project. visual and physical compatibility. Historic materials should be
Photo: NPS files. matched in design, scale, color and texture.
A landscape with a high level of integrity and authenticity may suggest preservation as
the primary treatment. Such a treatment may emphasize protection, stabilization,
cyclical maintenance,and repair of character-defining landscape features. Changes over
time that are part of the landscape's continuum and are significant in their own right
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 12 of 17
may be retained, while changes that are not significant, yet do not encroach upon or
erode character may also be maintained. Preservation entails the essential operations to
safeguard existing resources. —
Rehabilitation is often selected in response to a contemporary
use or need--ideally such an approach is compatible with the
landscape's historic character and historic use. Rehabilitation
may preserve existing fabric along with introducing some
compatible changes, new additions and alterations. —
Rehabilitation may be desirable at a private residence in a ,I
historic district where the homeowner's goal is to develop an ="r
appropriate landscape treatment for a front yard, or in a
public park where a support area is needed for its —
maintenance operations.
illius�u dIIIWpp .
When the most important goal is to portray a landscape at an ui�i�il�l IINNI —
exact period of time, restoration is selected as the primary
treatment. Unlike preservation and rehabilitation, interpreting
the landscape's continuum or evolution is not the objective. —
Restoration may include the removal of features from other The historic birch allee at
periods and/or the construction of missing or lost features Stan Hywet Hall,Akron,
and materials from the reconstruction period. In all cases, Ohio,which had suffered
treatment should be substantiated b the historic research from borer infestation and --
y leaf miner,was preserved
findings and existing conditions documentation. Restoration through a series of carefully
and re-construction treatment work should avoid the creation executed steps that took 15
of a landscape whose features did not exist historically. For years to realize. Photo: —
p y Child Associates.
example, if features from an earlier period did not co-exist
with extant features from a later period that are being retained, their restoration would
not be appropriate. —
In rare cases, when evidence is sufficient to avoid conjecture, and no other property
exists that can adequately explain a certain period of history, reconstruction may be —
utilized to depict a vanished landscape. The accuracy of this work is critical. In cases
where topography and the sub-surface of soil have not been disturbed, research and
existing conditions findings may be confirmed by thorough archeological investigations.
Here too, those features that are intact should be repaired as necessary, retaining the —
original historic features to the greatest extent possible. The greatest danger in
reconstruction is creating a false picture of history.
False historicism in every treatment should be avoided. This applies to individual
features as well as the entire landscape. Examples of inappropriate work include the
introduction of historic-looking benches that are actually a new design, a fanciful gazebo —
placed in what was once an open meadow, executing an unrealized historic design, or
designing a historic-looking landscape for a relocated historic structure within
"restoration."
LANDSCAPE INTERPRETATION
Landscape interpretation is the process of providing the visitor with tools to experience —
the landscape as it existed during its period of significance, or as it evolved to its
present state. These tools may vary widely, from a focus on existing features to the
addition of interpretive elements. These could include exhibits, self-guided brochures, or
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tpsibriefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
_ Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 13 of 17
a new representation of a lost feature. The nature of the cultural landscape, especially
its level of significance, integrity, and the type of visitation anticipated may frame the
interpretive approach. Landscape interpretation may be closely linked to the integrity
and condition of the landscape, and therefore, its ability to convey the historic character
and character-defining features of the past. If a landscape has high integrity, the
interpretive approach may be to direct visitors to surviving historic features without
introducing obtrusive interpretive devices, such as free-standing signs. For landscapes
with a diminished integrity, where limited or no fabric remains, the interpretive
emphasis may be on using extant features and visual aids (e.g., markers, photographs,
etc.) to help visitors visualize the resourceas it existed in the past. The primary goal in
these situations is to educate the visitor about the landscape's historic themes,
associations and lost character-defining features or broader historical, social and
physical landscape contexts.
�. Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan and
Implementation Strategy
Throughout the preservation planning process, it is important to ensure that existing
landscape features are retained. Preservation maintenance is the practice of monitoring
and controlling change in the landscape to ensure that its historic integrity is not altered
and features are not lost. This is particularly important during the research and long-
term treatment planning process. To be effective, the maintenance program must have
a guiding philosophy, approach or strategy; an understanding of preservation
maintenance techniques; and a system for documenting changes in the landscape.
The philosophical approach to'maintenance should
coincide with the landscape's current stage in the
preservation planning process. A Cultural Landscape
Report and Treatment Plan can take several years to
complete, yet during this time managers and
property owners will likely need to address
immediate issues related to the decline, wear,
decay, or damage of landscape features. Therefore,
_ initial maintenance operations may focus on the
stabilization and protection of all landscape features
to provide temporary, often emergency measures to
Central Park has developed an in-
prevent deterioration, failure, or loss, without
_
house historic preservation crew to altering the site's existing character.
undertake small projects. A specialized
crew has been trained to repair and After a Treatment Plan is implemented, the
rebuild rustic furnishings. Photo:
Central Park Conservancy. approach to preservation maintenance may be
modified to reflect the objectives defined by this
plan. The detailed specifications prepared in the Treatment Plan relating to the
retention, repair, removal, or replacement of features in the landscape should guide and
inform a comprehensive preservation maintenance program. This would include
schedules for monitoring and routine maintenance, appropriate preservation
maintenance procedures, as well as ongoing record keeping of work performed. For
vegetation, the preservation maintenance program would also include thresholds for
growth or change in character, appropriate pruning methods, propagation and
replacement procedures.
To facilitate operations, a property may be divided into discrete management zones.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 14 of 17
These zones are sometimes defined during the Cultural Landscape Report process and
are typically based on historically defined areas. Alternatively, zones created for
maintenance practices and priorities could be used. Examples of maintenance zones —
would include woodlands, lawns, meadow, specimen trees, and hedges.
Training of maintenance staff in preservation maintenance skills is essential. —
Preservation maintenance practices differ from standard maintenance practices because
of the focus on perpetuating the historic character or use of the landscape rather than
beautification. For example, introducing new varieties of turf, roses or trees is likely to —
be inappropriate. Substantial earth moving (or movement of soil) may be inappropriate
where there are potential archeological resources. An old hedge or shrub should be
rejuvenated, or propagated, rather than removed and replaced. A mature specimen tree
may require cabling and careful monitoring to ensure that it is not a threat to visitor —
safety. Through training programs and with the assistance of preservation maintenance
specialists, each property could develop maintenance specifications for the care of
landscape features. —
Because landscapes change through the seasons, specifications for ongoing preservation
maintenance should be organized in a calendar format. During each season or month, —
the calendar can be referenced to determine when, where, and how preservation
maintenance is needed. For example, for some trees structural pruning is best done in
the late winter while other trees are best pruned in the late summer. Serious pests are —
monitored at specific times of the year, in certain stages of their life cycle. This detailed
calendar will, in turn, identify staff needs and work priorities.
Depending on the level of sophistication desired, one approach to documenting —
maintenance data and recording change over time is to use a computerized geographical
or visual information system. Such a system would have the capability to include plans
and photographs that would focus on a site's landscape features. —
If a computer is not available, a manual or notebook can be developed to organize and
store important information. This approach allows managers to start at any level of --
detail and to begin to collect and organize information about landscape features. The
value of these maintenance records cannot be overstated. These records will be used in
the future by historians to understand how the landscape has evolved with the ongoing —
care of the maintenance staff.
Recording Treatment Work and Future Research
Recommendations
The last and ongoing step in the preservation planning process records the treatment
work as carried out. It may include a series of as-built drawings, supporting _
photographic materials, specifications and a summary assessment. New technologies
that have been successfully used should be highlighted. Ideally, this information should
be shared with interested national organizations for further dissemination and _
evaluation.
The need for further research or additional activities should also be documented. This
may include site-specific or contextual historical research, archeological investigations, —
pollen analysis, search for rare or unusual plant materials, or, material testing for future
applications.
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefsibrief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 15 of 17
Finally, in consultation with a conservator or archivist-to maximize the benefit of project
work and to minimize the potential of data loss--all primary documents should be
organized and preserved as archival materials. This may include field notes, maps,
drawings, photographs, material samples, oral histories and other relevant information.
DEVELOPING A PRESERVATION MAINTENANCE GUIDE
In the past, there was rarely adequate record-keeping to fully understand the ways a
landscape was maintained. This creates gaps in our research findings. Today, we
recognize that planning for ongoing maintenance and onsite applications should be
documented--both routinely and comprehensively. An annual work program or calendar
records the frequency of maintenance work on built or natural landscape features. It can
also monitor the age, health and vigor of vegetation. For example, onsite assessments
may document the presence of weeds, pests, dead leaves, pale color, wilting, soil
compaction--all of which signal particular maintenance needs. For built elements, the
deterioration of paving or drainage systems may be noted and the need for repair or
replacement indicated before hazards develop. An overall maintenance program can
_ assist in routine and cyclic maintenance of the landscape and can also guide long term
treatment projects.
_ To help structure a comprehensive maintenance operation that is responsive to staff,
budget, and maintenance priorities, the National Park Service has developed two
computer-driven programs for its own landscape resources. A Maintenance Management
Program (MM)is designed to assist maintenance managers in their efforts toplan,
organize, and direct the park maintenance system. An Inventory and Condition
Assessment Program (ICAP) is designed to complement MM by providing a system for
inventorying, assessing conditions, and for providing corrective work recommendations
for all site features.
Another approach to documenting maintenance and recording changes over time is to
develop a manual or computerized graphic information system. Such a system should
have the capability to include plans and photographs that would record a site's living
collection of plant materials. (Also see discussion of the use of photography under
Preparing Existing Conditions Plans) This may be achieved using a computer-aided
drafting program along with an integrated database management system.
To guide immediate and ongoing maintenance, a systematic and flexible approach has
been developed by the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. Working with
National Park Service landscape managers and maintenance specialists, staff assemble
information and make recommendations for the care of individual landscape features.
Each landscape feature is inspected in the field to document existing conditions and
identify field work needed. Recommendations include maintenance procedures that are
sensitive to the integrity of the landscape.
Summary
The planning, treatment, and maintenance of cultural landscapes requires a multi-
disciplinary approach. In landscapes, such as parks and playgrounds, battlefields,
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 16 of 17
cemeteries, village greens, and agricultural land preserves more than any other type of
historic resource--communities rightly presume a sense of stewardship. It is often this
grass roots commitment that has been a catalyst for current research and planning —
initiatives. Individual residential properties often do not require the same level of public
outreach, yet a systematic planning process will assist in making educated treatment,
management and maintenance decisions. —
Wise stewardship protects the character, and or spirit of a place by recognizing history
as change over time. Often, this also involves our own respectful changes through _
treatment. The potential benefits from the preservation of cultural landscapes are
enormous. Landscapes provide scenic, economic, ecological, social, recreational and
educational opportunities that help us understand ourselves as individuals, communities
and as a nation. Their ongoing preservation can yield an improved quality of life for all,
and, above all, a sense of place or identity for future generations.
Selected Reading
Birnbaum, Charles A., guest editor. Preservation Forum. "Focus on Landscape
Preservation". Washington, D.C.: National Trustfor Historic Preservation, Volume 7, No.
3, May/June 1992. --
Buggey Susan, guest editor. APT Bulletin. Special Issue: Conserving Historic
Landscapes. Fredericksburg, VA: Association for PreservationTechnology International, _
Volume XXIV, No. 3-4, 1992.
Burns, John A, and the Staff of HABS/HAER. Recording Historic Structures. American —
Institute of Architects Press, 1989.(Includes chapter on the documentation of Meridian
Hill Park,pp. 206-219.)
Diehl, Janet and Thomas S. Barrett, et al. The Conservation Easement Handbook. —
Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Programs, The Land
Trust Exchange (now Alliance) and the Trust for Public Land, 1988.
International Committee of Historic Gardens and Sites, ICOMOS-IFLA.Jardins et Sites
Historiques, Scientific Journal. ICOMOS1993. Compilation of papers on the subject, in
both English andFrench. —
Kelso, William M., and Rachel Most. Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology.
Charlottesville, VA. University Press of Virginia, 1990. —
Stokes, Samuel, N., et al. Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation.
Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1989. —
Tishler, William, editor. American Landscape Architecture: Designers and Places.
Washington, DC: The Preservation Press,1989. _
Acknowledgements
The author, Charles A. Birnbaum, Coordinator, Historic Landscape Initiative, Preservation Assistance Division,
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tpsibriefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 17 of 17
National Park Service would like to acknowledge the assistance of H. Ward Jandl and Kay Weeks.The Olmsted Center
for Landscape Preservation at the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site including Margie Coffin, Lauren Meier,
Nora Mitchell, and Charlie Pepper provided invaluable support. In particular, the proposed rewrite on Preservation
Maintenance and historic plant materials was written by Margie Coffin. Significant contributions were also made by
Patricia M. O'Donnell, Linda McClelland, Ellen Lipsey, Christine Capella Peters, Robert Page, Ian Firth and Robert
Melnick. Useful comments and technical assistance were provided by regional NPS staff(Mary Hughes, Lucy Lawliss,
Jill Cowley, Sherda Williams, Michael Crowe, Robbyn Jackson) and staff at the Preservation Assistance Division
(Cheryl Wagner, Michael Auer and Anne Grimmer).
-- Washington, D.C.September, 1994
Home page logo:Taro fields in Hanalei, Hawaii. Photo: NPS files.
This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make
available information concerning historic properties. Technical Preservation Services
(TPS), Heritage Preservation Services Division, National Park Service prepares
standards, guidelines, and other educational materials on responsible historic
preservation treatments for a broad public.
Order Brief I Technical Preservation Services I Preservation Briefs I Search I Questions/Answers
KDW
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/briefs/brief36.htm 5/15/2008
ATTACHMENT 8
MAP of TREE Row
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Pagel of 6 *Resource Name or#Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row
*Recorded by: Frances Schierenbeck *Date: March,2008 ❑ Continuation ■ Update
Review of Existing Integrity of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows
Caltrans initially documented the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows in 1999. At that time it was found
to be both eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and a historic resource under the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Significant for its association with the founding and development of
the City of Burlingame in the county of San Mateo, the tree rows stand as a reminder of the early importance
of El Camino Real as the main route to the City of San Francisco. The tree rows also have significance for
their association with historical figures important in San Mateo County, John McLaren, George Howard and
William Ralston. Recognized as a valuable local resource by the city of Burlingame, the tree row has a long
history of protection within the city's limits.
In 1999, the National Register eligibility was justified under Criteria A and C. Criterion A was applied for
the tree row's importance in town planning. Two men important in the founding of the towns of Burlingame
and Hillsborough, George Howard and William Ralston,hired gardener John McLaren to plant the trees in
the early 1870s. Trying to draw people into the newly surveyed territory, they sought to create a grand
entrance into the area. Nearby Burlingame Avenue, Broadway Avenue, and the trolley line were all lined
with trees. The trees helped to convert what once was a wind-swept prairie into a town with a park-like
atmosphere, and tree-lined boulevards became a town characteristic. With their prominent visual presence,
—' the physical restrictions they have placed on the development of El Camino Real, the Howard-Ralston
Eucalyptus Tree Rows are an important part of the city of Burlingame.
The large influx of residents fleeing San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake dramatically increased the
population of the area. The resulting demand for greater commercial services, coupled with the widespread
_ arrival of the automobile put pressure on the San Francisco peninsula towns to widen the roads. In the early
1900s most other towns along El Camino Real were removing the trees to meet these demands. Burlingame,
aware that the trees contributed to their park-like character, resisted; a movement to stop removal of any
historic trees began. Local newspapers and citizens put pressure on the city, which enacted regulation to
protect the trees from unauthorized removal. Any plan or politician calling for large-scale removal of trees
was quickly dismissed. Burlingame's affection for the tree rows tended to stop most plans for commercial
development along El Camino Real that did not incorporate the trees into its design. As a result, there is a
noticeable absence of large-scale commercial development in the area; multiple family residences and small
office buildings characterize the immediate vicinity. The trees act as a visual screen, softening the impact of
the buildings from the street and masking overhead utilities.
Under Criterion C, the tree rows were documented for their early highway design. Planted between 1873-
1874, the tree rows substantially predate the California Highway Tree Planting Program, begun in 1921.
Along their portion of El Camino Real, the trees create a visual tunnel, creating a park-like environment that
was the original designer's intent. Although they are associated with McLaren, a gardener famous for his
work in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, they are not eligible as his masterwork, under Criteria C. The
tree rows are not eligible under Criteria B, as they are not associated specifically with the lives of an
individual or group.
DPR 523L(1/95)
*Required information
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _
Page 2 of 6 *Resource Name or#Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row
*Recorded by: Frances Schierenbeck *Date: March,2008 ❑ Continuation ■ Update
For purposes of eligibility, the tree row boundary has been determined to span both sides of El Camino Real,
from Chapin Avenue to Ray Drive, in the cities of Burlingame and Hillsborough. The areas of significance r
are landscape architecture and town planning. Since the orginal documentation of the resource in 1999, there
has been no change in the period of significance, it begins circa 1874, when the trees were planted, and
extends to 1949, which is fifty years from the initial documentation. _
The 1999 evaluation of the tree row section on El Camino Real between Chapin Avenue and Ray Drive
counted trees from Chapin to Grove Avenues. A total of 241 historic trees were noted, the majority of them
eucalyptus. Eucalyptus saplings were also counted, but not considered to be contributors to the historic
resource because they are of a variety not similar in overall height and shape to the historic eucalyptus.
While the northern portion of the tree row was not tabulated, good integrity was noted on the east side of El —
Camino Real between Grove and Rosedale Avenues, and on the west side from Adeline to Ray Drives. The
west side section between Grove Avenue and Adeline Drive was found to be of poor integrity. In all 200
Eucalyptus and 41 Elm trees were recorded.
In February of 2008, a new tree count was conducted for the tree row within its original documented
boundaries from Chapin Avenue to Ray Drive. A total of 217 historic trees were counted between Chapin —
and Grove Avenues. Twenty-eight elms and 189 eucalyptus were recorded, representing a loss of 24 historic
trees since 1999. Within the section of the tree row from Grove to Rosedale Avenues/Ray Drive, 49 historic
trees, 12 of which are elms and 37 eucalyptus were counted. Overall, the integrity of the tree row sections
has changed little since the 1999 assessment, with the greatest integrity between Grove and Rosedale
Avenues and Adeline and Ray Drives, and the least on the west side between Grove Avenue and Adeline _
Drive. Sixteen new elm trees were counted, and are considered contributors to the resource,because they
were the original design intent of McLaren. The current number of contributing trees in the historic resource
bordered by Chapin and Grove Avenues is 238, a net loss of 8 trees. Although it is difficult to estimate the _
extent of change within the tree row from the 1999 assessment to the present time, as the earlier count did
not include the section between Grove and Rosedale Avenues/Ray Drive, it appears there has been a slight
loss of historic trees. The overall integrity of the tree rows has remained relatively unchanged however,
inspite of the addition of non-historic contributing trees. Landscapes are dynamic and they continue to
grow old and die; new additions, if they are in character with the historic trees, can be considered historic.
(See page 4). --
Recommendation of addition of the section El Camino Real, from Chapin Avenue to Peninsula
Avenue,to the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows
The southerly portion of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row between Chapin Avenue to Ray Drive
was not included in the 1999 assessment. It is unknown why this section was not included in the original _
survey. To determine if the present boundary of the tree row should be extended to include this section, the
south end of El Camino Real from Chapin Avenue to Peninsula Avenue was examined. A total of 54 trees
were documented as possible contributors to the resource, 47 historic eucalyptus and 7 new non-historic
contributing elm trees.
DPR 523L(1195)
*Required information
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 3 of 6 *Resource Name or#Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row
*Recorded by: Frances Schierenbeck *Date: March,2008 ❑ Continuation ■ Update
The 1999 tree rows evaluation recorded a total length of 1.7 miles. With the addition of the newly recorded
.5 mile, the total length of the resource would be 2.2 miles, and the total number of contributing trees would
rise by 19%. Of the original 4 miles of tree rows planted in the 1870s, this would include over half the
original distance.
A comparable section, from Grove Avenue to Rosedale Avenue/Ray Drive, also a distance of.5 of a mile,
contains an identical number of contributing trees, demonstrating that the integrity of the proposed
additional section matches that of the existing resource boundary.
This section of the tree rows is already a physical aspect of the row of trees on El Camino Real. The 54 trees
that would be added to the resource include 47 original historic trees planted by McLaren. This addition
continues the pattern of the park-like atmosphere that was and is so important to the City of Burlingame and
the Town of Hillsborough. The development in the area follows the same pattern as the original portion of
the tree rows, some single family, multi-family, and small business offices. It also includes a section of the
tree rows that has always been included in any political decisions made regarding the trees. The inclusion of
the section along El Camino Real from Chapin to Peninsula Avenues would strengthen the visual setting of
the resource, by reuniting a portion of John McLaren's original design, contributing to the overall integrity
of the historic property.
DPR 523L(1195)
*Required information
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# —
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION d HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 4 of 6 *Resource Name or#Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row —
*Recorded by: Frances Schierenbeck *Date: March,2008 ❑ Continuation ■ Update
TREE NUMBERS FOR HOWARD-RALSTON TREE ROWS
1999 Survey 2008 Survey --
Chapin Avenue to Grove Avenue
Historic Elm Trees 41 28
Historic Eucalyptus Trees 200 189 —
Total Historic Trees 241 217
Loss of historic trees since 1999 -24
Total number of new contributing elms 16
Total number of contributing trees 241 233
Net loss of contributing trees in this section -8 —
Grove Avenue to Rosedale Avenue Good Integrity 12 Historic Elm Trees
(Eastside of El Camino Real) 37 Historic Eucalyptus Trees _
Grove Avenue to Adeline Drive Poor Integrity 49 *Total Historic Trees
(Westside of El Camino Real)
Adeline Drive to Ray Drive Good Integrity —
(Westside of El Camino Real, Rosedale to the East)
Total number of new contributing elms 7
Total number of contributing trees in this section 54 —
Total number of contributing trees 287
in original resource
*2008 survey is not broken down by blocks, includes both sides of El Camino Real from Grove Avenue to
Rosedale Avenue/Ray Drive. _
Possible new addition to resource
Chapin Avenue to Peninsula Avenue —
Historic Elm Trees N/A 0
Historic Eucalyptus Trees 47 _
Total Historic Trees 47
Total number of new contributing elms 7
Total number of contributing trees 54 _
Total number of contributing trees from 341
Rosedale Avenue/Ray Drive to Peninsula Avenue —
DPR 523L(1/95)
*Required information
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 5 of 6 *Resource Name or#Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row
*Recorded by: Frances Schierenbeck *Date: March,2008 ❑ Continuation ■ Update
F Ir
Looking north along EI Camino Real from Looking north along EI Camino Real. Center of
Peninsula Avenue. Proposed new section. block between Peninsula Avenue and
Bayswater Avenue. Proposed new section.
+s:
Looking north along EI Camino Real at Ralston Avenue. Looking north along EI Camino Real,from
Proposed new section. Chapin Avenue. Original portion of resource.
DPR 523L(1/95)
' *Required information
State of California—The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 6 of 6 'Resource Name or# Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row
'Recorded by: Frances Schierenbeck 'Date: March, 2008 ❑ Continuation ■ Update
1 ;
t
EI Camino Real looking north from
Floribunda Avenue.
DPR 523L(1195)
'Required information
ATTACHMENT 11
Standard Specifications Section 5.1
5-1._ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES
If archaeological materials, including but not limited to human skeletal material and
disarticulated human bone, are discovered at the job site, protect and leave undisturbed and in
place archaeological materials in accordance with the following codes and these special
provisions:
1 . California Public Resources Code, Division 5, Chapter 1 .7 § 5097.5
2. California Public Resources Code, Division 5, Chapter 1 .75 § 5097.98 and § 5097.99
-- 3. California Administrative Code, Title 14 § 4308
4. California Penal Code, Part 1 , Title 14 § 622-1/2
5. California Health and Safety Code, Division 7, Part 1 , Chapter 2, § 7050.5
Archaeological materials are the physical remains of past human activity and include
historic-period archaeological materials and prehistoric Native American archaeological
materials. Nonhuman fossils are not considered to be archaeological except when showing direct
evidence of human use or alteration or when found in direct physical association with
archaeological materials as described in these special provisions.
— Historic-period archaeological materials include cultural remains beginning with initial
European contact in California, but at least 50 years old. Historical archaeological materials
include:
1 . Trash deposits or clearly defined disposal pits containing tin cans, bottles, ceramic dishes,
or other refuse indicating previous occupation or use of the site
2. Structural remains of stone, brick, concrete, wood, or other building material found above
or below ground or
3 . Human skeletal remains from the historic period, with or without coffins or caskets,
including any associated grave goods
Prehistoric Native American archaeological materials include:
1 . Human skeletal remains or associated burial goods such as beads or ornaments
2. Evidence of tool making or hunting such as arrowheads and associated chipping debris of
fine-grained materials such as obsidian, chert, or basalt
3. Evidence of plant processing such as pestles, grinding slabs, or stone bowls
_ 4. Evidence of habitation such as cooking pits, stone hearths, packed or burnt earth floors or
5. Remains from food processing such as concentrations of discarded or burnt animal bone,
shellfish remains, or burnt rocks used in cooking
Immediately upon discovery of archaeological materials, stop all work within a 60-foot
radius of the archaeological materials and immediately notify the Engineer. Archaeological
materials found during construction are the property of the State. Do not resume work within the
60-foot radius of the find until the Engineer gives you written approval. If, in the opinion of the
Engineer, completion of the work is delayed or interfered with by reason of an archeological find
or investigation or recovery of archeological materials, you will be compensated for resulting
losses and an extension of time will be granted in the same manner as provided for in Section
8-1 .09, "Right of Way Delays," of the Standard Specifications.
The Department may use other forces to investigate and recover archaeological materials
from the location of the find. When ordered by the Engineer furnish labor, material, tools and
equipment, to secure the location of the find, and assist in the investigation or recovery of
archaeological materials and the cost will be paid for as extra work as provided in Section
4-1.03D, "Extra Work," of the Standard Specifications. _
Full compensation for immediarely notifying the Engineer and leaving undisturbed and in
place archaeological materials discovered on the job site shall be considered as included in the
various items of work and no additional compensation will be allowed therefor. —
CITYAGENDA 6a
o� ITEM#
BURLINGAIME MTG.
STAFF REPORT
�- DATE 5/19/2008
n Nc 6,00
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITT? �
BY
DATE: May 9, 2008 APPRO
F W1
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
ADOPT RESOLUTION LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE 2008
YEAR ON ALL CATEGORIES OF HALF MOON BAY HOTELS WITHIN THE SAN MATEO
COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt proposed resolution levying assessments for the second half of 2008 on the four classes of hotels that
were exempted in the annual proceedings of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District.
DISCUSSION:
In early 2001, the City Council formed the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District(BID)
under Streets & Highways Code §§ 36500 and following. In December 2007, the City Council levied
assessments on all the hotels in the District for 2008, with the exception of four classes of hotels in Half Moon
Bay. This exemption had been allowed in 2006 and 2007 as well, because Half Moon Bay's local BID was just
beginning.
The Half Moon Bay hotels asked the Advisory Board, and the Advisory Board recommended, that assessments
be levied for the second half of 2008 on all four classes of hotels. This would provide full District services to
them. In other words, the hotels would pay one-half of the annual assessments, and would intend to be part of
the full 2009 assessments.
The Council adopted a resolution of intention on April 21, 2008, setting a public hearing on May 19, 2008. A
copy of the resolution was mailed to each of the affected hotels and published in a newspaper of general
circulation.
The City has not received any protests from any hotel regarding this proposal.
Attachments
Proposed Resolution
Distribution: Anne LeClair, SMCCVB; Finance Director
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR SECOND HALF OF
THE 2008 YEAR ON ALL CATEGORIES OF HOTELS IN HALF MOON BAY IN
THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS,pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sea.,the
San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District was established for the purpose of
promoting tourism in the District through promotion of scenic,recreational,cultural,hospitality,and
other attractions in the San Mateo County region; and
WHEREAS, in December 2007, assessments were levied on all hotels in the District with
the exception of certain types of hotels in the City of Half Moon Bay because Half Moon Bay was
working on completing its local economic promotion programs; and
WHEREAS, the hotels in Half Moon Bay requested the District to assess all hotels in the
last half of 2008 in order to once again become full participants in the District; and
WHEREAS,the Advisory Board requested the City Council to impose assessments for the
second half of the 2008 year on the four types of hotels that were exempted in the December
assessment process; and
WHEREAS, these hotels would only be assessed at one-half the annual assessment under
Zone B assessments for the year 2008; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code, a public hearing on the proposed
assessments was duly noticed for May 19,2008, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of
Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and
WHEREAS,at the public hearing held at that place and time,the City Council received and
considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons; and
WHEREAS,the City did not receive a majority protest pursuant to the Streets&Highways
Code as to the assessments or to any program or activity proposed for the District; and
WHEREAS,the proposed assessments appear reasonable and consistent with the ordinance
establishing the District and the underlying State law, and the assessment basis is within the basis
established in Ordinance No. 1648; and
1
WHEREAS,the proposed services, programs, and activities of the District are consistent
with the ordinance establishing the District,
NOW,THEREFORE,the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve,determine,and find as
follows:
1. Written protests to assessments,improvements or activities were not received at the public
hearing that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following.
2.The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the Second Half of Year 2008 on the
four classes of hotels in the City of Half Moon Bay that were exempted in the December 2007 action
to pay for services, programs, and activities of the District.
3.The types of services,programs,and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on
businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit"A", incorporated herein by reference.
4. The basis for assessments for the Year 2008 on the four classes of previously exemtped
hotels in Half Moon Bay are set forth in Exhibit`B", incorporated herein by reference.
5. The assessments for the Year 2008 on hotels in Half Moon Bay are set forth in Exhibit
"C", incorporated by reference.
6. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment as provided in Exhibit`B."
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 on the day of
, 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
UAFILES\Hote1Bid\2008 Processes\2008iadopt-2ndHalf.res.wpd
2
EXHIBIT A
SERVICES AND PROGRAMS TO BE PROVIDED IN 2008
San Mateo Tourism Business Improvement District
1. Generate Additional Group Leads through:
a. Participating in over 50 trade shows, putting word out about San Mateo County
b. Hosting receptions in Washington, DC, Chicago and Sacramento, and Southern
California;
C. Conducting group "fam" (familiarization)tours for meeting planners from the
Midwest and Washington, DC area;
d. Targeting medical and incentive markets and conducting mail and sales blitzes in
those areas;
e. Conducting multiple individual "fam" tours for planners as well as "site" visits for
planners with possible interest in the area;
f. Further penetrating the military market buy conducting "fam" tour for military
planner group;
g. Hosting a "fam" tour for religious meeting planners;
h. Parlaying existing accounts, (e.g. California Farm Bureau annual meeting
contract) into related-industry accounts;
i. Increasing our marketing to planners in the sports industry, continuing our work
with Stanford University's athletic directors and other area universities, schools
and specialty sports groups;
j. Conducting numerous targeted mail and sales blitzes, including two in Chicago,
two in Washington, DC and two in Chicago;
k. Using testimonials to recruit additional planners;
1. Enhancing/updating trade show booth decor and marketing materials;
M. Increasing memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key,
potential target visitors;
n. Enhancing advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners;
o. Creating additional specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market
segments (e.g. golf, culinary experiences);
p. Continuing to make contacts/build business in Washington, D.C., Sacramento,
and Midwestern markets;
q. Continuing efforts to focus on new feeder markets for discounted airlines into
SFO, including Boston,New York and Calgary;
r. Continuing in-house sales managers' focus on corporate, SMERF markets;
S. Hosting "fam" trip for Sacramento planners;
t. Broadening outreach to fraternal groups from Midwest;
U. Targeting agricultural meetings;
V. Continuing in-house sales managers' focus on corporate, SMERF markets;
W. Creation of strong presence with tour and travel operators through conference
attendance and ads in targeted T&T publications;
X. Working with SFCVB and "Team Japan" to secure time on San Francisco Bay
A-1
Area "fam" trips for Japanese meeting planners to tour our area;
Y. Enhancing advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners;
Z. Continuing investment in Travel planner publications and distribution of editorial
to same publications.
2. Generate additional individual room nights-leisure and corporate-by:
a. Contracting for PR/professional ads targeting potential customers as outlined by
research;
b. Continue to place visitor guides in California Welcome Centers throughout the
State to generate drive traffic;
C. Participating in multiple travel writer shows, e.g. Society of American Travel
Writers and National Assn. of Travel Journalists in America;
d. Continuing to generate multiple editorial pieces every month for distribution to
several hundred publications per month;
e. Continuing to respond to all California Travel and Tourism Commission leads for
editorial requests;
f. Hosting annual group travel writer "fam" tour and numerous individual "fam"
tours for writers, editors and photographers;
g. Updating on-line individual reservation service to go directly to properties for
reservations;
h. Creating additional collateral and marketing materials;
i. Continuing ads in travel publications which generate the greatest return, e.g.
Sunset;
j. Continuing to subscribe to multiple travel writer "lead" services and editorial
calendar release programs, responding immediately to leads and calendaring all
scheduled publications for follow-up;
k. Continuing to publish specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market
segments;
1. Continuing to work with SFO, CalTrain, and BART on coordinated marketing of
the area;
in. Continue providing links to members' properties on Bureau website.
n. Continuing operation of Visitor Center Kiosk at Hiller Aviation Museum.
o. Continue Culinary Destination program with San Mateo County Farm Bureau and
San Mateo County Harbor District.
3. Use Film Commission to Enhance Area's Image and to Generate Room Nights by:
a. Continuing monthly "teaser" thumbnail photo emails to location scouts/producers
on various sites in San Mateo County;
b. Continuing immediate responses to California Film Commission leads re: specific
areas sought, finding matches within our County;
C. Continuing to attend several film industry trade shows to give producers an idea
of what we have to offer;
d. Continuing to build photo database for outreach by Film Commission;
e. Proactively contacting key location scouts and producers to offer assistance.
A-2
EXHIBIT B
ASSESSMENT BASIS FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2008 YEAR
CATEGORY ZONE A—ASSESSMENT FOR ZONE B—ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR HALF MOON BAY—ZONE B
YEAR 2008 2008 ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2008
Hotel with full service $360 per sleeping room X 65% $360 per sleeping room X 55% $360 per sleeping room X 55%
and more than 20 sleeping (no assessment in Half Moon Bay) 2
rooms
Hotel with limited service $180 per sleeping room X 60% $180 per sleeping room X 40%
and more than 1000 square
feet of meeting space
and more than 20 sleeping
rooms
Hotel with limited service $90 per sleeping room X 60% $90 per sleeping room X 40% $90 per sleeping room X 400/0
and some meeting space but (no assessment in Half Moon Bay)
less than 1000 square feet
and more than 20 sleeping
rooms
Hotel with standard service $54 per sleeping room X 60% $54 per sleeping room X 40% $54 per sleeping room X 40%
and more than 20 sleeping (no assessment in Half Moon Bay) 2
rooms
Hotel with full service, $54 per sleeping room X 30% $54 per sleeping room X 25% $54 per sleeping room X 25%
limited service, or standard (no assessment in Half Moon Bay) 2
service, and
20 sleeping rooms or less
ZONE A—Includes all cities participating in the District except Half Moon Bay
ZONE B—Includes Half Moon Bay, and most of the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County
Assessment of new hotels openingduring fiscal year:
A new hotel shall be assessed for an amount equal to the ratio of the number of full quarters remaining in the fiscal year multiplied by the full annual
assessment that would have been due. A partial quarter is not counted for the ratio. For example, if a hotel opens in May, there are two full quarters
and 2 months of one partial quarter remaining in the fiscal year. The full annual assessment would be multiplied by 2/4 for that year's assessment for
the new hotel. However, new hotels in Half Moon Bay which are being assessed on a half-year basis would use a denominator of 2 rather than 4.
EXHIBIT C --SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS
YEAR 2008 ASSESSMENTS FOR SECOND HALF -- HALF MOON BAY
Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms 6-Month Assessment Monthly assessment
Half Moon Bay
Cameron's Inn B $ 54.00 3 $ 32.40 $ 5.40
Holiday Inn Express B $ 54.00 52 $ 561.60 $ 93.60
Mill Rose Inn&Garden B $ 54.00 6 $ 64.80 $ 10.80
Miramar Lodge&Conf. Center B $ 90.00 40 $ 720.00 $ 120.00
Moon Dream Cottage B $ 54.00 0 $ - $ -
Old Thyme Inn B $ 54.00 7 $ 75.60 $ 12.60
Plum Tree Court B $ 54.00 6 $ 64.80 $ 10.80
Ramada Limited B $ 54.00 29 $ 313.20 $ 52.20
Ritz Carlton B $ 360.00 261 $ 25,839.00 $ 4,306.50
San Benito House B $ 54.00 12 $ 129.60 $ 21.60
The Gilchrest House B $ 54.00 1 $ 10.80 $ 1.80
Zaballa House B $ 54.00 23 $ 248.40 $ 41.40
Room Total 440
Total: $ 28,060.20
1 of 1 5/19/2008
CITr AGENDA 6b
6UR
2" ITEM#
LINGAME STAFF REPORT
MTG.
<o
DATE 5/19/2008
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT
BY
DATE: May 9, 2008 APPROVED
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney /01 FW/
SUBJECT:
A) ADOPT ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT APPLICATION AND RENEWALS FEES
FOR VARIOUS BUSINESS PERMITS WILL BE SET BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
AND EXPLICITLY REQUIRING ANNUAL INSPECTIONS OF TAXICABS
B) ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING REVISIONS TO MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO
AFFIRM POLICE PERMIT FEES AND BUILDING MOVING FEE AND REVISE FEES
FOR PARKS & RECREATION PERMITS TO CLARIFY APPLICATION OF FEES
AND SERVICE PROVIDED
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Adopt ordinance providing that most business permit fees would be established by Council resolution
and expressly providing for annual taxicab inspections and direct City Clerk to publish a summary
within 15 days of adoption.
B. Adopt resolution setting police fees, affirming fee for building moving permit, and clarifying fees for
parks&recreation uses.
DISCUSSION:
A. Proposed Ordinance
In February 2008, the City completed a comprehensive study of its user fees. In April 2008,the City adopted its
annual master fee schedule; however, certain fees for business permits are established in the Municipal Code
and any change to the amounts would require an ordinance. However, because these fees are based on the costs
for actually providing the services of review and investigation, these fees should be adjusted on a regular basis,
and the best way to do that is to amend them through a City Council resolution, usually at the annual review
process.
In addition, the fee study found that the Police Department was providing an annual inspection of City-permitted
taxicabs, but that the fees did not reflect this inspection time. The proposed ordinance expressly provides for
the annual inspection and an annual inspection fee would be charged for each taxicab.
Mayor and Council
Re: Adopt Ordinance to Set Certain Fees by Resolution and Resolution Setting Certain Police,
Building, and Parks & Recreation Fees
May 9, 2008
Page 2
Finally, the fee for a permit for moving buildings has been set in the Municipal Code, and this ordinance would
change that to being set by resolution.
B. Proposed Resolution Adopting Revisions to Master Fee Schedule
The proposed resolution affirms the fees that were adopted in April 2008, but which required an ordinance to
allow revision by resolution.
In addition, the proposed resolution revises some of the parks &recreation fees:
—Deletes references to San Mateo Union High School District with regard to field and facility use
under an existing field and facility agreement, because the District has unilaterally terminated its master field
and facility agreement with the City.
—Clarifies that a field attendant is charged for Washington Park Ballfield and what the attendant's
hourly rate is.
—Clarifies that the charges for Burlingame High School facilities are now set by the District and the
City has no control over those charges.
Attachment
Proposed Ordinance
Distribution
Director of Parks & Rec
Police Chief
Finance Director
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTERS 6.24,
6.30,6.36, 6.38,6.40, 6.41,6.42, 6.44,AND 18.07 TO PROVIDE THAT THE FEES
FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND RENEWALS WILL BE SET BY CITY
COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.36 TO EXPLICITLY
4 PROVIDE FOR ANNUAL INSPECTIONS OF TAXICABS
5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
6
7 Section 1. In February 2008, the City completed a comprehensive use fee study to
8 determine what the actual costs for the issuance and renewal of permits in the City was so that
9 users would not be charged more than the actual costs incurred by the City and that the issuance
10 and renewal process was not being unduly subsidized by taxpayers. In April 2008, the City
11 Council adopted a revised master fee schedule to reflect the results of that study and to ensure
12 that no fees were charged at a rate higher than the actual costs incurred. However, some fees
13 that are charged by the City are established in the Municipal Code, and those fees must be
14 changed by ordinance. This ordinance will delete many of the fees set in the Code,and instead
15 provide that the fees will be set by Council resolution, as are most other fees in the City.
16
17 Section 2. Section 6.24.030 (Peddlers & Solicitors) is amended to read as follows:
18 6.24.030 Permit fee and investigation.
19 All applications for permits shall be accompanied by an investigation and permit fee as
20 established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time, no part of which is
21 refundable,together with the fee charged by the state for fingerprint submittal. Upon receipt of
22 the application,the license collector shall refer the application to the police department,which
2 within a period of ten(10)business days from the date of filing the application shall interview
24 the applicant or any other person and make any other investigation necessary to approve or deny
25 the permit. If the police department is unable to complete its review within ten (10) business
26 days from the date of filing the application, the application will be deemed approved and the
27 department shall issue the permit;however,should the department determine after issuance that
28 the application should have been denied, the permit will be suspended pursuant to Section
4/28/2008
1 6.24.090 of this chapter.
2
3 Section 3. Section 6.30.040 (Valet Parking) is amended to read as follows:
4 6.30.040 Permit fee and investigation.
5 All applications shall be accompanied by an investigation fee a filing fee as established
6 by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time, in addition to any charges for
7 processing fingerprints which may be assessed by the State of California, and no part of either
8 fee is refundable. Upon receipt of said application, the license collector shall refer the
9 application to the police department which shall interview the applicant or any other person and
10 make any other investigation necessary to approve or deny the permit.
11
12 Section 4. Section 6.36.050 (Taxicabs) is amended to read as follows:
13 6.36.050 Permit fee and investigation.
14 All applications shall be accompanied by a filing and investigation fee in an amount as
15 established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time, no part of which is
16 refundable. Applications for an owner's permit shall include a certificate of insurance meeting
17 the requirements of this chapter. Additional fees may be charged to cover costs of processing
18 the applicant's fingerprints by the state of California. Upon receipt of said application, the
19 license collector shall refer the application to the police department which within thirty(30)days
20 of filing the application shall interview the applicant or any other person and make any other
21 investigation necessary to approve or deny the permit, provided that said thirty(30) days may
22 be extended for such period as may be necessary to obtain fingerprint records from the
23 appropriate state agency.
24
25 Section 5. Section 6.36.120 (Taxicabs) is amended to read as follows:
26 6.36.120 Safe maintenance of taxicabs—Inspection.
27 (a) All public passenger vehicles for hire shall be under the supervision and control of
28 the chief of police, and he or she shall not permit any driver to operate any taxicab in the city
4/28/2008 - 2 -
I while the same or any equipment used thereon, or therewith, is unsafe, defective or in an
2 unsanitary condition. Every taxicab shall be at all times subject to the inspection of any police
3 officer of the city.
4 (b) At least every twelve (12) months every taxicab shall be safety checked by an
5 independent state licensed auto service or repair facility which is an approved brake and lamp
6 station. Written proof of the safety check shall be carried in each vehicle.
7 (c) Before placing any taxicab in operation under a permit issued pursuant to this
8 chapter,the taxicab operator shall present the taxicab to the police department for inspection to
9 ensure that the taxicab complies with the requirements of this chapter. In addition, not more
10 than sixty(60)days before the annual renewal of the operator's permit,the operator shall present
11 all of its taxicabs that are being operated by the taxicab operator under the operator's permit to
12 the police department for inspection to ensure that the taxicab complies with the requirements
13 of this chapter.
14 (d)An inspection fee as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time
15 to time shall be paid by the taxicab operator before the initial or annual city inspection is
16 performed.
17
18 Section 6. Section 6.36.190 (Taxicabs) is amended to read as follows:
19 6.36.190 Expiration and renewal of operator's or driver's permit.
20 (a)Every operator's permit shall be renewed annually,no later than June 1 of each year
21 Any permit not renewed shall be null and void on July 31 of that year.
22 (b) Every driver's permit shall be renewed annually,no less than ninety(90)days prior
23 to the anniversary date of its issuance. Any permit not renewed shall be null and void on such
24 anniversary date.
25 (c) The investigation fee for renewals shall be as established by resolution adopted by
26 the city council from time to time, no part of which is refundable. Additional fees may be
27 charged to cover costs such as processing fingerprints.Prior to permit renewal being granted the
28 permittee must provide a new photograph and current information concerning any changes to
4/28/2008 - 3 -
I the facts set forth in the original application. Failure to renew the permit in a timely manner
2 shall be cause for requiring a completely new permit.
3
4 Section 7. Section 6.38.060 (Fortunetellers) is amended to read as follows:
5 6.38.060 Permit fee and investigation.
6 All applications for permits shall be accompanied by an investigation fee as established
7 by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time,no part of which is refundable, and
8 a surety bond meeting the requirements of this chapter.Additional fees may be charged to cover
9 costs of processing the applicant's fingerprints by the state of California. Upon receipt of said
10 application,the license collector shall refer the application to the police department which shall
11 make a written recommendation to the license collector within thirty (30) days, provided that
12 said thirty(30) days may be extended for such period as may be necessary to obtain fingerprint
13 records from the appropriate state agency.
14
15 Section 8. Subsection 6.40.060(a) (Massage) is amended to read as follows:
16 (a) All applications for initial permits shall be accompanied by a filing and
17 investigation fee as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time,no
18 part of which is refundable. Additional fees may be charged to cover costs of processing the
19 applicant's fingerprints by the state of California and for the medical examiner's competency
20 examination.
21
22 Section 9. Subsection 6.40.120(a) (Massage) is amended to read as follows:
23 (a) Upon sale,transfer or relocation of a massage,spa,bathing or similar establishment,
24 the permit shall not be transferable without the written approval of the chief of police and the
25 finance director. An application for such a change shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable
26 filing and investigation fee as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time
27 to time and provide all of the information required in Section 6.40.040.
28
4/28/2008 - 4 -
I Section 10. Section 6.40.160 (Massage) is amended to read as follows:
2 6.40.160 Renewal of permits.
3 Each permit shall be renewed annually, no less than ninety (90) days prior to the
4 anniversary date of its issuance. Any permit not renewed shall be null and void on such
5 anniversary date.The investigation fee for renewals shall be as established by resolution adopted
6 by the city council from time to time, no part of which is refundable. Additional fees may be
7 charged to cover costs such as processing fingerprints.Prior to permit renewal being granted the
8 permittee shall:
9 (1) Provide two (2) photographs of passport size at least two (2) inches by two (2)
10 inches showing the head and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinct manner taken with
11 the sixty(60)days immediately prior to filing the renewal application and current information
12 concerning any changes to the facts set forth in the initial or immediately prior renewal
13 application;
14 (2) Obtain a new certificate, dated within thirty (30) days of the renewal, from a
15 medical doctor stating that the licensee is free from infectious, contagious or communicable
16 diseases capable of being transmitted through therapeutic massage;
17 (3) Obtain clearance from the police department that the permittee has had no arrests
18 or convictions for violations listed in subsection 6.40.080(a)(3) or(4)of this chapter since the
19 permit was issued or last renewed;
20 (4) Provide a copy of a diploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized school
21 demonstrating the applicant's successful completion of a course of study that satisfies the
22 then-current requirements of subsection 6.40.040(m)of this chapter.However,this requirement
23 does not apply if the original permit was approved before March 22, 2005.
24 Upon complete submission of this information together with the required filing fee,the
25 permit shall be renewed.
26
27 Section 11. Section 6.41.040 (Model studios) is amended to read as follows:
28 6.41.040 Permit fee and investigation.
4/28/2008 - 5 -
I All applications for initial permits shall be accompanied by a filing and investigation fee
2 as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time,no part of which shall
3 be refundable. Additional fees may be charged to cover costs of processing the applicant's
4 fingerprints by the State of California. Upon receipt of an operator's application, the license
5 collector shall refer the application to the director of community development,building official,
6 the fire department,the police department and health officer, each of which within a period of
7 thirty(30)days from the date of filing the application shall inspect the premises proposed to be
8 used as a model studio and shall make a written recommendation to the police department
9 provided that said thirty (30) days may be extended for such period as may be necessary to
10 obtain fingerprint records from the appropriate state agency. Escort applications shall only be
11 referred to the police department.
12
13 Section 12. Section 6.41.100 (Model studios) is amended to read as follows:
14 6.41.100 Sale or transfer of establishment.
15 Upon sale,transfer or relocation of a model studio,the permit and business license shall
16 not be transferable without the written approval of the license collector.An application for such
17 change shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable filing and investigation fee as established by
18 resolution adopted by the city council from time to time and provide all of the information
19 required in Section 6.41.030.
20
21 Section 13. Section 6.41.130 (Model studios) is amended to read as follows:
22 6.41.130 Renewal of permits.
23 Every permit shall be renewed annually, no less than ninety (90) days prior to the
24 anniversary date of its issuance. Any permit not renewed shall be null and void on such
25 anniversary date. The filing and investigation fee for renewals shall be as established by
26 resolution adopted by the city council from time to time, no part of which is refundable.
27 Additional fees may be charged to cover costs such as processing fingerprints. Prior to permit
28 renewal being granted, the permittee must:
4/28/2008 - 6 -
I (a) Provide a new photograph and current information concerning any changes to the
2 facts set forth in the application;
3 (b) Obtain clearance from the police department signifying that the licensee has had no
4 arrests or convictions for violations of those penal code sections listed in Section 6.40.080(a)(3)
5 of this code,since the permit was issued or last renewed.
6
7 Section 14. 6.42.060 (Tanning facilities) is amended to read as follows:
8 6.42.060 Permit fee and investigation.
9 All applications for initial permits shall be accompanied by a filing and investigation fee
10 as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time, no part of which is
11 refundable. Additional fees may be charged to cover costs of processing the applicant's
12 fingerprints by the State of California. Upon receipt of an operator's application, the license
13 collector shall refer the application to the director of community development,building official,
14 the fire department and the police department,each of which within a period of thirty(30)days
15 from the date of filing the application shall inspect the premises proposed to be used as a tanning
16 facility,interview the applicant or any other person and make any other investigation necessary
17 to make a written recommendation to the police department,provided that said thirty(30)days
18 may be extended for such period as may be necessary to obtain fingerprint records from the
19 appropriate state agency.Employee applications shall be referred only to the police department.
20
21 Section 15. Section 6.42.120 (Tanning facilities) is amended to read as follows:
22 6.42.120 Sale or transfer of establishment.
23 Upon sale, transfer or relocation of a tanning facility, the permit and business license
24 shall not be transferred without the written approval of the license collector.An application for
25 such change shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable filing and investigation fee as established
26 by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time and provide all of the information
27 required in Section 6.42.040.
28
4/28/2008 - 7 -
r`
I Section 16. Section 6.42.160 (Tanning facilities) is amended to read as follows:
2 6.42.160 Renewal of permits.
3 Every permit shall be renewed annually, no less than ninety (90) days prior to the
4 anniversary date of its issuance. Any permit not renewed shall be null and void on such
5 anniversary date. The filing and investigation fee for renewals shall be as established by
6 resolution adopted by the city council from time to time, no part of which is refundable.
7 Additional fees may be charged to cover costs such as processing fingerprints. Prior to permit
8 renewal being granted the permittee must:
9 (a) Provide a new photograph and current information concerning any changes to the
10 facts set forth in the application;
11 (b) Obtain clearance from the police department signifying that the permittee has had
12 no arrests or convictions for violations of those penal code section listed in Section 6.42.080(c)
13 of this code since the permit was issued or last renewed.
14
15 Section 17. Section 6.44.050 (Private patrols) is amended to read as follows:
16 6.44.050 Permit fee and investigation.
17 All applications for initial permits shall be accompanied by a filing and investigation fee
18 as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time, no part of which is
19 refundable.Additional fees may be charged to cover costs of processing applicant's fingerprints
20 by the State of California. Upon receipt of said application,the license collector shall refer the
21 application to the police department which shall make a written recommendation to the license
22 collector within thirty(30) days, provided that said thirty(30) days may be extended for such
23 period as may be necessary to obtain fingerprint records from the appropriate state agency.
24
25 Section 18. Section 6.44.080 (Private patrols) is amended to read as follows:
26 6.44.080 Renewal of permits.
27 Every permit shall be renewed annually, no less than ninety (90) days prior to the
28 anniversary date of its issuance upon approval of the chief of police.The filing and investigation
4/28/2008 - 8 -
I fee for renewals shall be as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to
2 time, no part of which is refundable. Additional fees may be charged to cover costs such as
3 processing fingerprints. Any permit not renewed shall be null and void on such anniversary
4 date.
5
6 Section 19. Uniform Administrative Code Section 102.6.1 contained in Section
7 18.07.030 is amended to read as follows:
8 102.6.1 Permit Required. Before any building or structure is moved on or along any
9 street within the city,a permit shall first be obtained from the building official for such moving.
10 The permit application shall describe the streets and route over which the building will travel,
11 the location of final installation if within the city, and the hours during which building will be
12 moved. The building official will collect a fee as established by resolution of the council from
13 time to time for required investigations and inspections. This fee shall be separate from any
14 construction permit-related fees.
15 Prior to issuance ofpermit,the building official shall notify all affected city officials and,
16 in the event that any such officials object to route or time of travel, changes shall be made to
17 meet such objections.
18
19
20 Section 20. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect
21 thirty (30) days after its adoption.
22
Mayor
23
24 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
25 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5"'
26 day of May, 2008, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
27 day of , 2008, by the following vote:
28 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
4/28/2008 - 9 -
I NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
2 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4/28/2008 - 10 -
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING REVISIONS TO 2008 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City regularly reviews the fees that it charges to persons seeking specific
services or use of City facilities; and
WHEREAS, in April 2008,the City Council adopted a revised master fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, some of the revisions required adoption of an ordinance to allow the fees to
be set by resolution rather than by amendment to the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance allowing revision by resolution has now been adopted and the
fees adopted in April 2008 are affirmed; and
WHEREAS,use of the main ballfield at Washington Park requires a field attendant,and this
resolution provides an hourly rate for such an attendant and expressly requires the attendant for the
ballfield; and
WHEREAS,the San Mateo Union High School District has elected to terminate its master
facilities agreement with Burlingame,and therefore,neither the District nor residents of the District
who do not reside within the City are entitled to any preferential use or fee system any longer; and
WHEREAS, the fees for most San Mateo Union High School District facilities will no
longer be set in concert with either the City or the community,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The revisions to the Master Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit A are approved and shall
take effect on July 1, 2008, unless earlier specified.
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
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (MAY 2008 AMENDMENTS)
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Building Moving Resolution No. 33-2008 $299.00 $299.00
(Section 18.07.030)
—Delete from Engineering Master Fee Schedule and place in Building Department Schedule
1
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (MAY 2008 AMENDMENTS)
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Group Classifications for Purposes
of Parks&Recreation Facilities Usage:
Group A: Government agencies with Parks&Recreation service agreements with the City to share all of their
facilities, such as Burlingame School District
Group B: Non-profit(501c(3)) groups or organizations, such as AYSO,BYBA,Library Foundation.
Group C: Private parties, commercial,business, and profit-making organizations, such as weddings, seminars,
receptions
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
INDOOR FACILITIES ,, p'N�' `a
Burlin2ame High School
Main Gym
Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge Set by SMUHSD
Group B
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Group C
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 27-2006 $30.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $50.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Small Gym
Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge Set by SMUHSD
Group B
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Group C
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
2
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Other Indoor Facilities, except the
Auditorium
Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge Set by SMUHSD
Group B
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 33-2008 $16.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $20.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Group C
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 33-2008 $32.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $38.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Auditorium
Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge
Group B
Burlingame Residents crf— Resolution No. 33-2008 $32.00 per hour $32.00 per hour
Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $38.00 per hour $38.00 per hour
Group C
Burlingame Residents of— Resolution No. 33-2008 $83.00 per hour $83.00 per hour
Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $100.00 per hour $100.00 per hour
Field Attendant Clarification of fee $39.00 per hour
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
_.74
Burlin ag me High School
Back Field
Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge Set by SMUHSD
Group B
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $20.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Group C
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
3
FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Burlinizame High School
Softball Field (#1 or#2)
Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge Set by SMUHSD
Group B
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $15.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Group C
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 31-2003 $20.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $25.00 per hour Set by SMUHSD
Burlingame High School
Tennis Courts
Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge Set by SMUHSD
Group B
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 for 4 hours Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 for 4 hours Set by SMUHSD
Group C
Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 61-2006 $30.00 for 4 hours Set by SMUHSD
Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $30.00 for 4 hours Set by SMUHSD
Washington Park Main Ball Field for
baseball
Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge
Group B
Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour+
field attendant
Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour+
field attendant
Group C
Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour+
field attendant
Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $60.00 per hour $60.00 per hour+
field attendant
4
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE (MAY 2008 AMENDMENTS)
POLICE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Fortune Teller Section 6.38.060 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Massage Operator
Application Section 6.40.060 $250.00 plus $250.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer Section 6.40.120 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Renewal Section 6.40.160 $100.0 plus $100.0 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Massage Practitioner
Application Section 6.40.060 $250.00 plus $250.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Renewal Section 6.40.160 $100.00 plus $100.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Model/Escort Service
Application Section 6.41.040 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer Section 6.41.100 $100.00 plus $100.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Renewal Section 6.41.130 $75.00 plus $75.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Peddlers and Solicitors Resolution No. $276.00 for $276.00 for
33-2008 investigation plus investigation plus
(Section fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
6.24.030)
5
SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE PROPOSED FEE
Private Patrol Company
Application Section 6.44.050 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Renewal Section 6.44.080 $75.00 plus $75.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Tanning Salon
Application Section 6.42.060 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Sale or Transfer Section 6.42.120 $100.00 plus $100.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Renewal Section 6.42.160 $75.00 plus $75.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
Taxi Operator
Application Resolution No. $38.00+++plus $38.00+++plus
33-2008 (Section fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
6.36.050)
Renewal
Resolution No. $21.00+++plus $21.00+++plus
33-2008 fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
(Section
6.36.190)
Taxi Driver
Application Resolution No. $61.00+++plus $61.00+++plus
33-2008 (Section fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
6.36.050)
Renewal
Resolution No. $55.00+++ plus $55.00+++ plus
33-2008 fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
(Section
6.36.190)
Taxicab Annual Inspection Resolution No. $68.00 per vehicle+++ $68.00 per vehicle+++
33-2008 (Section-
6.36.120)
Valet Parking Section 6.30.040 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus
fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees
6
+++ - Change in fee will occur 30 days following adoption of ordinance amending Chapter 6.36 or July 1, 2008,
whichever occurs first
7
STAFF REPORT
4k1W=JDZ
AGENDA
ITEM# 8a
MTG. 5/19/08
DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sUB TED
BY Q
DATE: May 13 2008
APPROVE-
FROM:
PPROVEFROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY
sUBJECr: REPORT ON THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMI ON'S MEETING
AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLAN TO HAVE STREETS
WITH THEMED TREES
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council support the recommendations of the
Beautification Commission after reviewing the minutes and attachments from the Beautification
Commission meeting and hearing from the public.
BACKGROUND:
At its April 3, 2008 meeting the Burlingame Beautification Commission heard a proposal from two
interested citizens on changing the current Street Tree Planting practices. The plan was complex in that
it addressed several distinct issues simultaneously, including width of available planting areas, altering
current planting lists, changing how Street Trees are selected by district/block/neighborhood,
(re)introducing the concept of dominant species, updating the tree inventory, and potential elimination
of tree categories from planting plans (ornamentals and evergreens).
The City Council discussed the item at their April 7"'meeting, directed staff to not plant any more street
trees unless the requested tree was the same species as at least 50% of the trees on the block. The item
was reaffirmed by Council at their April 21St meeting. The Council also directed that the item be placed
on the Beautification Commission's May 2008 agenda.
The Beautification Commissioners, at their May 5th meeting, heard testimony from four individuals and
five emails regarding a plan to create tree themed streets throughout the City. The in-depth discussions
included a wide variety of points associated with the plan including predominate tree planting, existing
"themed"streets,diseases and monocultures,property owner choice,vacant planting sites in the City,"good"trees with
tall canopies, "grand" trees, diversity, ornamentals, evergreens, recommended changes to existing tree lists, reducing
smaller trees from lists and adding taller species, limitations of planter strip widths in the City, ADA compliance,
"meandering" sidewalks, existing"themes"vs. sidewalks,delays in planting, impacts on Tree City USA status and use
of Green Trees grant funds.
The Commission reached consensus on the following points for recommendation to the City Council:
• Retain existing"themed" streets in the City of Burlingame by replacing with existing specie, if
the dominant tree on the street is a tall tree even if it disrupts sidewalks
• Do not create "themed" streets where they currently do not exist and allow the property owners
to choose off of the appropriate tree list
• Revisions be made by staff to the official street tree lists to contain trees that only have the
tallest, most significant canopies
• Retain"ornamentals" and"evergreen"tree species that have the tallest, most significant canopies
on the official tree lists
• Include some larger species from 6' planter strip list to the 3-6' planter strip list where possible
or change dimensions of planting strip requirements
• Create larger planting spaces throughout the City where possible
• Only remove and replace trees when an existing tree must be removed
• Tree planting should begin as soon as possible
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Amended Street Tree Policy Proposal
B. Minutes from the May 5, 2008 Beautification Commission Meeting
C. Emails included in the Commission Packet
D. Street Tree Planting Plan
E. City of Burlingame Street Tree Facts
F. Staff Options for Planting Larger Stature Street Trees
G. Letter to Residents on April 2008 Street Tree Planting List
Attachment "A"
AMENDED STREET TREE POLICE'PROPOSAL
a REVIEW POLICY EMPLEMENTATION OF BURLINGAiME'S URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT
PLAN,FOCUSING ON AREAS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT(SEE EXCERPTS BELOW).
a POSTPONE SPRING PLANTING.
a UPDATE STREET TREE INVENTORY, NOTING THE TRENDS OR "THEMES ON CERTAIN
STREETS.
a REVIEW AND REASSESS CURRENT STREET TREE LIST, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE
PRIMARY GOAL (WHENEVER POSSIBLE) SHOULD BE TO ENHANCE THE BEAUTY OF OUR
STREETS WITH THE CONTINUITY OF THE DOMINANT, 'GRANDER'TYPES OF TREES RATHER
THAN ORNAMENTALS. TO THAT END. CONSIDER TI14T 'SCALLOPING' OF SIDEWALKS
CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED LATER ON "THIN CITY SETBACKS. IN ORDER TO
ACCOMMODATE PLANTING GRANDER TYPES OF TREES IN NARROWER STRIPS,
® VISUALLY ASSESS NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE FEW OR NO TREES AND SELECT THREE
(3) SPECIES, (INCLIUDING TWO (2) TYPES THAT WILL BE GRAND IN STATURE AND
APPROPRIATE WHERE NO OVER-WIRES EXIST) FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONSIDER.
N( T'rFV ppopFRTy OWNR.R,C nF TR-F.?ROC;R A Mi AND LF INTEFF.STr^D HAVE THEM RETURN
A POSTCARD WITH THEIR CHOICE. . O VE ALL. CHANGE THE CURRENT POLICYWIIICH
ALL 0WS HOMEOWNERS TO SELECT THEIR OWN STREET TREES.
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Attachment`B"
MAY 5,2008
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson
Carney.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Carney,Benson,Ellis,Grandcolas,Lahey(arrived @ 6:05p),and McQuaide
Absent: Commissioner Wright
Staff: Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, Supervisor Disco,and Admin. Secretary Harvey
Guests: Pat Giorm (1445 Balboa), Jennifer Pfaff(615 Bayswater), Elizabeth Watson(2305 Poppy), David Ferenc
(City of San Mateo)
MINUTES — The minutes of the April 3, 2008 Beautification Commission were approved as corrected to read: (Pg.
3/ P3 aar3/graph) Recommendation on .Suspension of Current Street Tree Planting for New Plan Evaluation:
Supp erintendent Richmond noted that this item as well as the proposal will be on the April 7' Council agenda. . . and
(4` Paragraph), It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairperson Carney and Commissioners Lahey and
McQuaide attend the April 7`h Council meeting on behalf of the Commission. Added to read: (Pg. 4/under Reports.
Commissioner Ellis reported that she attended all the Arbor Day tree planting ceremonies at the elementary schools as
well as the Centennial Tree planting in Washington Park.
CORRESPONDENCE
Memorandum from City Attorney Anderson,dated March 20,2008,to All City Commissions and Boards regarding the
Ralph M.Brown Act.
Letters dated April 5,2008, from property owners at 17 & 18 Clarendon appealing the denial of the removal of certain
Oak trees at 15 Clarendon Road.
Copy of letter to property owners on the April 2008 street tree planting list, informing them that Council directed
postponement of the April 2008 tree planting until a citizen's proposal to change the current street tree selection
process/planting policies could be reviewed by the Beautification Commission for further recommendation to the
Council.
Copies of letters from five property owners, commenting on the delayed April 2008 planting, as well as addressing
components of the proposal to change the current street tree selection process/planting policies.
Copy of: City of Burlingame Street Tree Facts. (Data obtained for City's tree inventory software)
Staff Report from Superintendent Richmond, dated April 23, 2008, to the Beautification Commission commenting on
components of the proposal to change the current street tree selection process/planting policies in the City of
Burlingame.
Copies of Suggestions for Changes to Street Tree Policies and Plantings from Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff dated May
1,2008, (received at the May 1, 2008 Beautification Commission meeting).
The Atmospheric Value of Trees submitted by Commissioner Grandcolas, (received at the May 1, 2008 Beautification
Commission meeting).
FROM THE FLOOR
None.
OLD BUSINESS
Business Landscape Award Election-Action
Commissioner Benson reported that the Landscape Award Committee received two nominations from the community:
1) Solo Bambini, 1150 Howard Avenue,and 2)Broadway Grill, 1400 Broadway. Commissioner Benson reported that
the Committee recommends the award be presented to Solo Bambini because the property added custom made pots and
plants with attractive colors, was well maintained, and was well coordinated with the neighboring property.
Commissioner Lahey also noted that the business had a unique charm and was"eye catching". After a brief discussion,
Commissioner McQuaide moved that Solo Bambini be the recipient of the 2008 Business Landscape Award; seconded,
Commissioner Ellis. Motion carried 6—0— 1 (absent/Wright).
Business Landscape Award Election—Action (Contd.)
Commissioner Lahey stated a letter would be sent to the winning business informing them of the Commissions decision
and of the award presentation at a future Council meeting. She also noted that artist Dale Perkins would be contacting
the owners of Solo Bambini regarding the pen and ink illustration to be provided to the winning business.
Proposed Changes to the Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies—
Superintendent Richmond stated that the Commission is in receipt of the Staff Report dated April 23`d as well as the
City of Burlingame Street Tree Statistics, of which, along with letters from 5 property owners commenting on the
delayed April planting components of the proposal,would be reviewed together with Supervisor Disco's recommended
additions and changes to the existing Official Street tree lists. He added that Director Schwartz would be facilitating
the gathering of comments from the Commission as well as from the public before Commission decides on its
recommendation to Council. He noted that the Commission is also in receipt of additional information received at
tonight's meeting from Pat Giomi and Jennifer Pfaff.
Superintendent .Richmond and the Commission reviewed the Staff Report, dated April 23, 2008, addressing
information relevant to the suggestions raised by the proposal: Dominant Species, Planting Strip Limitations,
Inventory Upgrade, and Status of Current Tree Planting Programs. Street Tree Statistics was then reviewed as well as
correspondence received from 5 property owners,most of which reflected disappointment with the postponement of the
April tree planting, generally expressing property owners having choice in tree selection as part of the process,but not
necessarily wanting predominate species on blocks to determine those selections.
Supervisor Disco then presented to the Commission his recommended revisions to the Official Street tree lists and
commented that he generally added and retained species on each list that had larger, taller canopies that could be
supported by the existing planter strips. He removed species that were smaller in scale, weaker in structure, or had a
high rate of pest/disease issues. He also stated that he retained"ornamentals" and "evergreens" because there should
be a mix of trees in the urban forest. He noted that of the 45 species currently being offered for street tree planting,the
recommended selection had now been reduced to 33 different species. Supervisor Disco concluded that purchasing
availability from local vendors is "key", and that he would continue researching to make further recommendations as
other species become available. Superintendent Richmond stated that a new inventory system is needed by a qualified
company that would at the same time, be able to include new attributes, but is not something that could be efficiently
conducted by volunteers or staff. He noted that current removal and replacement had been stalled by the current
process. He added that staff now also needs to begin the process with property owners for the fall 'Green Trees' grant
selection and planting.
Chairperson Carney then opened and Director Schwartz facilitated the meeting discussion from the Commission and
public regarding the proposed changes to the street tree selection/planting policies.
Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater, stated that property owners have been able to choose what has been planted in the City-
owned planter strips since 1972 which she believes has created a"mish mash" of trees throughout the City. She stated
that she hopes property owners will have"limited"choice because streets and planter strips belong to the City,and that
"themed"streets be retained noting that few streets had"themes".
Ms. Pfaff explained that property owners are transient and should not be able to choose the type of tree in the city-
owned property, and that "ornamental" trees should be removed from the tree lists because they are not long lived,
noting however, that retaining "evergreens" on the list is o.k. because they do help to add a mix. With regard to
sidewalk issues,Ms. Pfaff commented that the old sidewalks did not have rebar like the newer sidewalks and have less
movement,and that the extra money should be spent to enlarge the planter width so that larger trees can be planted.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, stated that letters from the City should be sent to homeowners who live on blocks with"no
theme" by giving the homeowners on the block 3 choices (selected by staff); the winning selection would then be the
"theme"tree for the block or area. Ms. Giorni concluded that policy should be changed so that every block in the City
would have a"themed"planting.
Elizabeth Watson, 2305 Poppy Drive, commented that the homes in Burlingame are very individual, and each has "a
look",adding that she lost the city-owned Oak tree during the past storm and that the Oak tree gave a grand look to her
home, noting that nothing would replace it. Ms. Watson commented that she researched all 15 trees on the list she
received,as to the size and shape of the tree,before making her selection and that she would really react if she had only
3 trees to choose from.
Proposed Chances to the Street Tree Selection/Plantin2 Policies–(Contd.)
Ms. Watson continued that she does not think the City should dictate to property owners shade or no shade, or color or
no color; that there are so many different reasons why a homeowner would choose a particular tree in front of their
home, that having a choice of the type of tree is a critical part of her house and is integral with her property value, as
well as how a tree impacts her well-being and comfort. Ms. Watson concluded that she would strongly disagree if she
could not have that"choice",and that she would also find only having 3 choices of trees very offensive.
David Ferenc, stated he lives in San Mateo, is a tree man and works in Burlingame, but had previously lived in
Burlingame for 46 years. He stated that Burlingame is a wonderful community and the most beautiful example of
diversity of tree species can be found in Washington Park. Mr. Ferenc added that because of pest and disease and the
lack of interesting diversity he is totally against monocultures on blocks and thinks entire streets should have diversity.
Following the comments, Chairperson Carney closed the discussion to the public and brought the item back to the
Commission only.
Director Schwartz facilitated while the Commission discussed the different components of the proposal, including
predominate tree planting, existing "themed" streets, diseases and monocultures, property owner choice, vacant
planting sites in the City, "good' trees with tall canopies, "grand" trees, diversity, ornamentals, evergreens,
recommended changes to existing tree lists, reducing smaller trees from lists and adding taller species, limitations of
planter strip widths in the City, ADA compliance, "meandering" sidewalks, existing"themes"vs. sidewalks, delays in
planting,impacts on Tree City USA status,use of Green Trees grant funds,etc.
Following the facilitation and the discussion it was a consensus of the Commission that after review and consideration
of the proposal,the following recommendation be made to Council:
• Retain existing"themed'streets in the City of Burlingame by replacing with existing specie,if the dominant
tree on the street is a tall tree even if it disrupts sidewalks
• Do not create"themed" streets where they currently do not exist and allow the property owners to choose off
of the appropriate tree list
• Revisions be made by staff to the official street tree lists to contain trees that only have the tallest,most
significant canopies
• Retain"ornamentals"and"evergreen"tree species that have the tallest,most significant canopies on the
official tree lists
• Include some larger species from 6'planter strip list to the 3-6' planter strip list where possible or change
dimensions of planting strip requirements
• Create larger planting spaces throughout the City where possible
• Only remove and replace trees when an existing tree must be removed
• Tree planting should begin as soon as possible
Chairperson Carney thanked Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff for their work. Ms. Pfaff asked Supervisor Disco to reassess
the purchasing availability of the Accolade Elm and the Zelkova,that they may be more accessible. Supervisor Disco
responded that he would research availability of those species again.
REPORTS–
Superintendent's Report
1. Removals:
a. Two Hawthorns failed in the heavy winds two Saturdays back.
b. There were two trees on Easton that Kevin Kielty strongly suggested be removed in the near future—
one a pine with a dead top and a cypress with an irregular top and continuous limb drop. Bob will
keep you updated as any planning unfolds.
2. First search for new Superintendent did not result in a job offer to a candidate;the process has begun again.
Superintendent Richmond will be doing projects for Director Schwartz as a partial interim measure. Parks is
also filling other openings—Leadworker,Tree Worker,Park Maintenance Worker.
3. Parks tree crew is pruning current grid section.
4. Thanks to the Commission from Superintendent Richmond for all the productive time together. Best wishes as
the Commission continues to work on issues of great importance to Council and the entire community.
REPORTS—Wood.)
Commissioner McQuaide
Commissioner McQuaide commented that she will miss Tim Richmond that he had been very helpful during her term
as chairperson of the Commission and has appreciated his support over the years.
Commissioner Grandcolas
Commissioner Grandcolas submitted The Atmospheric Value of Trees information sheet explaining the economic and
environmental value tree play due to the oxygen production and carbon removal in the atmosphere. He reported that
the Green Ribbon Task Force will have a booth on May 18`h at the Fresh Market and invited any of the Commissioners
to join him in handing out information with regard to trees. Superintendent Richmond commented that the Parks
Division has flyers that addresses the benefits of trees in the environmental that Commissioner Grandcolas may wish to
use.
Commissioner Grandcolas then thanked Tim stating he had been extremely helpful to the Commission and would be
missed very much.
Commissioner Lahey
Commissioner Lahey stated that she has enjoyed Tim's input and guidance and that she has learned a lot from his
insight and knowledge.
Chairperson Ellis
Commissioner Ellis thanked Tim and has appreciated all his help to the Commission over the years.
Commissioner Ellis reported that she attended the Training Workshop for Commissioners that was recently conducted.
Commissioner Benson
Commissioner Benson reported that she attended the planting day on Burlingame Avenue on April Oh, planted 28
Lavender plants in the Broadway "bulb outs" renovated the Mills Canyon Kiosk, cleaned up the entrances to Mills
Canyon,and announced that on Friday,May 9 300 ninth graders will be visiting the Mills Canyon for a nature walk.
Commissioner Benson thanked Tim for helping to revive the Friends of Mills Canyon group by working with them.
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Karlene Harvey
Recording Secretary
Attachment "C"
PA KS-Hanfey, Karlene
From: dschen5@stanford.edu
Seat: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:08 AM
To: GRP-Parks
Cc: PARKS-Harvey, Karlene; dquinnchen@yahoo.com
Subject: Burlingame Trees and Homes
To Whom it May Concern,
We are home owners in Burlingame, and we recently had a tree removed from the front of our
home (on the planter strip) because it was sick.
The tree its self was an ornamental and small tree.
We have chosen a tree from the recommended list of trees (Chinese
Hackleberry) as a new replacement tree- but are dismayed to learn that this process has
been delayed.
After understanding the reasons for the delay, we have the following comments.
We like the idea of "tree themes" for Burlingame streets. We also like the idea of grand
trees. However, the idea that such trees would be mandatory does not seem to be within
the spirit of America, let alone Burlingame. By making such tree selection mandatory,
would clearly disregard the effects of such a planting on our existing homes. In this
case, such a mandatory tree clearly could affect the amount of light that enters our home
(we have a huge array of windows in the front of home, original to 1926) and affect our
extensive front garden (by throwing it into shade) . Furthermore, our home was built very
far forward on our lot, so a big tree could directly impact our home itself. Finally, an
overly large tree could also limit our view of the Bay, and the openness of the Burlingame
hills as they descend down toward the Bay.
I would suggest that rather than enforcing mandatory plantings, that Burlingame
incorporates the spirit of the proposal at hand, and provides suggestions for new
plantings. Thus, when a tree is removed or a space for a new planting is determined,
Burlingame could suggest that a particular tree will be planted, and that the particular
tree would be perfect for that spot because it would be part of a specific theme that is
important to us as Burlingame residents. However, if the home owner has reason to choose
a different tree, that such a selection would be accommodated. This approach would likely
achieve the goals of the proposal without sacrificing our society's respect for the needs
of individuals.
I 'll look forward to the results of these discussions- however, I hope we do not end up
going down the path of strict enforcement. Such a path is seldom the right choice to
achieve an end result- even if we all agree in the desire to reach that end.
Thanks for your consideration,
Daniel Chen and Deborah Quinn-Chen
Burlingame
650 743 1270
1
PARKS-Harvey, Karlene
................................. ............ ............................. .............................. ................................-
From: sparatte [sparatteg5mindspring.corn]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:10 AM
To: PARKS-Richmond,Tim; GRP-Parks
Subject: Re-evaluation o;tree policy -Impact on Current Policy
!)ear 7 im Richmond and Beautification Commission Members —
1 am wri-dria you, Tim, at this time to follow-up on our phone call yesterday. We spoke regarding the
current re-evaluation of City ofBurlingrame's street tree selection policy. In particular, i am referring to
street trees that are under primary utility lines. It is my understanding that the current policy allows for
u*
selecon of street trees by property owners with oguida'nce and final approval from the City. This
process allows for personal choice within pre-determined City —guidelines Tt
am writing o the
Beautification Commission to provide my comments regarding the re-evaluation of the current policy.
T am unhappy that this re-evaluation is putting the current policy, as well as prior tree selection,
approvals, and tree planting on hold. I lost Two trees recently, one as a direct result of damage to roots
when the City of Burlingame installed new water line access boxes and the second one when it was
considered -potentially unhealthy after a large branch fell during the January storm.
When both Trees were removed, i carefully selected replacements, following the current protocol. As
you Imow, I have been in active discussions with the City's Parks Division continually since January
rezardina tree removal. selection and tree planting. I consulted with the City of Burlingame tree
arborist, further consulted with a well known local landscape architect, Jim Redman (P' -olyscapes),
utilized the Official Street Tree List, reviewed my short list of preferred trees by driving around
Burlinaame and looking at existing trees (from Tree Site Locations on the City "Official Tree List") and
conducted further research on the internet. I carefully and thoughtfully selected two pre-approved trees
from the provided list. I was informed that these trees would be planted in April. Though out,I have
spoken with Carlene about procedure, process, and timing
Although I have followed the current procedures and protocol, in place for 2008, 1 am now told that all
everything is "on hold" due to a request by a stoup of citizens. I would hope and expect that the
existing policy would continue until a change, or new policy, has been approved by the City of
Burlingame. I am surprised that a current policy can so easily be derailed, In January, 1 made a
decision to have my Trees removed based on the current policy, assurance that new trees would be
planted in April, and based on the fact that I would have input into the tree selection process. I might
have made a different decision if I knew this would be "on-hold"' for an undetermined length of time and
that the current selection process could be in jeopardy. It is obvious that careful analysis went into the
OfficiaZ Street Tree Lisr— Trees to be used under Primary Urilih)Lines. Yet it appears that this list has
no value while the City ol'Burlingame listens to a"croup of citizens" and puts the current policy on
hold.
I am disappointed that a current policy and well as procedures could so easily be changed by a small
aroup of citizens. There are many of us that do not want"themed street" and IV in would live inline and
notLrlinaame, if we wanted such conformity. I have been a resident of Hale Drive for over 12 years
I-orh-oo h- + - r. i choose to purchase a home on this
and eni oy the diversm- -that m y unique neighb w d as .0 _ffe
Ly
particular street because of its beauty, diverse mature trees, proximity to "the triangle of trees" of Hale
and Benito, and neighborhood character appeal. ! did not purchase it looking for a"themed" str-eet,
quite the opposite actually.
Please consider my input. i would suggest that the City follow current policy until a new policy has
actually been adopted.
Sincerely.
April 28,2008
Dear Parks Services of Burlingame:
I have received and read your letter concerning a proposed change that might limit my selection
of a replacement tree from what has previously been offered,and as such I am writing to make a
plea regarding the replacement of the tree that fell at my house,2305 Poppy Drive,on January 5,
2008.
By way of background let me explain what has taken place since that date.On January 5,2008,
my grand old oak tree,that stood at my house on city property between the sidewalk and street,
fell as a result of the wind and rain storms on that date.The city kindly and promptly came to
chop up and eliminate the tree over the next several days.I was informed that I would be able to
choose from a list of about 18 tree options that was mailed to me by the city to have it soon
replaced.
Over the next month I did my due diligence in researching all the trees listed on the mailing sent
to me. I researched their sizes and shapes to imagine the shade and view provided.I researched
the leaves,with their color changes throughout the seasons,to imagine which colors would best
complement the colors of my house and the adjacent landscaping.I researched the type of debris
(nuts,acoms,berries)that might litter the sidewalk.In brief,I put in many hours on the computer
trying to come up with the tree from the list that would best fit the look,style,and harmony of my
house for the benefit of both myself and my neighbors.
I placed the order for the replacement tree in February,2008 and was told the tree would be
planted"sometime in April".Throughout the first 3 weeks of April,I made sure every day that my
car was not parked in the way of the tree delivery and installment.And each day I came home,
like an expectant mother,anticipating with excitement the arrival of my new tree.
All that changed on April 23,when I arrived home to a letter in the mail informing me that the
plans were on hold.The letter admitted that there is NO DOMINANT pattern of tree on my street
as assessed by the city.Yet the installation of my tree is in question.
It seems quite unfair at this point,with all that has happened to date and with the build up of
expectations,to delay and even possibly to change what tree options may be available to me.
This is especially true given that there is no established pattern of existing or ingoing trees on my
street.I feel that with all that has transpired to date,I should at least be grandfathered into getting
the tree that already has been planned and ordered for my house.The only acceptable
alternative at this point would be to replace the tree with the exact same type of tree that fell(an
oak).
As an aside,I would separately voice the opinion that while it is charming to have trees that are
similar and complementary lining a street,I do not feel that a tree that complements the street but
sacrifices the look,style,and feel of ones own home is worthwhile.I have many times had out-of-
town guests visit me on Poppy Drive,and they have given high praises to the variety and
uniqueness of each house,each garden,each uniquely tailored landscape.We live on a beautiful
street,and that is because everyone has the power to manicure his or her home and to maintain
a personal style and flare that works for each house.By forcing people to fit into a plan to beautify
a street may actually be forcing them into a plan that disrupts the look of their home,not only
decreasing curb appeal,and thereby decreasing property value,but also causing disharmony to
the comfort and well-being of the homeowner for many years to come.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Watson
2305 Poppy Drive
Burlingame,CA 94010
650-291-1223
Page I of I
PARKS-Harvey, Karlene
.........".......................... ............................................A........................................................�66.tt66................. ........ ................
From: Phyllis Everson [peverson@earthiink.net]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 6:00 PM
To: GRP-Parks
Subject: Selection of Street Trees
I received your letter dated April 21 , 2008, regarding the delay in planting the tree in front of my
home. The dominant tree in my neighborhood is the Liquid Amber. I DO NOT want this tree
replanted in -front. It has seed pods that fall and are dangerous to walkers. Their root system
ruins the street, curb, sidewalk and lawns. In a perfect world it would be "nice" to have
conformity with all "grander" trees, but I feel we need to weigh the cost of maintaining the tree
and the damage the root system can do.
respectfully,
Phyllis Everson
1121 Cabrillo Avenue
Phyilis LE-verson
peversonC(:Dearth link.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
A /nn /nnnO
PARKS-Harvey, Carlene
From: Shirley [shirleig@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:38 PM
To: GRP-Parks
Subject: Tree selection by property owners
Dear Mr. Richmond, Mr. Schwartz and the Beautification Commission, I was very upset and
concerned this week to receive a letter dated April 21st from the City of Burlingame Parks
and Rec Dept stating that a proposal is in the works to re-evaluate the current policy of
tree selection in Burlingame. I can't imagine why the group of citizens who are
requesting this evaluation are causing all this trouble in an attempt to rewrite a policy
that is not broken!
I have never heard any complaints against the current policy. I love the fact that we
have a variety of trees on all the streets, that I can go for a walk in our fair city and
look at all the different barks, leaves, flowers and canopies and I believe that the
property owners, who all pay taxes,. should have a say in the trees that they have to care
for and look at every day, rather than have this decision imposed upon them.
,I agree that the streets that currently have "theme trees". look lovely, but these trees
are decades old and it would take years and years to develop this look in newly planted
trees. In addition, in the current state of climate instability, it is really NOT a good
idea to have all the trees on one street be of the same variety, or even up to 3
varieties, due to the viruses that can decimate one type of tree, thus leaving the whole
street with dead and dying trees. An example of this is the disease of the great elm
trees and, more recently, of the live oaks.
Another problem I have with the proposed policy is that the larger trees have roots that
tend to crack the sidewalks and cause problems with the roads and require more
maintenance. We had 2 trees outside our house that had impacted the sidewalk. A city
crew had to replace the sidewalk. That work resulted in the roots of the trees being cut
and compromised, resulting in the death of the trees and the need for replacement. The
smaller, ornamental trees would be less likely to cause these problems.
Also, do we want to wait for years and years for these larger, slower growing trees to
mature after planting? Many houses would have turned over their owners several times
before the trees matured.
In addition to the above, I feel the homeowners who are asked their opinion will take on
"ownership" of the trees because they are included in the choice. This is important if
the trees are to survive, as the owners do need to water and care for the trees.
As for the possibility that trees actually be removed to make way for the planting of
"theme" trees, I am so angry that I cannot even go there. I'm gong to be charitable and
hope that I misheard!
IF the commission decides, which I sincerely hope it does not, to entertain this
ridiculous scheme I would respectfully request that the two trees that are in line for
replacement outside my house be exempted form this approach. As referred to above, our two
dying trees were removed last December. My husband and I had a lot of fun looking at the
possibilities for our new trees and, after careful consideration, we decided on two cherry
trees. We actually ordered two more mature trees and agreed to pay an extra fee so that
the trees would be more mature on planting. Very unfortunately for us in light of this
problem, the trees were not delivered in January and our planting was put off until April.
Every day I have come home hoping for the new trees to be planted, only to be confronted
with this letter this week. As we were promised new trees in January by the city and
spent much time picking out our trees, I believe that we should be able to get our cherry
trees as soon as the city is able to do this and that we should not be subject to whatever
new rules are developed. We want trees outside our house, not bare land, and we don't
want to have to wait ages for this issue to be resolved! ! !
I would respectfully suggest the the group of citizens making this proposal find something
else on which to spend their time. The world is in a mess, but Burlingame's trees are
not !
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 650-243-8447. I hope to be .at
the meeting on May 1st, but my husband is having surgery that day so this may not be
possible.
Respectfully yours,
Shirlev Eiqenbrot
April 23, 2008 Attachment"D"
Staff Report to Beautification Commission
Staff Person: Tim Richmond, Parks Superintendent
RE: STREET TREE PLANTING PLAN
At its April meeting the Burlingame Beautification Commission heard a proposal from two interested
citizens on changing the current Street Tree Planting practices. The plan was complex in that it
addressed several distinct issues simultaneously. Those issues included width of available planting
areas, altering current planting lists, changing how Street Trees are selected by
district/block/neighborhood, (re)introducing the concept of dominant species, updating the tree
inventory, and potential elimination of tree categories from planting plans (ornamentals and evergreens).
What follows is a compilation of information relevant to the suggestions raised by the proposal. This
document seeks to clarify current practices, review historical practices, and raise questions that need to
be answered in initiating amendments to current planting practices. Hopefully, as this review process
proceeds, the Beautification Commission will be able to make its own recommendations to Council
concerning suggested changes to the current practices.
Dominant Species:
Currently there are Street Tree species that occur frequently in Burlingame and are also the dominant
species in multiple locations
i. Sycamore
ii. Liquidambar
iii. Magnolia Grandiflora
iv. Eucalyptus (sp.)
v. Oak(sp.)
vi. Of the above, the current proposal supports continued planting of only
i and v. Selections iii and iv are dismissed because they are
evergreens.
b. There are also species that are prevalent in limited areas
i. Gingko(Bayswater Ave.)
ii. Liriodendron(Stanley Drive,MacDonald Ave.)
iii. Ornamental Pear(California Drive,Broadway)
iv. Catalpa(portions of Balboa and Vancouver)
v. Elm (Oxford/Cambridge)
vi. Black Locust
vii. Linden(Maple Avenue)
viii. Of the above the new proposal formally supports continued use of i, iv,
and v. Selection iii is dismissed because it is an "ornamental."
Selections ii, vi, and vii are not addressed, and may or may not be
supported for continuing use as dominant trees. Selections ii and vii
have severe annual insect infestations unless treated with pesticides.
Selection vi is difficult to obtain and is susceptible to decay problems.
c. Historically, but not currently, common in specific areas:
i. English Hawthorne
ii. Plum (Prunus bleiriana)
iii. Silver Maple
iv. Birch
v. Selections i and ii would be dismissed in the current proposal as
"ornamentals." Selection i was historically susceptible to Tussock
Moth infestations (in continuous row plantings), was short lived, and
tended to have main stem failure after 40-50 years. It is still on the
smallest width planting list. Selection iii tends to rot downward after
any heading cuts, e.g. utility clearance. Selection iv. fared very poorly
in drought and is susceptible to severe aphid infestation.
d. Questions concerning establishing dominant areas
i. Who decides? How is subjectivity removed from the process? How
are areas defined? How is area or neighborhood input received and
acknowledged. Unless a very high percentage of consensus buy in is
achieved, any new plan will face difficulties in implementation.
ii. What is done with current plantings that defeat the dominant tree
concept? Remove healthy trees? Establish dominance over time
through replacement as trees are removed?
Ili. Proposals have no role for "evergreens" or "ornamentals" which
constitute a substantial percentage of Burlingame's urban forest. What
are the implications of categorically removing both from future
plantings?
IV. Proposal treats street trees as infrastructure element, not as a
complement to individual properties. Questions arise.
1. Is individual choice completely dismissed in favor of an
established planting plan?
2. Many property owners enjoy choosing a Street Tree, seeing it
as an element of their yard landscape plan. What is the
mechanism for honoring informed property owner selection?
If there is no consensus behind a forced planting, the process
may produce increasingly negative interactions between City
Staff and residents and may impact the shared, cooperative
partnership between homeowner and City.
v. Planting spaces under utilities. These planting areas constitute a
substantial percentage of planting spaces in the City. "Ornamentals"
and evergreens are the most common eligible trees for that planting
list. The current City list corresponds well with the PG&E tree
planting software listings.
vi. Hillside View area. It's probably impractical to impose "grand" trees
within this designated area.
Diverse plantings
1. Values
a. Whole streets rarely decimated by single pest or disease
b. Interspersed variety of blooms add seasonal color
c. Varying shades and textures to leaves may add interesting
element to street.
d. More possibilities for complementing individual properties
e. Easier to accommodate overhead utilities and limits of
planting areas
2. Disadvantages
a. Does not create unified canopied effect for a block or area
b. Variety has the potential to be dissonant; section or block
may not tie together visually.
c. Same species row plantings are potentially simpler to
maintain
Hybrid approaches are possible.
1. Retain but reduce choices; Staff has been planning such an approach to
implementing the Tree Grant planting. In order to create efficiencies, Staff plans to
offer only two or three varieties to property owners eligible for grant funded trees.
The offerings will be specific to the zones being planted.
2. Acknowledge that certain portions of the City are best left with diverse plantings;
focus on target single species areas (existing"themed" blocks).
PLANTING STRIP LIMITATIONS
Width of planting strips:
a. Risks of ignoring widths in Street Tree planting—future sidewalk uplift is possible and in
some cases likely.
b. Width specific planting lists were initiated by Parks Director Rich Quadri in the
early eighties in order to efficiently address the problem of Street Trees planted in
spaces too narrow to sustain them. Quadri developed the width specific lists from a
single planting list developed in 1973 by his predecessor John Hoffman. Hoffman's list
specified a width requirement for each tree on the list. Quadri in consultation with
PG&E and the Beautification Commission also instituted a list specific to trees planted
under power lines. Lists have continued since then with occasional modification, as
appropriate species have proven worthy of inclusion. On several occasions the
Beautification Commission has reaffirmed its desire to offer choice to residents. Over
time some tree species disqualified themselves, as they became unavailable, as
pest/disease problems specific to the species become known, or as property owners
simply did not select them. Some species have been removed from the list due to
high maintenance issues; i.e. pests, invasive root systems, potential for structural decay
and/or limb/whole tree failure issues at maturity.
c. Options in small width strips
i. Customized curving of sidewalks to create larger grow space around
planted trees is an option. In many cases this occurred during the work done in
1996 in the area bounded by Hillside/Poppy from about Vancouver to Benito.
City Arborist spent hours on site with one of the PW Engineers. The work
was excellent in most instances and resulted in a gently curving sidewalk. It
was not repeated in the next contract, due to cost constraints. In checking
with Donald Chang from Engineering, he confirmed that the program was cost
prohibitive. In creating the gentle curve around the tree grow spaces
undamaged flags of sidewalk also had to be removed. Whether or not future
Councils will be willing to absorb those added costs is unknown.
ii. Ignore width; plant trees large at maturity in spaces that cannot sustain
them; defer issue to the future. Significant root zones will be affected when
deferred sidewalk issues are ultimately addressed.
iii. Plant smaller scale trees per current planting lists.
d. Many trees, which were planted (before the lists were created) in planter strips
too narrow to sustain them, remain viable. Many are trees that are large (height,
caliper), which at maturity add significantly to the Urban Forest canopy. Upon
removal, these trees would normally be replaced by trees that will be smaller at
maturity. The question that is critical to this discussion is: What species can the
planting strip reasonably sustain in terms of arboricultural principles and
responsible cost constraints? How that question is answered will affect future
Councils, administrations,residents,maintenance providers, and budgets.
e. Supervisor Disco has recommended additions and deletions to the current lists;
his recommendations have accumulated over the last six months. He has added
as many trees as possible that will be large at maturity, and has
eliminated trees with limited availability, and species that are rarely chosen,
and/or are smaller in overall size. Over time, the revised selections would provide
more uniformity and would increase the canopies on non-dominant streets.
Inventory Upgrade
The Parks Division has a viable work record software application. The base inventory, however, dates
back to the mid 1980s. The data base reflects values that were input at that time. The inventory has
been updated in a piecemeal fashion as trees were removed and replaced. There is also some corrupt
data in the inventory. The corruption occurred during a power outage. Inventories are best done by
contract, where the contractor goes to each site, inputs current data (City selects values to be identified)
on a hand held computer, and downloads the entire inventory onto the City computer. All companies
that offer the service are capable of providing a GPS compatible inventory. GPS compatibility would
allow the inventory to be overlaid on the Public Works field maps. Volunteer inventory upgrades would
be vulnerable to differing inputs by different volunteers. An example of this can be seen is the recently
submitted volunteer survey of the current seasonal planting list. The volunteers listed Maple as the
dominant tree on Hale. There are few, if any, maples on Hale, which is clearly dominated by
Liquidambars. Extensive training would likely be required before the inventory. Any voluntary
inventory would also require input of new data into the current program by Staff, which would be labor
intensive. The resulting upgraded inventory would also lack GPS compatibility.
Status of current programs
A. Tree City USA
1. Program presumes ongoing tree operation including tree planting.
2. Extensive delays in re instituting planting would at some point jeopardize
the recognition. Timeliness in resolving the issue is important.
B. Tree Planting Grant(Green Trees for the Golden State)
1. Eligible trees must be over and above the City's normal planting program.
City will meet that requirement by planting trees in previously vacant
planting spaces.
2. Eligible plantings are time constrained. They must be planted and invoiced
by the end of March 2010, less than two years from now. Phase I Planting
was to begin in November 2008 of this year and prior notification to
property owners was to occur in May for feed back and tree selection so the
Contract planting could be arranged by September/October. Staff needs to
move forward with communications with eligible property owners. Current
reevaluation has stopped that process.
3. As mentioned previously Staff plans to offer limited choices for this
program in order to make it workable. This is a possible convergence point
with a revised limited planting plan.
C. Current removal and replacement program
I. Currently suspended pending hearing of new plan.
2. Normally Staff notifies property owners when the removal of a tree is
indicated and sends an Official street tree list for selection for the next
scheduled planting. That process is now delayed, as well as the April
planting of replacement trees that have already been selected by the property
owners. Staff is beginning to hear from property owners who have
participated in the process and are now expecting the trees that they have
selected to be planted. Staff needs a consistent response for these residents.
3. Delaying ongoing planting may at some point create a negative momentum
and send a de facto message that it's OK to have no replacement tree.
SUMMARY OF CRITICAL QUESTIONS
What are the units for which a dominant tree is required? Blocks? Multiple block streets?
Neighborhoods? How are these mapped/assigned?
Does the City wish to continue using lists of trees based on planting area widths? Does it wish to
modify those lists? What criteria will be used in assigning tree species to planting strips with specific
widths?
How can the City continue to actively plant trees while a new plan is being debated and implemented?
Tree planting is currently effectively frozen.
What costs are being deferred or assigned to the future? Is this an acceptable practice?
Where is consensus desired? The proposal and its first oral iteration (4/3/08 Beautification Commission
meeting) seem to be at variance. In the oral presentation the idea was forwarded that tree choices be
removed from property owners completely. Who decides which species will be dominant for a
particular unit of the City that currently lacks a dominant tree? Whose expertise will be entrusted with
the choice? How is neighborhood or community support for the dominant tree achieved?
What will the process look like for deciding upon and implementing a new plan? How long will
planting be delayed by this process?
Attachment "E"
City of Burlingame Street Tree Facts
13,000 + City-owned Street Trees (park trees & other City-owned trees not included)
238 Streets with trees in the current Street Tree Inventory
*100+ Different Species of Trees in City Planter Strips
45 Different Species Currently Offered on 5 Separate Street Tree lists
5 Separate Planting Lists:
1)Under Prim. Utilities.
2) 3' &Under
3) 3-6'
4) 6' & Over
5)Hillside View Area (planning Dept.)
*100+Different Species of Trees in City Planter Strips:
55%to 60% Grow to 40' or more in height at maturity . . .
Of that percentage, over 17% are Evergreen species
Highest Percentage of Certain Species(over 6%):
13.02% (1690) Sycamore
8.44% (1097) Liquidambars
6.97% ( 906) Lg. Southern Magnolia
9.33% 1200) Eucalyptus (400 on ECR); 10 varieties throughout City planter strips
4893
24.00% or(3,100) Trees Under Primary Utilities
(Data obtained from tree work software)
Attachment"F"
Staff Options for Planting Larger Stature Street Trees
Several options already exist for planting larger stature street trees.
Infrastructure Based Stratagies
(Costello/Jones 2003)
• Curving sidewalks
• Pop-outs (remove curb and extend planting area into street)
• Nonstandard size slabs (39"min sidewalks)
• Monolithic sidewalks (rubber)
• Increase right-of-way(move sidewalk to City property line)
• Eliminate sidewalk
• Create tree islands
• Narrow streets
Tree-Based Strategies
(Costello/Jones 2003)
Species Selection:
• "Many arborists regard species selection as a key consideration in tree root-pavement conflicts"
(Harris, Clark, and Matheny 2004)
• Infrastructure damage can be reduced by selecting the proper tree species appropriate for the
planting space.
• Avoid species found to have shallow-rooting characteristics under local conditions. (one species
may work good in one location and not the other based on soil conditions)
• Refer to the root flare diameter or diameter at ground level (DGL) when determining the planting
space.
• Species list should take into consideration root characteristics based on field observations.
Materials Strategies
(Costello/Jones 2003)
• Reinforce concrete with rebar, mesh or fiber
• Expansion joints close to trees
• Thicker slabs
• Pervious concrete
• Flexible concrete joints and flexible sidewalks
Alternatives to Concrete
• Asphalt
• Recycled rubber
• Mulch
• Pavers
• Decomposed granite and compacted gravel.
Root zone Based Strategies
• Root barriers (plastic)
• Root paths (narrow trenches filled with loam where roots can grow)
• Steel plates
• Gravel (1-1.5" crushed gravel installed under pavement)
• Foam underlay(backing under concrete that protects slab)
• Structural soil
• Polyethylene sheets (installed vertically)
Recent studies show that plastic root barrier and poly sheets were the most effective in preventing
infrastructure damage. Structural soil, gravel, and foam underlay were least effective.
All these products work better in well drained soil. The study was done in moderately drained clay loam
soil.
The study also showed that installation of any kind of treatment is best done at time of sidewalk or tree
installation. It was determined that the combination of vertical root barriers and underpavement
treatments may reduce the risk of damage to pavement even further. (Arborculture& Urban
Forestry—May 2008)
Redwood City Program
Design Modifications
• Curve sidewalks
• Replace with Monolithic
• Move curb into street
• Reduce sidewalk width to 39"
Other choices
• Remove sidewalk
• Eliminate curb
• Ramp sidewalk over roots
Policy Changes
• Modify planting sites to provide largest area
• Plant vacant sites
• Notify public of work that is scheduled
• Trees planted at the discretion of the City.
• Phase removals over time to lesson impact
• Avoid planting small trees
Attachme=-G-
City
of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
s
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 ?�
B"R""GA'"E phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216
recreationna,burlingame.orgr�
April 21,2008
Resident
(Address)
Burlingame, CA 94010
The City of Burlingame's City Council and Beautification Commission have been approached by a group of
citizens which is requesting the re-evaluation of the current policy of the selection of street trees by property
owners. Its proposal focuses on restoring a "themed" streets approach whereby no street will have more than
three different species, pre-determined by a consensus of the neighborhood. The specific points in the proposal
are:
• Review the policies related to selection of trees in the City's Urban Forestry Management Plan
• Postpone the April 2008 planting to ensure the planting is done in conjunction with the long range plan
being developed, including potentially updating the street tree inventory
• Reassess the current street tree lists with the goals of continuing the dominant trees and having the larger,
"grander"trees replace the smaller, "ornamental"trees where possible
• Assess the areas that have few or no street trees and allow the neighborhood to select up to three species
that can be planted
The Beautification Commission will consider the proposal at its next meeting and make a recommendation to the
City Council. Pending the outcome of these meetings, the Council has directed staff to only plant street trees on
streets where a dominant theme already exists and where the choice is consistent with that theme. City staff has
surveyed your block and found no dominant tree in place. Therefore, we will delay the scheduled tree planting in
front of your property until after Commission and subsequent City Council meetings.
You are invited to attend the Beautification Commission meeting and provide comment. The meeting will be
held in Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, on Thursday, May 1, 2008 beginning at 6:00pm. If you are
unable to attend the meeting but would still like to make comment to the Commission, you may send a letter to
the Beautification Commission, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 or an email to
parksp.burlingame.org. All letters and emails will be shared with the Commission and public at the meeting.
If you wish to contact City staff with specific questions regarding this proposal, you may call either myself or the
Parks Superintendent, Tim Richmond, at (650) 558-7330 or send an email to parks@,burlingatne.org. We would
appreciate your input to this process.
Sincerely,
Randy Schwartz
Director of Parks&Recreation
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
Agenda
Item # 9a
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: May 19, 2008
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: May 8, 2007
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING 2007 STREET RESURFACING
PROGRAM BY C. F. ARCHIBALD PAVING, INC. — CITY PROJECT
NO. 81670
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached
resolution accepting the 2007 Street Resurfacing Program by C. F. Archibald
Paving, Inc. in the amount of $562,696.
BACKGROUND: On October 1 , 2007 the Council awarded a construction contract
for the 2007 Street Resurfacing Program to C. F. Archibald Paving Inc. in the
amount of $442,845. The project consisted of resurfacing streets within the
Burlinghome Subdivision. Due to favorable bid prices and available budget, Council
authorized an additional $214,000 in contingencies to expand the resurfacing in the
project area.
DISCUSSION: The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the
plans and specifications. The final project construction cost is $562,696 which is
$119,851 above the original contract amount and within the contingencies. The
additional cost includes resurfacing three more streets within the Burlinghome
Subdivision area (see attached map).
BUDGET IMPACT:
The following are the estimated final project costs:
Expenditures:
Construction $562,696
Consultant Inspection $ 34,000
Engineering Administration 43,304
Total: $640,000
The project is funded by Gas Tax and Measure A funds. There are adequate funds
available in the project budget to cover the costs
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Progress Payment. Project Map
Donald T. Chang, P.E. <
Senior Civil Engineer
c: City Clerk, Finance
RESOLUTION NO. -
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM 2007
BY C.F. ARCHIBALD PAVING, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 81670
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame,California,and this Council does
hereby find, order and determine as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by C.F.
ARCHIBALD PAVING, INC., under the terms of its contract with the City dated October 1, 2007, has
been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 81670.
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
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 Name\Joanne Louie\RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE.wpd
SIR'
Agenda
Item # 9b
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: May 19, 2008
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY v
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: May 6, 2008
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TROUSDALE DRIVE
TRANSMISSION PIPELINE PROJECT BY SHAW PIPELINE, INC.,
CITY PROJECT NO. 80910
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached
resolution accepting the Trousdale Drive Transmission Pipeline project by Shaw
Pipeline, Inc. in the amount of $834,639.
BACKGROUND: On August 20, 2007, the Council awarded a construction contract
for the Trousdale Drive Transmission Pipeline project to Shaw Pipeline, Inc. in the
amount of $734,655. This project was the second of the three phases of work
involving the construction of a new 6,500 feet transmission main from the San
Francisco water connection service point at Magnolia Avenue to Mills Tank, as well
as the reconstruction of the Trousdale Pump Station.
DISCUSSION: The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in
accordance with the plans and specifications. The final project construction cost is
$834,639 which includes $99,984 or 13% of change order work as follows:
• $88,925 was used for emergency work to replace a water main that was
damaged by a eucalyptus tree on EI Camino Real which resulted in
insufficient water supply for fire fighting purposes.
• $11,059 was used to install a new pressure reducing valve, vault lid and
miscellaneous appurtenances.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Following are the estimated final project costs:
Construction $ 834,639
Construction management & inspection $ 95,000
Staff administration and oversight $ 35,000
Total $ 964,639
There are adequate funds available in the project budget to cover the costs.
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80910Transmission Main Staff Report-Acceptance.doc
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final progress payment,Map of project area
c: City Clerk,City Attorney, Shaw Pipeline Inc.
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80910Transmission Main Staff Report-Acceptance.doc
RESOLUTION NO. -
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - TROUSDALE DRIVE TRANSMISSION PIPELINE PROJECT
BY SHAW PIPELINE, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 80910
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does
hereby find, order and determine as follows:
1 . The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by SHAW
PIPELINE, INC., under the terms of its contract with the City dated August 20, 2007, has been completed
in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 80910.
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
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\80910-Water System Pump Station Evaluation\Resolution Accepting.wpd
CONTRACTOR: Shaw Pipeline Inc. CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE: 4129/08
ADDRESS: 150 Elecutive Park Blvd,Ste 3790 PROGRESS PMT.#_4_Final Quantitles FOR THE MONTH OF:April 2008
San Francisco,CA 941343309 Troustlaie Pipeline 8 PRV Station
TELEPHONE(1-415)337-01 90 CITY PROJECT NO.80910 PURCHASE ORDER#_10481_
% # ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT BID BID Q % AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT
Bid/
Paid PRICE SIZE UANTI AMOUNT TO DATE PAID TO DATE PAID THIS PMT.
100.00% 1 Install 16"DIP $227 LF 2765 $627,655.00 2765 100% $627,655.00 $627,655.00 $0.00
100.00% 2 CDF check dam/pipe $1,000 EA 3 $3,000.00 3 100% $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00
100.00% 3 Isolation Valve Assembly $7,500 EA 3 $22,500.00 3 100% $22,500.00 $22,500.00 $0.00
100.00% 4 Trousdale Dr.PRV $50,000 EA 1 $50,000.00 1 100% $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00
10000% 5 Traffic Control $5,000 LS 1 $5,000.00 1 100% $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00
100.00% 6 Disinleclin and flushing $5,000 LS 1 $5,000.00 1 100% $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00
7estion and Inspection LS 1
100.00% 7 $1,500 $1,500.00 1 100% $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00
Mobilization/Demobilimfion LS 1
100.00% 8 $20,000 $201000.00 1 100% $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00
TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $734,655.00 $734,655.00 $734,655.00 $0.00
Change orders
C.C.O.#1— $2,278.00 1 100% $2,278.00 $2,278.00 $0.00
C.C.O.#2-- $2,800.00 1 100% $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $0.00
C.C.O.#3— $616.50 1 100% $616.50 $616.50 $0.00
C.C.O.#4— $88,925.00 1 100% $88,925.00 $88,925.00 $0.00
C.C.O.#5— $5,364.99 1 100% $5,364.99 $0.00 $5,364.99
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $99,984.49 $99,984.49 $94,619.50 $5,364.99
TOTAL ORIGINAL CONTRACT $734,655.00 $734,655.00 $734,655.00 $0.00
TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $99,984.49 $99,984.49 $94,619.50 $5,364.99
CONTRACT TOTAL(original contact 8 C.O.) $834,639.49 $834,639.49 $829,274.50 $5,364.99
LESS RETENTION 10% ($83,463.95) ($82,927.45) -$536.50
SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS $751,175.54 $746,347.05 $4,828.49
AMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TOTAL THIS PERIOD $751,175.54 $746,347.051 $4,828.49
APPROVALS
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:_M&E crosscheck 5,364.99
APPROVED BY -536.50
CITY ENGINEER: 4,828.49
Page 1 of 2
te "ark,
Agenda
Item # 9c
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: May 19, 2008
SUBMITTED BY(:::]��"
APPROVED BY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 1, 2008
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH METCALF & EDDY (M & E) CONSULTANTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF THE NEW TROUSDALE
PUMP STATION PROJECT; CITY PROJECT NO. 80910
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached
resolution authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with M & E Consultants for
construction management of the new Trousdale Pump Station project in the amount
of $479,932.
BACKGROUND: On May 5, 2008, Council awarded a construction contract for the
new Trousdale Pump Station project. The project consists of building a new pump
station with specialized mechanical/electrical equipment, building construction and
site improvements. A consultant service is needed to perform inspection and
construction management to ensure compliance with the plans and specifications as
well as to keep the project on track.
DISCUSSION: M & E was selected among six qualified consulting firms interviewed
to provide professional services for the project design. M & E is now retained to
provide inspection and construction management services, given their
comprehensive knowledge of the design and familiarity of the project conditions.
Staff has negotiated the scope of services with M & E in the amount of $479,932.
The fee amount represents approximately 14% of the $3,442,761 construction
contract which is within the normal industry range of 10% to 15% and is reasonable
given the complexity of the project.
The scopes of services include:
• Providing construction support services, such as reviewing and approving
contractor submittals
• Responding to contractor's request for information
• Performing inspection and construction management
• Attending weekly construction meetings
• Performing quality assurance review
• Preparing record drawings
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80910-Construction manager Trousdale Pump Station.doc
BUDGET IMPACT:
Following are the estimated project construction costs:
Construction contract(previously approved) $3,442,761
Construction management 479,932
Staff administration and oversight 75,000
Contingency 344,276
Total $4,341,969
There are sufficient funds available in the project budget to cover these costs.
EXHIBITS:Resolution,Scope of services and project map.
Philip Monaghao P.E.
Senior Civil En ineer
c: City Clerk,City Attorney, Metcalf&Eddy Consultants
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80910-Construction manager Trousdale Pump Station.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WITH METCALF & EDDY FOR THE
TROUSDALE PUMP STATION CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 80910
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
METCALF&EDDY AECOM
Metcalf& Eddy
1390 Market Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415,522 5000
F 415,522,5220
www.m-e,aecom.com
April 28, 2008
Mr. Phil Monaghan
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010
Subject: Revised: Proposal for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the
Trousdale Pump Station - Burlingame, California
Dear Mr. Monaghan:
Metcalf& Eddy (M&E,) is pleased to provide the attached revised proposal and cost estimate
for Construction Management and Inspection Services for the construction of the Trousdale
Pump Station in the City of Burlingame. The Trousdale Pump Station is located at 2501
Trousdale Drive.
M&E in conjunction with our sub consultants YEI, Structus, and KYA will provide services
including shop drawing and submittal reviews, RFI responses and part-time Construction
Manager (CM)/Resident Engineer (RE) and Inspector to administer the construction contract,
monitor construction, and perform necessary inspection services.
The estimated cost to perform Construction Management and Inspection services for a 12
month period will be $479,932.00. A detailed breakdown of scope of services and costs are
presented below.
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Burlingame (City) is proceeding with a major capital improvement program for its
water system. A Water System Master Plan (Master Plan) developed for the City by Erler &
Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI) guides the program. The Master Plan includes construction of a new
pumping station to replace two existing pumping facilities, a new supply pipeline to deliver water
from two San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) turnouts to the new Trousdale
Pumping Station, and a new transmission pipeline to convey water from the Pumping Station to
the Mills Water Storage Reservoir. This project relates to the construction of the Trousdale
Pump Station.
Mr.Phil Monaghan
Construction Management and Inspection Services
Page 2 of 5
August 28,2007
13. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
This project is expected to be constructed in 12 months (365 calendar days). M&E will provide
the following services over this 12 month period:
1. Construction Management/Resident Engineering
2. Engineering Support During Construction
3. Construction Inspection.
C. SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT/lIESIDENT ENGINEERING
M&E will provide the services of a qualified Construction Manager (CM)/Resident
Engineer(RE) to manage the project. The CM will administer the construction contract,
including: routine communications with the Contractor, attend weekly and monthly
meetings, observe the Contractor's work, prepare meeting minutes, maintain an
accurate set of records and files for the project, prepare correspondence files, monitor
the Contractor's construction schedule, and evaluate the Contractor's payment
estimates. Specific subtasks include:
1.1 Conduct Pre-construction Meeting
Conduct a pre-construction meeting with the Contractor and the City, including
preparation of meeting agenda and minutes, establishing lines of communication, and
levels of authority.
1.2 Review Contractor's Payment Applications
Perform pre-draw site inspection to measure percent completeness for each bid item.
Review the Contractor's applications for payments and forward them with
recommendations to the City. Review and processing of twelve (12) payment requests
shall be included.
1.3 Prepare Change Orders
Process requests for contract modifications and change order requests, including
preparation of justification documents, evaluation of schedule impact, and review
Contractor's cost proposal for reasonableness and accuracy. Assist in negotiating with
the Contractor for changes to the Contract Documents. Evaluation and processing of up
to four (4) change order requests is included in this proposal.
1.4-5 Weekly and Monthly Meetings
Conduct weekly meetings with the Contractor to review progress, budgets, schedule and
other issues during construction.
Mr.Phil Monaghan
Construction Management and Inspection Services
Page 3 of 5
August 28,2007
1.6 Periodic Site Visits
The CM will conduct periodic visits to the site. For budgeting purposes, one (1) visit
per week, at four(3) hours per visit, is assumed for fourty (40) weeks.
1.7 Document Control
The CM will review and maintain files for daily reports, submittals, RFPs, change
orders, correspondence and other project documents.
1.8 Other Services
The CM/RE will perform additional services as listed below.
a) Review the schedule of shop drawing submittals and schedule of values prepared
by the Contractor.
b) Attend construction progress meetings and maintain and circulate copies of
minutes thereof.
c) Receive shop drawings and samples furnished by the Contractor and forward to
the home office.
d) Upon completion of the project, deliver all pertinent records and materials to the
City, including copies of all records, maps, and plans maintained by the field staff
during construction; provide one set of all approved shop drawings and submittals
maintained by the field staff during construction.
e) Conduct final inspection in the company of the Engineer, the City, and the
Contractor and review the punch list of items to be completed or corrected.
f) Verify that all items on the punch list have been completed or corrected and make
recommendations to the City concerning acceptance.
TASK 2. ENGINEERING SUPPORT
M&E will provide home office engineering support services which includes reviewing
and logging of shop drawings and submittals and providing response to RFI's, change
orders, substitution requests, and resolution of field problems.
2.1 Contractor's Submittals Review
Review, comment, and approve or reject the Contractor's shop drawing and schedule
submittals, including layout and installation drawings, data sheets, lists, graphs, and
catalog cut sheets. Cursory reviews of the contractors schedule will be made monthly,
however detailed scheduled reviews are not included
2,2 Respond to and Track Contractor's Inquiries
Provide interpretation of the plans and specifications. Respond to Contractor's requests
for information(RFI) and substitution requests.
Mr.Phil Monaghan
Construction Management and Inspection Services
Page 4 of 5
August 28,2007
2.3 Site Visit
Conduct periodic site visits by the design engineer to address concerns and clarify
issues.
2.4 Record Drawings
Review Contractor's marked-up set of "as-built" drawings reflecting the changed
conditions during construction. Prepare record drawings per Contractor maintained "as-
built"plans.
Once the project is complete, M&E will provide the City with a complete set of record
drawings which will reflect the improvements as constructed; any changes made during
project construction will be shown on the record drawings. Said record drawings will be
based on data furnished by the public agencies, the Contractor, and daily field reports.
TASK 3. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
M&E will provide a Construction Inspector for the construction period of one year on a
halftime basis or 80 hours per month for 12 months. It is anticipated that depending on
the contractor's construction schedule the inspector will be on site full time and
sometimes he will not be on site at all. The 80 hours per month is expected to be an
average time on site during the duration of the project plus time for contract closeout at
the end of the project . The services include the following:
a. Inspect for proper unloading, stringing, placement, storing, and installation of
pipe. Pipe joints and pipe bedding will be checked for conformance with Contract
Documents. The Inspector will inspect pipe, polyethylene sleeves, and taping for
damage and proper installation.
b. Conduct on-site inspection of the work in progress to determine if compliance
with the Contract Documents. Review Contractor's progress to verify adherence
to the schedule.
c. Transmit to the Contractor the RE's clarifications and interpretations of the
Contract Documents.
d. Monitor that the Contractor is keeping accurate records of as-built conditions on a
"red-line" file.
e. Prepare and furnish to the CM and the City daily construction reports,
documenting the Contractor's activities and progress.
f. Witness hydrostatic and leakage pipe testing.
g. Observe disinfection activities.
Sampling and testing of soil, concrete cylinders, and any other materials are not
included in this proposal.
Mr.Phil Monaghan
Construction Management and Inspection Services
Page 5 of 5
August 28,2007
I). PROPOSED FEE
The estimated fee to perform the services noted in Section C is $479,932.00. A detailed
breakdown of costs by task, subtask, and labor category and sub-consultant is included as
Attachment A.
Should you have any question in regards to scope of work and fee, please contact Doug Stovall
at (415) 522-5032 or myself at (415) 522-5005.
Very Truly Yours,
Metcalf& Eddy, Inc.
David Wood
Vice President
Attachment-A
Cost Estimate
City of Burlingame Trousdale Pump Station
Construction Management and Inspection
Prime Consultant: Metcalf&Eddv
Start Date 6/8/2008 End Date 6/9/2008
C N N h
O C C
Z O N O m om p c o U
m LU Lu
a Q a m
F o mLu m 4' S U G F
� a o
Description of Task/Subtask
1.0 lConstruction Contract Administration 422 8 320 136 886 $153,816
1.1 Conduct Pre-construction Meeting 4 8 8 20 $3,187
1.2
Review Contractor's Payment Applications 48 48 4 100 $17,868
1,3 Prepare Change Orders 56 28 4 88 $17,410
1.5 Weekly Meetings&Meeting Minutes 130 180 16 326 $54,839
1.6 Site Visits 120 120 $29,388
13 Project Document Control for 12 Months 64 56 112 232 $31,124
2.0 Engineering Support During Construction 20 376 40 150 80 24 690 103,013
2.1 Contractor's Submittals Review 8 280 54 12 354 $52,818
2.2 Respond to RFIs and Track Contractor's Inquiries 8 72 36 12 128 $18,402
2.3 Site Visits 40 40 $8,432
2.4 Record Drawings 4 24 60 80 168 $23,362
3.0 Resident Engineering/Construction Inspection 140 40 1 1,108 1,288 174,443
Resident Engineering/Construction Inspection 112 40 1090 1,242 $165,410
Final Walk through with the Contractor 28 18 46 $9,033
Total 2007/2008 Hours by Employee 682 424 40 1,578 80 160 2,864 $431,272
Total(including Contingency) $142,532 $65,720 $8,432 $190,780 $11,408 $12,400 $431,272
Total Cost-Prime
Labor(Task) $431,272
Travel $5,050
Other Direct Costs $500
Subconsultants $43,110
Total Cost of Task Order $479,932
n9ame\60022602—Pump Stotlon and Pipeline\400 Teahnkal\402 Drawings—Plans\Pump Station\Cover 3-04-06 10:15am hansolm %REFS:Border—PS;STAMP—SAINI I '
yj��9 acN�^
� as
N
Fav /i
r,
o
og e�
m nv
Z
O qF
Ip
19
< c�
z c o 0
m ^00� ,p
ro) o dO \
ar • / �G Q •.
a a� \ c+
0
^oa j
o Z
CT o 1� T� — � � j •��=i
p N
o
p
O
p '00 � �•o
r ss F �
1
A 9 r O
O T ."
i C Ea 9
t n ' �O \
Z
i
Agenda 9d
Item
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: 05/19/2008
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY ` l/
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: MAY 7, 2008
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO
SPENCON CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE RECREATION
CENTER SIDEWALK AND MISCELLANEOUS RAMPS, CURB AND
GUTTER PROJECT - CITY PROJECT NO. 82070
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached
resolution awarding a construction contract to SpenCon Construction, Inc. for the
Recreation Center Sidewalk and Miscellaneous Ramps, Curb and Gutter project in
the amount of $289,628. It is also recommended that staff be authorized to issue
change orders up to 50% of the construction award to take advantage of favorable
bid prices.
BACKGROUND: The project consists of the replacement of sidewalk, driveways
and ramps in front of the Recreation Center and along Burlingame Avenue to
Carolan Avenue. In addition, it includes installation of handicap ramps, curb and
gutters at various locations throughout the City. This project combines smaller
related projects into one project to improve efficiency and reduce administrative
costs as well as to obtain economies of scale.
DISCUSSION: The project bids were opened on May 6, 2008, and nine bids were
received ranging from $289,628 to $690,910. SpenCon Construction, Inc. is the
lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $289,628 being 29% below the
engineer's estimate of $407,050. SpenCon Construction, Inc. has met all the
requirements for this project and has successfully completed two similar projects for
the City within the past five years.
Due to favorable bid prices and in order to extend the limits of sidewalk, handicap
ramp, curb and gutter replacement as well as to maximize the use of available
funds, it is requested that staff be authorized to issue change orders up to 50% of
the contract amount.
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Repo rts\82070Award.doc
BUDGET IMPACT:
Following are the estimated project costs:
Construction contract $289,628
Contingencies $144,814
Contract Administration $ 40,000
Construction Inspection 25,558
TOTAL $500,000
The project is funded by Gas Tax and General Funds. There are adequate funds in
the project budget to cover the costs.
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Bid Summary and project map.
c: City Clerk, SpenCon Construction
f
Vi4ctor Voon
Associate n ineer
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\82070Award.doc
RESOLUTION NO. -
AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR RECREATION CENTER SIDEWALK
AND MISCELLANEOUS RAMPS, CURB AND GUTTER PROJECT
TO
SPENCON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 82070
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for proposals for the - CITY
PROJECT 82070 - CONTRACT FOR RECREATION CENTER SIDEWALK AND
MISCELLANEOUS RAMPS, CURB AND GUTTER PROJECT
WHEREAS,on MAY 6,2008,all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk
and representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS,SPENCON CONSTRUCTION,INC.,submitted the lowest responsible bid for
the job in the amount of$289,628.
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 SPENCON CONSTRUCTION,INC.,for said
project in the amount of$289,628, 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
1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
sAapubl i c wo rksd i r\proj ects\re sol uti onaward
BID SUMMARY
RECREATION CENTER SIDEWALK AND MISCELLANEOUS RAMPS,CURB AND GUTTER PROJECT OPENING BID DATE:
CITY PROJECT NUMBER 82070 May 6, 2006
ITEM ESTIMATED Engineers Estimate NCON CONSTRUCTION MAXICRETE INC. J.J.R.CONSTRUCTION ' GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT City of Burlingame FOSTER CITY FAIRFIELD SAN MATEO HAYWARD
UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS
1 Remove and Replace Sidwalk: 6,040 S.F. $12 $72,480.00 $9.00 $54.360.00 $10.00 $60,400,00 $8.50 $51,340.00 $9.25 $55,870.00
2 Remove and Replace Driveway. 720 S.F. $16 $11,520.00 $9.00 $6,480.00 $10.00 $7,200.00 $9.00 $6,480.00 $14.00 $10,080.00
3 Remove and Replace 14"Curb&Gutter: 2,020 L.F. $40 $80,800.00 $30.00 $60,600.00 $33.00 $66,660.00 $34.00 $68,680.00 $36.00 $72,720.00
4 Remove 8 Replace Curb: 120 S.F. $30 $3,600.00 $28.00 $3,360.00 $26.00 $3,120.00 $20.00 $2400.00 $27.00 $3,240.00
5 Cross Gutter: 880 S.F. $15 $13,200.00 $11.65 $10428.00 $10.00 $8,800.00 $15.00 $13,200.00 $14.75 $12,980-00
6 Construct Curb Ramp: 40 EACH $2,500 $100,000.00 $2,100.00 $84,000.00 $1,700.00 $68,000.00 $1,500.00 $60,000.00 $2,050.00 $82,000.00
7 Aggregate Base: 20 TON $30 $600.00 $40.00 $800.00 $60.00 $1,200.00 $50.00 $1,000.00 $120.00 $2,400.00
8 Remove A.C.Surfacing&Concrete Base: 3,200 S.F. $5 $16,000.00 $3.00 $9,600.00 $10.00 $32,000.00 $5.501 $17,600.00 $5.50 $17,600.00
9 Remove A.C.Surfacing Only 1,250.00 S.F. $3 $3,750.00 $3.00 $3,750.00 $4.00 $5,000.00 $3.50 $4,375.00 $2.50 $3,125.00
10 New Asphalt Concrete Surfacing: 250.00 TON $250 $62,500.00 $140.00 $35,000.00 $100.00 $25,000.00 $255.00 $63,750.00 $148.00 $37,000.00
11 Repair Irrigation System: 1 L.S. $2,500 $2,500.00 $450.00 $450.00 $20.000.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
12 Install&Replace Waterline: 1 EACH $1,500 $1,500.00 $100.00 $100.00 $10,825.00 $10,825.00 $250.00 $250.00 $800.00 $600.00
13 Adjust Manholes to Grade: 1 EACH $600 $600.00 $100.00 $100.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $750.00 $750.00 $500.00 $500.00
14 Meter Posts: 8 EACH $250 $2,000.00 $100.00 $800.00 $1 000.00 $8 000.00 $150.00 $1,200.00 $150.00 $1,200.00
15 Relocate Storm Drains for Curb Ramps: 6 EACH $6,0001 $36,000.001 $3,300.001 $19800.001 $3000.0 $18 000.00 $8 000.00 $48 000.00 $8,933.001 $53598.00
$407,050.00 $289,628.00 $339,205.00 $344,025.00 $354,613.00
......................................... ..................................................... .................................................... ..................................................... .....................................................
Bid:$369,025
ITEM ESTIMATED GHILOTTI BROS. VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION THOMAS CONSTRUCTION SPOSETO ENGINEERING JOS.J.ALBANESE,INC.
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT SAN RAFAEL LIVERMORE FOSTER CITY UNION CITY UNION CITY
UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS
1 Remove and Replace Sidwalk: 6,040 S.F. $9.25 $55,870.00 $10.00 $60,400.00 $5.80 $35,032.00 $10.60 $64,024.00 $14.00 $84,560.00
2 Remove and Replace Driveway: 720 S.F. $15.00 $10,800.00 $12.00 $8,640.00 $10.00 $7,200.00 $10.60 $7,632.00 $60.00 $43,200.00
3 Remove and Replace 14"Curb&Gutter: 2,020 L.F. $31.50 $63,630.00 $40.00 $80,800.00 $23.50 $47,470.00 $42.00 $84,840.00 $60.00 $121,200.00
4 Remove&Replace Curb: 120 S.F. $26.00 $3,120.00 $40.00 $4,800.00 $20.00 $2,400.00 $46.00 $5,520.00 $80.00 $9,600.00
5 Cross Gutter: 880 S.F. $12.50 $11,000.00 $20.00 $17,600.00 $8.00 $7,040.00 $14.00 $12,320.00 $30.00 $26,400.00
6 Construct Curb Ramp: 40 EACH $2,300.00 $92,000.00 $2,500.00 $100,000.00 $4,000.00 $160,000.00 $2,198.00 $87,920.00 $3,400.00 $136,000.00
7 Aggregate Base: 20 TON $41.00 $820.00 $60.00 $1,200.00 $100.00 $2,000.00 $94.00 $1,880.00 $700.00 $14,000.00
8 Remove A.C.Surfacing&Concrete Base: 3,200 S.F. $6.00 $19,200.00 $7.00 $22,400.00 $8.00 $25,600.00 $8.90 $28,480.00 $5.00 $16,000.00
9 Remove A.C.Surfacing Only 1,250.00 S.F. $2.00 $2,500.00 $4.00 $5,000.00 $5.00 $6,250.00 $3.60 $4,500.00 $5.00 $6,250.00
10 New Asphalt Concrete Surfacing: 250.00 TON $215.00 $53,750.00 $200.00 $50,000.00 $235.00 $58,750.00 $232.00 $58,000.00 $250.00 $62,500.00
11 Repair Irrigation System: 1 L.S. $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
12 Install&Replace Waterline: 1 EACH $600.00 $600.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $620.00 $620.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
13 Adjust Manholes to Grade: 1 EACH $550.00 $550.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $800.00 $800.00 $3,800.00 $3,800.00
14 Meter Posts: 8 EACH $315.00 $2,520.00 $90()!5,,,
900.00 $7,200.00 $850.00 $6,800.00 $150.00 $1,200.00 $800.00 $6,400.00
15 Relocate StormOrainsforCurbRamps: 6 EACH $11,830.00 $70,980.00 $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $12,900.00 $77,400.00 $23,500.00 $141,000.00
$389,340.00 $395,040.00 $407,542.00 $436,936.00 $690,910.00
NOTES: ' CALCULATION ERROR IN ITEM TOTAL;REVISED BID AMOUNT IS$344,025 FROM ORIGINAL BID OF$369,025.
ADDENDUM NO.1 AND BID BOND WERE NOT INCLUDED WITH BID PACKAGE
ADDENDUM NO.1 WAS NOT INCLUDED WITH BID PACKAGE
AGE t'
i'+', , pr„'1
$2,104,805.69
Ck. No. 32049-32636
Excludes Library Cks.32049-32091
RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
Payroll for April 2008
$2,679,687.08
Ck. No. 171291 - 171500
INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS
PERS HEALTH
PERS RETIREMENT
FEDERAL 941 TAX
STATE DISABILITY TAX
STATE INCOME TAX
PERS&ICMA DEFERRED COMP
SECTION 125 DEDUCTION
anc
co m
m �
a
oa m
o co
CD 3
, rn
S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS
O�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
05-08-2008 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10
FUND RECAP - 07-08
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 61 , 529.60
PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 4, 957.33
CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 3, 068. 79
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 45 ,388.37
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 80, 419. 71
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 282, 046.61
WATER FUND 526 243, 898.62
SEWER FUND 527 241099.90
SOLID WASTE FUND 528 5 ,857.82
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 7, 764 .95
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 13 , 195 .88
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 3,985 .48
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 343 .20
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 3,865 .36
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 29.88
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 1 ,442. 10
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 151311 .47
FEDERAL GRANTS FUND 737 338.28
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1 , 040.47
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $798, 583 .82
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 32515 THROUGH 32636 INCLUSIVE , TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $798, 583 .82, 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
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*� Denotes Hand Written Checks
32625 JENNIFER HILL 28439 52.00
MISCELLANEOUS 52.00 101 36330 000 1660
32626 THOMAS HARTMAN 28440 10.00
MISCELLANEOUS 10.00 101 36330 000 1644
32627 ANGELA HOUSE 28441 96.00
MISCELLANEOUS 96.00 101 36330 000 1370
32628 LAURA GURION 28442 100.00
MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593
32629 JAMES SMOLINSKI 28443 25.00
MISCELLANEOUS 25.00 101 36330 000 1212
32630 KEVIN FONG 28444 50.00
MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593
32631 PATRICE SCANLON 28445 75.00
MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593
32632 EVERALDO HERNANDEZ 28446 50.00
MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593
32633 LISA VOCKER 28447 75.00
MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593
32634 MARIGOLD COLE 28448 60.00
MISCELLANEOUS 60.00 101 36330 000 1521
32635 TRICIA LEWIS 28449 155.00
MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593
MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 36330 000 1213
32636 PAIGE BENJAMIN 28450 76.00
MISCELLANEOUS 76.00 101 36330 000 1660
TOTAL $798,583.82
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32609 DEB CONSTRUCTION INC 28249 4,350.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 4,350.00 101 22520
32610 PETERSEN DEAN ROOFING SYSTEMS 28250 29,282.40
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 29,282.40 320 80790 210
32611 AT&T MOBILITY 28264 108.62
COMMUNICATIONS 108.62 619 64460 160
32612 INGRID GONZALES 28369 38.00
MISCELLANEOUS 38.00 101 36330 000 1660
32613 MEUBIES FOLIOT INC/FOLIOT FURNIT 28407 9,921.92
MISCELLANEOUS 9,921.92 731 22557
32614 KARI ROBERTS 28417 194.00
MISCELLANEOUS 194.00 101 36330 000 1349
32615 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 28428 56.61
MISC. SUPPLIES 56.61 619 64460 120
32616 BEST OVERNITE EXPRESS 28429 176.35
MISCELLANEOUS 176.35 731 22557
32617 STEARNS WEAR 28431 312.69
PRISONER EXPENSE 312.69 101 65100 291
32618 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTM 28432 250.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 250.00 201 65200 260
32619 EDUCATIONAL FURNITURE GROUP 28433 3,865.24
MISCELLANEOUS 3,865.24 731 22557
32620 KENNETH HUBBARD 28434 667.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 667.00 326 81230 120
32621 SPECTRA ASSOCIATES INC 28435 304.30
OFFICE EXPENSE 304.30 101 64400 110
32622 MAUREEN O'DONNELL 28436 325.00
MISCELLANEOUS 325.00 101 37010
32623 DAVID IBARRA 28437 56.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 56.00 527 66520 260
32624 EDUARDO MADERA 28438 56.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 56.00 527 66520 260
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32593 FLEETPRIDE 27393 29.88
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 29.88 625 65213 203
32594 KEVIN GARDINER AND ASSOCIATES 27560 6,373.25
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,373.25 530 65400 210
32595 YANINA ABECASSIS 27654 500.00
MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 101 36330 000 1646
32596 MYLA PUYAT 27697 61.00
MISCELLANEOUS 61.00 101 36330 000 1660
32597 AT&T MOBILITY 27714 66.41
COMMUNICATIONS 66.41 101 64150 160
32598 AT&T MOBILITY 27716 32.94
COMMUNICATIONS 32.94 101 64100 160
32599 AT&T MOBILITY 27717 264.28
COMMUNICATIONS 264.28 101 66100 160
32600 AT&T MOBILITY 27722 60.33
COMMUNICATIONS 60.33 530 65400 160
32601 AT&T MOBILITY 27724 1,038.53
COMMUNICATIONS 1,038.53 201 65200 160
32602 AT&T MOBILITY 27725 135.86
COMMUNICATIONS 135.86 201 65200 160
32603 AT&T MOBILITY 27744 66.16
COMMUNICATIONS 66.16 101 65100 160
32604 BRANDT PLUMBING 27753 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
32605 AT&T MOBILITY 27760 1,040.47
UTILITY EXPENSE 1,040.47 896 20281
32606 AT&T MOBILITY 27763 132.42
COMMUNICATIONS 132.42 201 65200 160
32607 VMI INC 27929 1,346.65
MISCELLANEOUS 1,346.65 621 64450 400
32608 IPR 27976 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32581 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 1,417.88
OFFICE EXPENSE 19.91 101 64200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 836.62 101 65100 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 97.58 101 64200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 73.86 201 65200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 75.45 201 65500 110
TRAINING EXPENSE 314.46 201 65200 260
32582 AUGUSTINE CHOU 25332 44.00
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 44.00 101 66100 250
32583 MWH SOFT INC. 25416 1,000.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,000.00 326 81970 120
32584 AMERICAN BLINDS AND DRAPERIES 26025 378.81
MISC. SUPPLIES 378.81 619 64460 120 5110
32585 USPS-HASLER 26134 5,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 5,000.00 101 15500
32586 JILL GOLDSMITH 26185 1,200.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,200.00 101 22546
32587 RANDALL HAYES 26476 85.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 85.00 527 66520 260
32588 CHRIS KENNON 26605 3,000.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 3,000.00 101 22520
32589 ALL CHEMICAL DISPOSAL INC 26806 250.00
SUPPLIES 250.00 201 65200 112
32590 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 1,131.52
OFFICE EXPENSE 41.76 101 64350 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 76.27 101 66210 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 10.80 101 64420 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 79.06 101 64150 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 50.14 101 65300 120
OFFICE EXPENSE 351.67 526 69020 110
SMALL TOOLS 298.01 619 64460 130
OFFICE EXPENSE 223.81 620 66700 110
32591 SUE MILWEE 26886 38.00
MISCELLANEOUS 38.00 101 36330 000 1660
32592 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF SAN 27283 147.12
MISC. SUPPLIES 147.12 101 66210 120
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32566 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 21,406.70
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 21,406.70 327 81800 210
32567 AT&T 23661 53.08
COMMUNICATIONS 53.08 621 64450 160
32568 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 5,857.82
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,857.82 528 66600 210
32569 K.J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION INC 24058 260,639.91
MISCELLANEOUS -28,959.99 327 20005
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 289,599.90 327 81800 220
32570 NELSON NUGENT 24295 192.87
TRAINING EXPENSE 192.87 527 66520 260
32571 METCALF & EDDY INC 24445 66,780.97
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 63,524.50 326 80910 210
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,256.47 326 80910 220
32572 COMPUCOM 24467 2,199.00
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 2,199.00 621 64450 200
32573 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 2,170.00
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 2,170.00 101 64420 121
32574 ROB MALLICK 24587 135.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 135.00 619 64460 260
32575 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 4,957.33
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,957.33 130 20014
32576 PREMIER INVESTIGATIONS 24828 1,095.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,095.00 530 65400 210
32577 THE LIGHTHOUSE 24840 175.70
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 175.70 201 65200 203
32578 BATTERIES AND BUTTER 24889 50.10
TRAINING EXPENSE 50.10 201 65200 260
32579 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 51.74
TRAINING EXPENSE 51.74 527 66520 260
32580 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 171.35
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 171.35 201 65200 220
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32551 AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN & 20798 800.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 800.00 101 64420 262
32552 K-119 OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 20924 16.77
SMALL TOOLS 16.77 201 65200 130
32553 CEB 21210 177.29
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 177.29 101 64350 210
32554 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 21439 1,500.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 101 32100
32555 VINCENT FALZON 21893 56.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 56.00 527 66520 260
32556 REED EQUIPMENT CO 21980 152.87
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 152.87 101 68020 200 2200
32557 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 244.94
MISC. SUPPLIES 244.94 526 69020 120
32558 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 569.85
GAS, OIL & GREASE 569.85 101 65100 201
32559 BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER 22582 745.86
GAS & ELECTRIC 745.86 101 68010 170 1286
32560 JIM KELLY 22703 461.18
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 461.18 326 75170 250
32561 OFFICE MAX 23306 435.07
OFFICE EXPENSE 73.29 101 66100 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 63.78 201 65200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 31.37 530 65400 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 266.63 621 64450 110
32562 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 77.18
MISC. SUPPLIES 77.18 619 64460 120 5160
32563 TAP MASTER 23407 7,868.00
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 7,868.00 526 69020 800
32564 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 23470 143.97
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 98.50 101 66210 226
MISC. SUPPLIES 45.47 527 66520 120
32565 GORDON GOTTSCHE 23625 135.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 135.00 619 64460 260
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32536 ADAMSON POLICE PRODUCTS 14414 676.57
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 338.29 101 65100 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 338.28 737 65120 140
32537 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 88.00
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 88.00 101 64200 150
32538 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 16148 4,342.52
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,342.52 618 64520 210 3500
32539 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 20.56
SMALL TOOLS 20.56 620 66700 130
32540 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 6,768.97
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 6,768.97 320 82010 800
32541 COLORPRINT 17497 463.86
OFFICE EXPENSE 167.25 526 69020 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 296.61 527 66520 120
32542 ICMA MEMBERSHIP RENEWALS 18050 1,642.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,642.00 101 64150 240
32543 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 694.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 694.00 101 64420 210
32544 BAY ALARM 18854 691.36
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 691.36 619 64460 210 5180
32545 PREFERRED ALLIANCE 19025 255.20
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 255.20 101 64420 121
32546 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 92.15
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 92.15 201 65200 203
32547 WILSEY & HAM 19397 9,337.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,350.00 320 81740 210
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,987.00 320 81780 220
32548 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 228.36
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220
32549 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 4,204.00
RENTS & LEASES 2,102.00 526 69020 180
RENTS & LEASES 2,102.00 527 66520 180
32550 SPRINT PCS 20724 407.96
MISCELLANEOUS 407.96 731 22554
` \ 1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32528 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 5,604.48
MISCELLANEOUS 142.00 101 36330 000 1646
MISCELLANEOUS 136.00 101 36330 000 1782
OFFICE EXPENSE 17.00 101 68020 110 2100
MISC. SUPPLIES 109.30 101 68010 120 1521
MISC. SUPPLIES 140.83 101 68010 120 1101
MISC. SUPPLIES 69.65 101 68020 120 2100
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 19.75 101 64420 121
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 173.18 101 68020 140 2200
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 140.00 101 68020 210 2200
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 101 68010 220 1331
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 101 68010 220 1646
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.00 101 68010 220 1784
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 891.00 101 68010 220 1644
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,367.67 101 68010 220 1349
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 68010 220 1647
MISC. SUPPLIES 73.70 730 69533 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 910.00 730 69593 120 6019
MISC. SUPPLIES 282.22 730 69533 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 176.18 730 69593 120 6015
32529 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 108.86
MISC. SUPPLIES 108.86 101 64350 120
32530 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 90.35
SUPPLIES 90.35 620 15000
32531 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 3,152.82
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210
32532 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 8,853.36
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,619.88 618 64520 210
CLAIMS PAYMENTS 3,233.48 618 64520 601
32533 PETER GAINES 10507 109.51
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 109.51 527 66520 250
32534 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 2,248.95
MISCELLANEOUS 77.00 101 35140
COMMUNICATIONS 245.95 101 65100 160
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 275.00 101 65100 250
TRAINING EXPENSE 222.76 101 65150 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 1,223.24 101 65100 260
MISC. SUPPLIES 205.00 530 65400 120
32535 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 2,011.73
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,152.83 619 64460 210 5130
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 858.90 619 64460 210 5110
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
05/08/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32515 * LA TAPATIA 28430 940.00
MISCELLANEOUS 940.00 731 22558
32516 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 12.43
MISC. SUPPLIES 12.43 619 64460 120
32517 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,514.92
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,514.92 101 64560 220
32518 VEOLIA WATER 02110 20,871.39
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 20,871.39 527 66530 190
32519 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 172.12
MISCELLANEOUS 172.12 101 68020 192 2200
32520 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 356.03
MISC. SUPPLIES 89.51 526 69020 120
PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 177.31 527 66520 230
MISC. SUPPLIES 13.31 619 64460 120 5130
SMALL TOOLS 67.42 619 64460 130
SUPPLIES 8.48 620 15000
32521 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 2,435.34
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 1,800.81 101 66210 219
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 634.53 101 66210 226
32522 HEWLETT PACKARD 02457 11,510.56
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 11,510.56 326 75170 800
32523 P. G. & E. 03054 18,132.02
GAS & ELECTRIC 18,132.02 101 66100 170
32524 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 70.35
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 70.35 526 69020 800
32525 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 231,104.90
WATER PURCHASES 231,104.90 526 69020 171
32526 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY 03361 1,900.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,900.00 526 69020 120
32527 RANDY SCHWARTZ 03518 922.00
MISCELLANEOUS 922.00 101 68010 031
\ 1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
05-02-2008 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 45,726.19
PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 10,950.42
CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 6,570.94
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 4,858.02
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 109,333.05
WATER FUND 526 22,724.31
SEWER FUND 527 8,147.46
SOLID WASTE FUND 528 544.35
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 3,175.21
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 23,025.32
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 8,541.37
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,948.38
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 20,931.52
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 37.46
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 10,000.00
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1,981.77
PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 9,181.36
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 10,890.42
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $298,567.55
>W>o
�J�f ` _53 �t5)3�tt-g
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: .2 I I���. SS
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 32385 THROUGH 32514 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $298,567.55, 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
.................................... .../.../...
COUNCIL DATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 10
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32511 MICHELLE KING 28422 47.00
MISCELLANEOUS 47.00 101 36330 000 1521
32512 DYLAN CAMPOPIANO 28423 75.00
MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593
32513 ELIZABETH KENDALL 28424 75.00
MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593
32514 STEVEN WILLIAMS 28425 50.00
MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593
TOTAL $298,567.55
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32495 LISA WHITMAN 28404 389.56
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 389.56 621 64450 250
32496 THE PATCHIT COMPANY 28405 1,340.14
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 1,340.14 101 66210 226
32497 FIREWORKS & STAGE FX AMERICA INC 28406 10,000.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,000.00 730 69593 220 6018
32498 JOSELITO CRESPO 28408 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
32499 D.C. TAYLOR COMPANY 28409 1,125.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,125.00 101 22546
32500 CHEZ ALEXANDER 28410 15.57
MISCELLANEOUS 15.57 526 22502
32501 RETAIL THERAPY 28411 456.88
MISCELLANEOUS 456.88 526 22502
32502 MARICAR ORTIZ 28412 100.00
MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593
32503 MELISSA WHITE 28413 100.00
MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593
32504 GINA BIDINGER 28414 75.00
MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593
32505 ALASTAIR WHITTAKER 28415 50.00
MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593
32506 VICTORIA PAREDES 28416 50.00
MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593
32507 NAOMI JOHNSON 28417 194.00
MISCELLANEOUS 194.00 101 36330 000 1349
32508 MARC LOSITO 28418 636.00
MISCELLANEOUS 636.00 101 36330 000 1330
32509 DON PETER 28419 100.00
MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593
32510 SHERRI COLLINS 28420 172.00
MISCELLANEOUS 172.00 101 36330 000 1891
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32480 SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY C 27112 1,595.25
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,595.25 201 65200 220
32481 OLIVIA E. LEVITT 27217 237.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 237.00 101 68010 220 1644
32482 KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES 27428 300.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 300.00 101 68020 210 2100
32483 GEORGE OLDHAM, 27463 1,200.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,200.00 101 22546
32484 ALEX SLAVETF 27467 50.00
MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593
32485 PRE PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 27801 93.65
MISCELLANEOUS 93.65 130 21019
32486 ANDRE LEVITT 27978 237.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 237.00 101 68010 220 1644
32487 PERMA LINER INDUSTRIES, INC. 27983 830.64
MISC. SUPPLIES 830.64 527 66520 120
32488 ADVANCED INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLO 28004 1,611.45
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,611.45 527 66520 120
32489 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 28021 3,334.74
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,334.74 130 20021
32490 ERIK LEE MCNALLY-REIMERS 28156 90.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1349
32491 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 393.36
MISC. SUPPLIES 310.46 619 64460 120 5250
MISC. SUPPLIES 31.48 619 64460 120 5140
MISC. SUPPLIES 51.42 619 64460 120 5250
32492 DEB CONSTRUCTION INC 28249 3,060.75
MISCELLANEOUS 3,060.75 101 22546
32493 MAGIC WAVE PRODUCTIONS 28328 9,181.36
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,181.36 738 64580 220
32494 BAY BADMINTON CENTER 28403 600.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 600.00 101 68010 120 1781
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32464 ROCHE GEORGE 25323 240.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00 101 68010 220 1788
32465 MARINA DULMAN 25330 150.00
MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 22593
32466 SSFFD CTC 25376 600.00
MISCELLANEOUS 600.00 731 22554
32467 MARTY BURCHELL 25508 3,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546
32468 TRINA CABREROS 25583 126.00
MISCELLANEOUS 126.00 101 36330 000 1784
32469 ROB MICHELI 25681 90.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1788
32470 TOM MONTROSS 25723 240.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00 101 68010 220 1788
32471 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 25852 512.46
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200
32472 LAURA ESCOBAR 25925 152.00
MISCELLANEOUS 152.00 101 36330 000 1349
32473 GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 26096 826.77
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 826.77 201 65200 190
32474 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC 26294 1,245.00
COMMUNICATIONS 1,245.00 621 64450 160
32475 CEMEX 26506 47.34
MISC. SUPPLIES 47.34 101 66210 120
32476 MIKE ADAM 26517 210.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.00 101 68010 220 1788
32477 KATHRYN BAXTER 26690 68.00
MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1782
32478 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 43.75
OFFICE EXPENSE 43.75 526 69020 110
32479 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 26977 113.74
UTILITY EXPENSE 113.74 896 20281
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32448 SPANGLE ASSOCIATES 24113 2,720.80
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,720.80 530 65400 210
32449 DAVID ZIMMERMAN 24174 50.00
CLAIMS PAYMENTS 50.00 618 64520 601
32450 C&W ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 24231 2,428.93
MISCELLANEOUS 2,428.93 619 64460 804
32451 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 6,050.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 6,050.00 526 69020 290
32452 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 78.00
UNION DUES 78.00 130 21080
32453 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 180.00
MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 130 20024
32454 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 680.00
MISCELLANEOUS 680.00 130 20024
32455 C.L.E.A. 24523 565.50
MISCELLANEOUS 565.50 130 20026
32456 STANDARD INSURANCE CO. RB 24525 1,180.10
MISCELLANEOUS 1,180.10 130 20025
32457 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 504.00
UNION DUES 504.00 130 21091
32458 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60
MISCELLANEOUS 320.60 130 21092
32459 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 746.12
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 746.12 101 64420 121
32460 RICHARD UNSINN 24646 1,125.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,125.00 101 31510
32461 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 26,145.06
MISC. SUPPLIES 26,145.06 326 81390 120
32462 AETNA 24760 4,013.83
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,013.83 130 20022
32463 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 114.97
OFFICE EXPENSE 114.97 201 65200 110
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32435 GARY ROBB 22101 3,118.68
MISCELLANEOUS 3,118.68 101 65150 010
32436 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 9,876.47
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,133.48 526 69020 210
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 721.19 526 69020 240
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,021.80 526 69020 800
32437 BURLINGAME FAMILY PET HOSPITAL 22773 31.49
MISC. SUPPLIES 31.49 101 65100 120
32438 ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS 22851 10,843.00
CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 10,843.00 618 64520 225
32439 SHERRI BOYD 23027 75.00
MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593
32440 OFFICE MAX 23306 190.89
OFFICE EXPENSE 196.05 101 66100 110
OFFICE EXPENSE -5.16 621 64450 110
32441 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC. 23428 1,713.45
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,713.45 101 68010 120 1286
32442 PACIFIC PARKING SYSTEMS, INC. 23462 232.63
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 232.63 530 65400 200
32443 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 219.84
MISC. SUPPLIES 219.84 619 64460 120 5120
32444 AT&T/MCI 23728 9,272.02
COMMUNICATIONS 23.82 101 64250 160
MISCELLANEOUS 64.08 101 68020 192 2200
COMMUNICATIONS 116.90 201 65200 160
UTILITY EXPENSE 9,067.22 896 20281
32445 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 1,168.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,168.00 101 23620
32446 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 849.71
MISC. SUPPLIES 136.17 101 68010 120 1114
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 398.11 619 64460 220 5240
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 315.43 619 64460 220 5110
32447 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 34.68
COMMUNICATIONS 34.68 101 65300 160
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32421 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 191.96
OFFICE EXPENSE 11.68 101 64200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 79.89 101 64250 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 11.68 101 64150 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 11.68 101 64350 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 11.68 101 64420 120
WATER PURCHASES 65.35 526 69020 171
32422 WILSEY & HAM 19397 4,858.02
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,858.02 320 81780 220
32423 DON DORNELL 19617 935.93
MISCELLANEOUS 935.93 201 65200 031
32424 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 5,998.32
COMMUNICATIONS 5,998.32 621 64450 160
32425 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 2,400.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,400.00 326 75170 210
32426 FRANKLIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 20523 250.62
OFFICE EXPENSE 250.62 101 64420 110
32427 MAUREEN BROOKS 20551 485.09
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 485.09 621 64450 250
32428 BURLINGAME LIB. FOUNDATION 20561 1,370.77
MISCELLANEOUS 1,370.77 731 22551
32429 SPRINT PCS 20724 799.84
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 799.84 101 65100 220
32430 DELL MARKETING L.P. 20900 11,858.98
MISCELLANEOUS 11,858.98 621 64450 400
32431 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC 20986 5,075.99
TRAINING EXPENSE 5,075.99 101 65100 260
32432 CEB 21210 268.32
MISC. SUPPLIES 268.32 101 64350 120
32433 CIR 21211 586.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 586.50 527 66520 220
32434 SPARTAN TOOL LLC 21329 847.55
SMALL TOOLS 847.55 527 66520 130
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32410 LEE & ASSOCIATES 17568 276.81
RADIO MAINT. 276.81 201 65200 205
32411 SHAW PIPELINE INC 17959 80,587.35
MISCELLANEOUS -8,954.50 326 20005
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 89,541.85 326 80910 220
32412 RICHARD HAMBLIN 18210 60.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00 101 68010 220 1788
32413 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS 18389 119.56
MISC. SUPPLIES 119.56 101 64350 120
32414 RALF SINGER 18476 188.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 188.00 101 68010 220 1521
32415 RICOH AMERICAS 18555 447.27
OFFICE EXPENSE 447.27 621 64450 110
32416 BAY ALARM 18854 4,493.06
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 191.15 619 64460 210 5121
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,718.41 619 64460 210 5110
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 178.50 619 64460 210 5210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 405.00 619 64460 210 5180
32417 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 166.02
MISCELLANEOUS 166.02 201 65200 144
32418 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 1,536.51
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 338.07 101 66210 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 416.29 526 69020 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 338.03 527 66520 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 44.35 528 66600 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 117.80 619 64460 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 281.97 620 66700 140
32419 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 200.64
MISC. SUPPLIES 200.64 326 80910 120
32420 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 2,376.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,376.00 101 64350 210
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*� Denotes Hand Written Checks
32397 POM INC. 09248 221.78
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 221.78 530 65400 200
32398 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 10,700.00
CLAIMS PAYMENTS 10,700.00 618 64520 601
32399 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 2,423.52
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,020.00 101 64350 210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,403.52 618 64520 210
32400 LEE STAMBOLIS 11361 120.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 101 68010 220 1788
32401 CHIEF DON DORNELL 11568 2,468.45
MISCELLANEOUS 5.00 101 22518
MISCELLANEOUS 58.00 201 35230 000 7110
OFFICE EXPENSE 22.56 201 65200 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 101.79 201 65200 120
MISCELLANEOUS 269.99 201 65200 144
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 280.50 201 65200 190
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 75.00 201 65200 240
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 387.89 201 65200 250
TRAINING EXPENSE 1,267.72 201 65200 260
32402 D.J. CAPPS 14038 750.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 375.00 526 69020 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 375.00 527 66520 120
32403 DEWEY PEST CONTROL 14338 2,705.25
RAT CONTROL PROGRAM 2,705.25 527 66520 218
32404 DON E. GIOVANNETTI 15229 180.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00 101 68010 220 1788
32405 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,839.11
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,839.11 101 65100 220
32406 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 78.00
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 78.00 101 64200 150
32407 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 2,950.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,950.00 101 68010 220 1787
32408 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 73.13
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 73.13 101 68020 200 2300
32409 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 2,803.81
OFFICE EXPENSE 2,803.81 101 64250 110
}
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
05/02/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32385 * DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 28401 500.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 500.00 528 66600 120
32386 * DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 28402 822.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 822.00 527 66520 220
32387 * WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 1,709.46
MISCELLANEOUS 1,709.46 896 20282
32388 * CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALI 22424 995.00
OFFICE EXPENSE 24.00 101 67500 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 232.00 101 67500 120
LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 267.00 101 67500 125
LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 460.00 101 67500 129
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1.00 101 67500 190
LIBRARY EXPENSES 11.00 731 22531
32389 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 1,752.17
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 48.30 201 65200 203
SUPPLIES 1,666.41 620 15000
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 37.46 625 65213 203
32390 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 140.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 140.00 101 68010 240 1100
32391 POLETTI ASSOCIATES INC. 01992 495.00
MISCELLANEOUS 495.00 101 22515
32392 FEDEX 02160 145.70
MISC. SUPPLIES 20.44 101 66100 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 37.39 101 64400 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 32.53 101 64420 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 26.54 201 65200 120
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 28.80 618 64520 210
32393 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 205.88
TRAINING EXPENSE 31.04 527 66520 260
MISC. SUPPLIES 174.84 619 64460 120 5130
32394 DON PLAGMANN 03172 300.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 68010 220 1788
32395 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 5,425.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,425.00 526 69020 210
32396 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 25.00
MISCELLANEOUS 25.00 101 36330 000 1212
CITY OF BURLINGAME
04-23-2008 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 101 134,012.64
CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 2,648.13
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 38,637.39
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 23,701.27
WATER FUND 526 21,943.84
SEWER FUND 527 10,711.02
SOLID WASTE FUND 528 7,547.93
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 3,031.15
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 11,996.18
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 16,566.43
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 10,575.95
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 18,102.22
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 652.28
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 7,973.17
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 167,150.48
BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 25,032.15
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 647.50
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $500,929.73
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 32272 THROUGH 32384 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $500,929.73, 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 10
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32372 CDPH-OCP 27933 140.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 140.00 526 69020 260
32373 4 LEAF INC 27948 21,601.27
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 21,601.27 327 81800 210
32374 COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND AR 28091 2,673.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,673.00 101 68010 220 1349
32375 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOC INC 28116 6,913.88
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,913.88 320 81940 220
32376 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 500.66
MISC. SUPPLIES 500.66 101 68010 120 1286
32377 RESTEC CONTRACTORS INC. 28275 4,946.00
MISCELLANEOUS 4,946.00 619 64460 804
32378 AVANTI STORAGE SYSTEMS INC 28394 256.11
MISC. SUPPLIES 256.11 619 64460 120 5240
32379 VERSATILE INFORMATION PRODUCTS 28395 19,371.83
PRISONER EXPENSE 7,135.00 101 65100 291
MISCELLANEOUS 2,550.00 101 65100 400
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 9,686.83 101 65100 800
32380 C&L SPORTING GOODS 28396 582.92
MISC. SUPPLIES 582.92 101 68010 120 1106
32381 NOVALAST 28397 96.16
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 96.16 526 69020 800
32382 BURLINGAME CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE 28398 350.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 350.00 101 69537 120
32383 ROSE MARIE MOLINA 28399 4.03
MISCELLANEOUS 4.03 526 22502
32384 VERNON W BRUCE 28400 1,306.50
MISCELLANEOUS 1,306.50 101 22546
TOTAL $500,929.73
.RAINING EXPENSE 99.00 101 67500
TRAINING EXPENSE 1,171.00 101 65100 260
MISCELLANEOUS -2,207.94 101 65100 400
MISC. SUPPLIES 49.44 320 80430 120
TRAINING EXPENSE 1,089.98 526 69020 260
MISC. SUPPLIES 468.82 527 66520 120
DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS 958.28 527 66520 240
TRAVEL&MEETINGS 1,925.00 527 66520 250
TRAINING EXPENSE 849.00 619 64460 260 -
OFFICE EXPENSE 32.46 620 66700 110
BLDG. 8 GROUNDS MAINT. 44.35 620 66700 190
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 338.00 620 66700 210
MISC. SUPPLIES 89.71 730 69583 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 60.07 730 69533 120
MISCELLANEOUS 660.00 731 22558
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32371 U.S. BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYST 27931 221637.31
OFFICE EXPENSE 189.42 101 67500 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 107.96 101 68020 110 2100
OFFICE EXPENSE 153.01 101 64400 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 7.57 101 64250 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,671 .74 101 68010 120 1521
MISC. SUPPLIES -234.80 101 68010 120 1789
MISC. SUPPLIES 84.00 101 64400 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 112.90 101 68010 120 1892
MISC. SUPPLIES -393.72 101 64100 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 19.21 101 64150 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 6.81 101 68010 120 1789
MISC. SUPPLIES 84.00 101 68020 120 2100
MISC. SUPPLIES 41 .35 101 68010 120 1114
MISC. SUPPLIES 82.49 101 68010 120 1785
MISC. SUPPLIES 51 .96 101 64100 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 77.73 101 68010 120 1330
MISC. SUPPLIES 141 .02 101 68010 120 1644
MISC. SUPPLIES 68.30 101 68010 120 1370
MISC. SUPPLIES 11099.80 101 68010 120 1891
MISC. SUPPLIES 60.62 101 68010 120 1785
MISC. SUPPLIES 108.20 101 68010 120 1787
MISC. SUPPLIES 176.29 101 68010 120 1890
MISC. SUPPLIES 8.64 101 68010 120 1788
MISC. SUPPLIES 182.65 101 68020 120 2300
MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,167.29 101 68010 120 1106
MISC. SUPPLIES 258.82 101 67500 120
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 10.17 101 64420 121
LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 48.89 101 67500 129
COMMUNICATIONS 44.93 101 65100 160
COMMUNICATIONS 388.06 101 65150 160
COMMUNICATIONS 29.99 101 65100 160
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 108.04 101 67500 190
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 270.00 101 68020 190 2200
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 178.60 101 65100 200
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,594.64 101 68010 220 1370
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 , 125.20 101 68010 220 1422
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 388.06 101 65150 220
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,030.00 101 68010 220 1212
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 410.00 101 67500 240
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 484.70 101 64250 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 1 ,949.81 101 68010 250 1101
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 180.00 101 64150 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 17.25 101 64400 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 28.65 101 69537 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 25.00 101 68010 250 1101
TRAVEL & MEETINGS -28.63 101 65150 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 563.84 101 64420 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 163. 12 101 64150 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 92.56 101 64420 250
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 149.00 101 64150 250
STAFF & MEETINGS 425.00 101 67500 252
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*� Denotes Hard Written Checks
32366 DAVID GONZALEZ 27372 619.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 423.00 101 68010 220 1644
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 196.50 101 68010 220 1646
32367 FLEETPRIDE 27393 670.60
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 640.58 201 65200 203
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 30.02 625 65213 203
32368 PRECISE PRODUCTIONS 27443 550.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 550.00 730 69533 220
32369 LOOMIS 27594 2,439.00
BANKING SERVICE FEES 500.00 101 64250 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,939.00 530 65400 120
32370 ALWAYS UNDER PRESSURE 27810 6,575.93
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,575.93 528 66600 220
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32352 COMPUCOM 24467 17,647.74
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 17,647.74 621 64450 200
32353 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 835.99
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 835.99 101 64420 121
32354 DATA 911 24689 3,689.52
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 308.52 101 65100 200
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,381 .00 101 65100 220
32355 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 90.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 201 65200 220
32356 GINA BALDRIDGE 25092 580.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 580.00 730 69583 120
32357 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 516.03
TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SVC. 321 .50 101 68010 011 1101
OFFICE EXPENSE 89.32 101 64200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 105.21 101 68010 110 1101
32358 LEXIPOL LLC 25631 2,450.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,450.00 101 65100 220
32359 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 153.22
RENTS & LEASES 153.22 526 69020 180
32360 WOODSTOCK DEVELOPMENT 26133 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
32361 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 26570 4,480.20
MISCELLANEOUS 4,480.20 101 65100 400
32362 UNITED COMFORT SOLUTIONS INC 26639 9,324.08
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,726.26 619 64460 210 5120
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 675.00 619 64460 210 5110
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,922.82 619 64460 210 5130
32363 AMERICAN MESSAGING 26822 66.36
COMMUNICATIONS 66.36 526 69020 160
32364 BUREAU VERITAS 26854 45,054.64
MISCELLANEOUS 451054.64 101 22515
32365 JOSEPH BUNNELL 27243 334. 19
MISC. SUPPLIES 334. 19 201 65200 120
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32340 OFFICE MAX 23306 182.45
OFFICE EXPENSE -326.24 101 68010 110 1101
OFFICE EXPENSE 0.90 101 66100 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 159.94 201 65200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 347.85 621 64450 110
32341 DATASAFE 23410 418.82
OFFICE EXPENSE 34.05 101 64420 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 40.28 101 64150 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 129.67 101 66100 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 31.31 101 64350 120
BANKING SERVICE FEES 183.51 101 64250 120
32342 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 23470 71.99
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 71.99 101 66210 226
32343 PETERSON 23633 3,158.63
SUPPLIES 3,158.63 620 15000
32344 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 48.71
MISC. SUPPLIES 48.71 619 64460 120 5130
32345 AVR REALTY 23855 109.63
MISCELLANEOUS 109.63 526 22502
32346 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 160.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 160.00 101 64420 210
32347 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 250.00
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292
32348 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 1,491.67
MISC. SUPPLIES 79.09 101 68010 120 1114
MISC. SUPPLIES 85.37 101 68010 120 1111
MISC. SUPPLIES 424.08 101 68010 120 1114
MISC. SUPPLIES 903.13 101 68010 120 1111
32349 RUSS COHEN 23985 165.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 165.00 101 68010 220 1660
32350 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 25,811.57
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25,811.57 320 80520 220
32351 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 24249 648.00
MISCELLANEOUS 648.00 526 69020 233
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32326 CIR 21211 2,568.22
MISC. SUPPLIES 2,568.22 527 66520 120
32327 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 257.64
MISC. SUPPLIES 257.64 101 68010 120 1101
32328 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 6,531.25
TRAINING EXPENSE 2,177.09 101 66210 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 2,177.07 526 69020 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 2,177.09 527 66520 260
32329 HILLYARD/SAN FRANCISCO 21658 668.67
MISC. SUPPLIES 668.67 101 68020 120 2100
32330 SEWER RAT 21821 600.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 600.00 101 22520
32331 IEDA 21981 3,530.41
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,530.41 101 64420 210
32332 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 10,041.65
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 295.19 526 69020 210
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 9,746.46 526 69020 800
32333 AUTO PRIDE CAR WASH 22278 233.81
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 233.81 101 65100 200
32334 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 23,227.17
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,470.16 736 64571 220
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,757.01 736 64572 220
32335 CPRS DIST. IV 22671 100.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 730 69533 220
32336 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 435.00
UTILITY EXPENSE 435.00 896 20281
32337 VITAS VISKANTA 22764 856.75
MISCELLANEOUS 856.75 101 22546
32338 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 243.20
MISCELLANEOUS 243.20 526 69020 233
32339 CPS 23005 678.00
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 678.00 101 64420 121
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32312 JAMES CACCIA PLUMBING 19320 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
32313 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 488.98
MISC. SUPPLIES 382.35 201 65200 111
OFFICE EXPENSE 106.63 621 64450 110
32314 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 646.72
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 24.46 201 65200 203
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 622.26 625 65213 203
32315 THE MERCURY NEWS 19610 3,304.80
MISCELLANEOUS 2,332.80 101 30710
MISC. SUPPLIES 972.00 528 66600 120
32316 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINE 19821 265.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 265.00 101 66100 240
32317 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 1,804.98
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,804.98 736 64570 220
32318 GE CAPITAL 20216 379.75
OFFICE EXPENSE 94.93 101 68020 110 2100
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 284.82 101 68010 220 1100
32319 CENTRAL GARDEN CENTER 20300 129.84
MISC. SUPPLIES 129.84 101 68020 120 2200
32320 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S AREA 20366 107.00
PRISONER EXPENSE 107.00 101 65100 291
32321 CONTROL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 20421 4,200.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,500.00 526 69020 210
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,700.00 526 69020 800
32322 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 420.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 420.00 527 66520 120
32323 BRIDGE WIRELESS 20633 46.62
COMMUNICATIONS 46.62 620 66700 160
32324 LAWRENCE S. MOY 20954 705.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 705.00 101 68010 220 1762
32325 CEB 21210 126.41
MISC. SUPPLIES 126.41 101 64350 120
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32300 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 2,802.60
OFFICE EXPENSE 106.24 101 65100 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 170.98 101 65100 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 300.00 101 65150 120
COMMUNICATIONS 280.00 101 65100 160
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 11.57 101 65100 200
TRAINING EXPENSE 785.34 101 65100 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 619.14 101 65150 260
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 8.00 101 65100 292
MISC. SUPPLIES 100.00 530 65400 120
COMMUNICATIONS 66.49 530 65400 160
MISC. SUPPLIES 354.84 730 69588 120
32301 HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRP 15593 4,000.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,000.00 730 69593 220 6017
32302 MICHAEL MATTEUCCI 15616 964.81
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 964.81 101 64420 210
32303 TEAM CLEAN 15827 220.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 220.00 201 65200 220
32304 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 28.68
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 28.68 526 69020 800
32305 LINDA HOECK 16390 858.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 858.00 101 68010 220 1349
32306 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 8,884.29
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,993.19 527 66520 120
SUPPLIES 6,891.10 620 15000
32307 COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY 17789 667.13
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 667.13 101 68020 190 2200
32308 HILLSBOROUGH RECREATION 18796 1,650.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,650.00 101 68010 120 1781
32309 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 1,556.45
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 1,556.45 526 69020 250
32310 GOETZ BROTHERS 19045 57.37
MISC. SUPPLIES 48.71 101 68010 120 1785
MISC. SUPPLIES 8.66 101 68010 120 1788
32311 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 45.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 45.00 101 64420 260
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32285 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 480.39
MISC. SUPPLIES 480.39 101 64350 120
32286 ROY BRYSON 04123 2,238.55
MISC. SUPPLIES 2,238.55 730 69588 120
32287 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 756.75
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 756.75 101 68010 220 1891
32288 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 400.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 400.00 101 68010 120 1521
32289 POM INC. 09248 925.66
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 925.66 530 65400 200
32290 TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. 09270 2,100.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,100.00 327 81800 210
32291 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 09459 81.73
MISC. SUPPLIES 81.73 101 68020 120 2200
32292 NOEL L. MILLER, INC, 09499 271.24
VEHICLE MAINT. 271.24 201 65200 202
32293 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 11,996.18
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 11,996.18 618 64520 210
32294 OLE'S 09626 64.79
SMALL TOOLS 64.79 620 66700 130
32295 GARY M. OLSON, PH.D. 09902 300.00
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 300.00 101 64420 121
32296 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 3,513.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 491.00 201 65200 220
MISCELLANEOUS 3,022.50 320 82010 400
32297 ROMEO PACKING CO 11348 2,489.75
MISC. SUPPLIES 2,489.75 101 68020 120 2200
32298 LC ACTION POLICE SUPPLY 11532 514.19
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 514.19 101 65100 200
32299 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 11749 265.35
MISC. SUPPLIES 64.93 526 69020 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 200.42 527 66520 120
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
04/23/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32272 ALPINE AWARDS, INC. 01052 96.34
MISC. SUPPLIES 96.34 526 69020 120
32273 ALAN STEEL & SUPPLY CO. 01059 34.37
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 34.37 201 65200 203
32274 WHITE CAP 01250 1,531.40
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,531.40 101 66210 120
32275 GENE EVANS 02149 293.75
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 293.75 101 68010 220 1644
32276 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 176.19
MISCELLANEOUS 176.19 101 68020 192 2200
32277 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 1,777.52
MISC. SUPPLIES 101.13 101 66210 120
TRAINING EXPENSE 421.72 101 68020 260 2100
MISC. SUPPLIES 51.64 526 69020 120
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 60.50 526 69020 800
MISC. SUPPLIES 22.52 619 64460 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 23.70 619 64460 120 5130
SMALL TOOLS 1,096.31 619 64460 130
32278 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 90.39
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 90.39 101 66210 226
32279 AT&T 03080 443.45
COMMUNICATIONS 77.11 101 67500 160
COMMUNICATIONS 76.73 101 65100 160
COMMUNICATIONS 77.11 101 67500 160
UTILITY EXPENSE 212.50 896 20281
32280 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 2,840.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,840.00 320 80430 210 5110
32281 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 1,737.42
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,737.42 101 65150 220
32282 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL 03380 1,116.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,116.00 526 69020 210
32283 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 166,490.48
MISCELLANEOUS 166,490.48 731 22587
32284 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 3,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 64250 114
CITY OF BURLINGAME
04-18-2008 WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 15
FUND RECAP 07-08
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 87,774.49
PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 6,617.85
CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 17,427.49
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 7,908.02
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 70,967.94
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 2,105.00
WATER FUND 526 2,866.05
SEWER FUND 527 27,007.09
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 106,372.50
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 31,308.40
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 28,204.86
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 41,631.52
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,287.34
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 1,991.35
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 33,251.25
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 39,348.44
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $507,069.59
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 15
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 32092 THROUGH 32271 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $507,069.59, 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 14
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*� Denotes Hand Written Checks
32265 PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT 28387 100.00
MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593
32266 PLOWMAN CONSTRUCTION INC 28388 1,275.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,275.00 101 22546
32267 ORIGEN THERAPEUTICS 28389 552.58
MISCELLANEOUS 552.58 526 22502
32268 YANG MIN YANG 28390 1,080.00
MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525
MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630
32269 PAT BURNS 28391 1,080.00
MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630
MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525
32270 WILLIAM SPENCER CO 28392 1,125.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,125.00 101 22546
32271 RAYMOND FORREST 28393 1,000.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,000.00 327 81700 120
TOTAL $507,069.59
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32249 MERRITT WIKERT 28371 88.00
MISCELLANEOUS 88.00 101 36330 000 1641
32250 KATHERINE LOFRANO 28372 88.00
MISCELLANEOUS 88.00 101 36330 000 1641
32251 MARGUERITE KLAISS 28373 104.00
MISCELLANEOUS 104.00 101 36330 000 1641
32252 LAUREN HONG 28374 88.00
MISCELLANEOUS 88.00 101 36330 000 1641
32253 LETITIA GONG 28375 88.00
MISCELLANEOUS 88.00 101 36330 000 1641
32254 JULIE BORNSTEIN 28376 71.00
MISCELLANEOUS 71.00 101 36330 000 1646
32255 SUE BOICOURT 28377 71.00
MISCELLANEOUS 71.00 101 36330 000 1646
32256 RENEE NAVARRO 28378 10.00
MISCELLANEOUS 10.00 101 36330 000 1370
32257 JENIFFER DYER 28379 10.00
MISCELLANEOUS 10.00 101 36330 000 1370
32258 JENNIFER HODGES 28380 105.00
MISCELLANEOUS 105.00 101 36330 000 1762
32259 LAUREN HILT 28381 89.00
MISCELLANEOUS 89.00 101 36330 000 1762
32260 WASHINGTON DADS CLUB 28382 500.00
MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 101 22593
32261 GULNAAZ HANIF 28383 300.00
MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593
32262 EUGENE PODKAMINER 28384 75.00
MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593
32263 TONY ANTHONY SCOLES 28385 113.00
MISCELLANEOUS 113.00 101 36330 000 1644
32264 KELLY BRESLIN WRIGHT 28386 128.00
MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1370
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32233 PACIFIC DANCE COMPANY LLC 28223 525.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 525.00 101 68010 220 1647
32234 TROYER'S DOOR CONTROL 28226 3,254.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,254.00 619 64460 210 5180
32235 DINO ROPALIDIS 28253 9,587.50
MISCELLANEOUS 9,587.50 101 22546
32236 AT&T MOBILITY 28264 1,287.92
COMMUNICATIONS 1,287.92 619 64460 160
32237 LENA CHANG 28279 176.00
MISCELLANEOUS 176.00 101 36330 000 1331
32238 DAVID NOVELLI 28281 170.00
MISCELLANEOUS 170.00 130 20016
32239 CHARLIE STEFFEN 28296 654.00
MISCELLANEOUS 654.00 130 20016
32240 NADIA TAGHZOUT 28334 40.00
MISCELLANEOUS 40.00 101 36330 000 1646
32241 CORA 28354 2,116.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,116.00 101 65100 220
32242 JANE CARR 28362 70.00
MISCELLANEOUS 70.00 101 36330 000 1521
32243 FIONA GAUL 28364 144.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 144.00 101 68010 220 1349
32244 DEBORAH LEON 28366 190.00
MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 36330 000 1349
32245 JENNIFER SHARP 28367 190.00
MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 36330 000 1349
32246 SUSAN NOWOROLSKI 28368 190.00
MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 36330 000 1349
32247 INGRID GONZALES 28369 30.00
MISCELLANEOUS 30.00 101 36330 000 1660
32248 ROSEMARIE LASHKOFF 28370 48.00
MISCELLANEOUS 48.00 101 36330 000 1641
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32222 U.S. BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYST 27931 5,019.70
OFFICE EXPENSE 115.71 201 65200 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 27.05 201 65200 111
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,887.97 201 65200 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 39.57 201 65500 120
SMALL TOOLS -139.46 201 65200 130
COMMUNICATIONS 32.46 201 65200 160
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 716.59 201 65200 190
VEHICLE MAINT. 28.90 201 65200 202
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 252.38 201 65200 203
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 891.55 201 65200 250
TRAINING EXPENSE 1,122.87 201 65200 260
MISCELLANEOUS 44.11 731 22554
32223 A+ SPANISH ACADEMY 27960 910.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 910.00 101 68010 220 1331
32224 MR/MRS. YODER 27975 200.00
MISCELLANEOUS 10.00 101 36330 000 1370
MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 36330 000 1349
32225 DOMINIQUE FLORES 27979 390.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 390.00 101 68010 220 1785
32226 GUS RUEB 28052 1,214.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,214.00 130 20016
32227 INTERSTATE TOWING 28053 1,098.00
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 1,098.00 101 65100 292
32228 ZEIGER ENGINEERS INC 28129 6,807.88
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,807.88 320 81870 210
32229 AT&T MOBILITY 28132 280.49
MISCELLANEOUS 280.49 731 22554
32230 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 728.73
MISC. SUPPLIES 298.51 619 64460 120 5250
MISC. SUPPLIES 430.22 619 64460 120 5190
32231 GEORGE BAGDON 28219 295.00
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 295.00 130 20015
32232 RICOH AMERICAS CORP 28221 854.28
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 761.76 101 65100 220
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 92.52 101 65150 220
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32208 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 324.94
MISC. SUPPLIES 324.94 101 65300 120
32209 MICHAEL'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 27227 519.55
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 519.55 101 68010 220 1370
32210 JOSEPH BUNNELL 27243 100.00
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060
32211 ROSEMARIE SCHUBERT 27361 19.00
MISCELLANEOUS 19.00 101 36330 000 1660
32212 FLEETPRIDE 27393 29.88
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 29.88 625 65213 203
32213 EMMA BEAMES 27408 50.00
MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593
32214 HELEN TRAN 27500 150.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 101 68010 220 1789
32215 COLFAX INTERNATIONAL 27517 3,876.96
MISCELLANEOUS 3,876.96 621 64450 400
32216' EPC CONSULTANTS 27676 1,105.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,105.00 327 81800 220
32217 MELLO TRANSMISSION CO 27712 127.50
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 127.50 201 65200 203
32218 AT&T MOBILITY 27715 78.73
COMMUNICATIONS 78.73 101 65300 160
32219 AT&T MOBILITY 27758 32.61
COMMUNICATIONS 32.61 101 65100 160
32220 WITZIG HANNAH SANDERS & REAGAN L 27777 458.80
MISCELLANEOUS 458.80 618 64520 234
32221 DAVINA DRABKIN 27902 190.00
MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 36330 000 1349
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32193 MICHAEL VONADA 25235 100.00
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060
32194 JAKE PELK 25236 251.00
MISCELLANEOUS 251.00 130 20016
32195 TES 25256 239.22
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 239.22 101 68020 200 2300
32196 RICK VELEZ 25265 488.00
MISCELLANEOUS 488.00 130 20016
32197 MERCY MARTIN 25270 972.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 972.00 101 68010 220 1661
32198 AMY RUNDLE 25536 190.00
MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 36330 000 1349
32199 RON NOVELLI 25609 213.00
MISCELLANEOUS 213.00 130 20016
32200 LARSON CONSULTING 25732 5,765.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,765.00 527 66520 210
32201 ED BARTON 25850 100.00
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060
32202 EDMOND'S PLAZA FLORIST 26041 235.98
MISC. SUPPLIES 122.32 101 65150 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 113.66 101 65100 120
32203 PATRICIA EATON 26184 1,080.00
MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630
MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525
32204 CEMEX 26506 52.07
MISC. SUPPLIES 52.07 101 66210 120
32205 ERIC YAWN 26622 88.00
MISCELLANEOUS 88.00 101 36330 000 1641
32206 CAROL PICCOLOTTI 26652 170.00
MISCELLANEOUS 170.00 101 36330 000 1372
32207 THE RADAR SHOP 26808 55.00
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 55.00 101 65100 200
` \ t
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32179 GRETCHEN LOTT 24452 1,092.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,092.00 101 68010 220 1661
32180 JACK'S AUTO TOP AND UPHOLSTERY 24505 897.00
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 897.00 625 65213 203
32181 WATER SOLUTIONS 24532 1,500.00
SMALL TOOLS 1,500.00 526 69020 130
32182 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 3,528.25
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,751.00 326 82040 210
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,777.25 326 81180 210
32183 R.F. MACDONALD CO. 24580 6,481.00
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,296.20 619 64460 210 5110
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,296.20 619 64460 210 5130
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,296.20 619 64460 210 5180
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,296.20 619 64460 210 5120
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,296.20 619 64460 210 5240
32184 SWRCB FEES 24588 730.00
OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 730.00 527 66530 270
32185 SPRINGERWEST LLC 24704 820.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 820.50 101 68010 220 1660
32186 PREZANT CO 24765 410.92
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 410.92 201 65200 203
32187 RYAN KLARICH 24868 809.00
MISCELLANEOUS 809.00 130 20016
32188 WESCO GRAPHICS INC 25007 6,906.07
MISCELLANEOUS 6,906.07 101 68010 115 1101
32189 A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS 25020 137.40
OFFICE EXPENSE 137.40 201 65200 110
32190 JAMES MURPHY 25080 912.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 912.00 101 68010 220 1661
32191 BAY CITIES DRIVING SCHOOL 25220 2,605.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,605.50 101 68010 220 1422
32192 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 473.47
OFFICE EXPENSE 473.47 101 68010 110 1101
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32170 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 5,360.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,360.00 101 68010 220 1331
32171 AT&T/MCI 23728 90.17
COMMUNICATIONS 90.17 621 64450 160
32172 KEITH MARTIN 23788 168.19
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 33.97 101 66210 121
LIBRARY--PERIODICALS 10.52 101 66210 122
OFFICE EXPENSE 41.53 526 69020 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 48.71 526 69020 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 10.00 527 66520 120
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 8.00 527 66520 250
TRAINING EXPENSE 15.46 619 64460 260
32173 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 505.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5130
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5110
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5150
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5120
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5180
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5170
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 75.00 619 64460 220 5240
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5160
32174 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 17,289.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 902.00 619 64460 220 5190
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 619 64460 220 5170
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 619 64460 220 5230
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,873.00 619 64460 220 5120
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,246.00 619 64460 220 5130
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,101.00 619 64460 220 5180
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 989.00 619 64460 220 5210
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 619 64460 220 5121
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,140.00 619 64460 220 5110
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,892.00 619 64460 220 5240
32175 ERIC TRING 24074 358.20
MISCELLANEOUS 358.20 130 20016
32176 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24147 7,224.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,224.00 201 65200 220
32177 KUMUDINI MURTHY 24210 1,245.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,245.00 101 68010 220 1660
32178 SUSAN MCKEE 24442 729.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 729.00 101 68010 220 1661
C C C
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32156 MANDEGO, INC. 21855 1 ,500.19
MISC. SUPPLIES 754.59 101 68010 120 1781
MISC. SUPPLIES 235.91 101 68010 120 1785
MISC. SUPPLIES 365.53 101 68010 120 1781
MISC. SUPPLIES 144.16 101 68010 120 1788
32157 AUTO PRIDE CAR WASH 22278 203.84
VEHICLE MAINT. 203.84 201 65200 202
32158 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 200.00
GAS, OIL & GREASE 200.00 101 65100 201
32159 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 1 ,995.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,235.00 201 35220 000 7100
MISCELLANEOUS 760.00 201 35221 000 7100
32160 HOLDEN DANIELS 22687 101 .65
MISCELLANEOUS 101 .65 130 20016
32161 STEVE EHLERS 23014 450.00
MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 130 20016
32162 DONALD CHANG 23094 676.56
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 676.56 320 81670 250
32163 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 23156 175.00
MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 101 64420 031
32164 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 4,872.73
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,872.73 326 80910 210
32165 OFFICE MAX 23306 3,798.78
OFFICE EXPENSE 829.27 101 68010 110 1101
MISCELLANEOUS 2,969.51 101 64250 400
32166 THE CASH REGISTER CO. 23421 50.00
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 50.00 101 65100 200
32167 ICE CENTER OF SAN MATEO 23512 249.60
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 249.60 101 68010 220 1762
32168 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI , INC. 23531 13,065.17
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 13,065.17 326 81970 210
32169 MILLS PENINSULA EMERGENCY MED, IN 23548 153.00
MISCELLANEOUS 153.00 618 64520 234
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32142 PEGGY GUARALDI 19044 282.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 282.00 101 68010 220 1660
32143 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 574.51
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 111.53 201 65200 203
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 462.98 625 65213 203
32144 KATHY KARAS 19812 282.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 282.00 101 68010 220 1644
32145 RACQUET SMITH 20339 4,049.60
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,049.60 101 68010 220 1782
32146 CONTROL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 20421 33,719.00
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 33,719.00 326 79400 210
32147 MIKE HILLHOUSE 20549 142.00
MISCELLANEOUS 142.00 130 20016
32148 J. SNELL&CO., INC. 20571 73.94
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 73.94 101 68010 220 1101
32149 CHANNING L. BETE CO., INC. 20761 559.40
MISC. SUPPLIES 559.40 730 69584 120
32150 JEFF DOWD 20779 228.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.00 101 68010 220 1785
32151 AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN& 20798 2,800.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 2,800.00 101 64420 262
32152 GRICELDA NOONAN 20890 100.00
MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593
32153 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVAT0R-042 21240 988.00
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 247.00 619 64460 210 5130
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 494.00 619 64460 210 5120
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 247.00 619 64460 210 5230
32154 COW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 156.16
MISCELLANEOUS 156.16 101 64200 702
32155 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 6,581.45
MISCELLANEOUS 6,581.45 101 37010
C C C
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32126 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 68.19
SMALL TOOLS 68.19 620 66700 130
32127 BROADWAY BUSINESS 16849 1 ,437.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,437.00 731 22555
32128 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 790.22
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 790.22 101 68020 140 2200
32129 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16919 1 ,147.61
SUPPLIES 1 , 147.61 620 15000
32130 GOLDEN NURSERY 17128 50.27
MISC. SUPPLIES 50.27 101 68020 120 2200
32131 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 1 , 144.01
RADIO MAINT. 1 ,144.01 201 65200 205
32132 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 1 ,227. 12
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1 ,227.12 621 64450 200
32133 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 423.58
MISC. SUPPLIES 423.58 320 82070 120
32134 KIM SHAH 17619 94.00
MISCELLANEOUS 94.00 130 20016
32135 SHAW PIPELINE INC 17959 15,782.79
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,782.79 326 81230 220
32136 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT 18011 318.23
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 106.60 101 65150 200
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 211 .63 101 65100 200
32137 JOHN TSIVIKAS 18177 455.00
MISCELLANEOUS 455.00 130 20016
32138 KELLEHER & ASSOCIATES 18239 2, 140.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 21140.00 618 64520 210
32139 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 644.80
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 644.80 101 64420 210
32140 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 138.76
OFFICE EXPENSE 138.76 526 69020 110
32141 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 384.92
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 384.92 201 65200 220
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*� Denotes Hand Written Checks
32114 STERICYCLE, INC. 09439 179.64
PRISONER EXPENSE 179.64 101 65100 291
32115 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 93,939.40
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 13,939.40 618 64520 210
CLAIMS PAYMENTS 80,000.00 618 64520 601
32116 MARGARET KRAMER 09612 1,903.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,903.50 101 68010 220 1661
32117 WFCB OSH COMMERCIAL SERVICES 09670 2,320.34
MISC. SUPPLIES 360.93 101 66210 120
SMALL TOOLS 44.40 101 68020 130 2200
SMALL TOOLS 62.54 101 66210 130
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 449.09 101 68020 190 2200
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 175.27 101 66210 219
TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 276.86 101 66210 222
MISC. SUPPLIES 584.47 526 69020 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 45.87 527 66520 120
SMALL TOOLS 130.99 527 66520 130
MISC. SUPPLIES 189.92 619 64460 120
32118 ANA FITZGERALD 09975 188.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 188.00 101 68010 220 1647
32119 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 10,237.50
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 556.20 101 64350 210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,681.30 618 64520 210
32120 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 897.48
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 897.48 625 65213 203
32121 NORTH VALLEY OIL 13815 110.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 110.00 620 66700 120
32122 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHINES 14252 395.00
OFFICE EXPENSE 395.00 101 68010 110 1101
32123 ADAMSON POLICE PRODUCTS 14414 341.25
POLICE--SUPPLIES 341.25 101 65100 126
32124 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 1,873.37
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,873.37 101 65100 220
32125 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 26,679.26
SUPPLIES 26,679.26 620 15000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32105 SANDRA POBE 03175 1,508.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,508.00 101 68010 220 1646
32106 MARGARET PRENDERGAST 03179 1,451.25
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,451.25 101 68010 220 1641
32107 DOROTHY RADYK 03235 729.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 729.00 101 68010 220 1644
32108 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 03471 10,832.85
SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE 10,832.85 731 22562
32109 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 480.36
MISC. SUPPLIES 80.36 101 65100 120
TRAINING EXPENSE 400.00 101 65100 260
32110 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 4,233.08
MISCELLANEOUS 129.00 101 36330 000 1349
MISC. SUPPLIES 460.78 101 68010 120 1521
MISC. SUPPLIES 24.37 101 68010 120 1781
MISC. SUPPLIES 35.43 101 68010 120 1520
MISC. SUPPLIES 464.90 101 68010 120 1330
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 125.52 101 68020 140 2200
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 192.00 101 68010 220 1644
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2.00 101 68010 220 1646
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 101 68010 220 1331
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 285.00 101 68010 220 1645
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10.00 101 68010 220 1349
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1648
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 245.00 101 68020 240 2300
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 50.00 101 68010 250 1101
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 90.00 101 68020 250 2300
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 477.13 101 68020 250 2200
MISC. SUPPLIES 487.13 730 69593 120 6016
MISC. SUPPLIES 275.02 730 69583 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 92.41 730 69533 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 187.39 730 69593 120 6015
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 390.00 730 69533 220
32111 JEAN BUCKS 09019 474.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 474.00 101 68010 220 1644
32112 STATE OF CA/CONSERVATION DEPT 09073 958.94
MISCELLANEOUS 958.94 731 22550
32113 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 501.00
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 501.00 101 65100 292
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
04/18/08
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
32092 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 199.80
SUPPLIES 199.80 620 15000
32093 MATTHEW BENDER & CO., INC. 01312 353.50
MISC. SUPPLIES 353.50 101 64350 120
32094 BURLINGAME ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. 01500 19,697.86
SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE 19,697.86 731 22563
32095 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 35,349.17
COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 35,049.17 621 64450 220
32096 COMPUTER TECHNICIANS, INC., 01987 1,088.10
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,088.10 621 64450 200
32097 POLETTI ASSOCIATES INC. 01992 47.16
MISCELLANEOUS 47.16 101 22566
32098 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 449.34
MISCELLANEOUS 286.86 201 65200 144
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 162.48 201 65200 203
32099 VEOLIA WATER 02110 20,307.00
OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 20,307.00 527 66530 270
32100 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 427.37
MISCELLANEOUS 427.37 101 68020 192 2200
32101 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 683.89
MISC. SUPPLIES 114.52 101 68020 120 2100
MISC. SUPPLIES 75.30 619 64460 120 5180
MISC. SUPPLIES 259.64 619 64460 120 5240
MISC. SUPPLIES 22.52 619 64460 120 5140
SMALL TOOLS 211.91 619 64460 130
32102 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 365.71
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 365.71 101 66210 219
32103 MEG MONROE 02936 623.00
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 623.00 130 20015
32104 P. G. & E. 03054 41,025.40
GAS & ELECTRIC 1,401.61 101 68010 170 1286
GAS & ELECTRIC 1.68 101 66100 170
GAS & ELECTRIC 263.44 201 65200 170
GAS & ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170
UTILITY EXPENSE 39,348.44 896 20280
MEETING MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission
Thursday, April 17, 2008
The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by
Chairman Dittman at /:00 pm at Burlingame City riaii, 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame.
ROLL CALL,
Commissioners Presei t: Hesselgren, Shanus, Costner-Paine, Carlton,La Mariana, Fisher
SSliiiX1Cvt�.ornmi - V t: omaro
Staff Present: Parks&Recreation Director Schwartz,
Account Clerk III Butler
Others Present: None
MINUTES - The Minutes of the March 20, 2008 regular meeting were approved as amended
(page 4, Section B, Item 2 - change "plans" to "equipment" and change "plan equipment" to
"play equipment').
PUBLIC COMMENTS—(Chan person Hesselgren moved this sec±ion ',:1 1 later in the meeting
so a member of the public that previously requested to speak to Commission was able to arrive)
OL;D BUSINESS
A. Arsenic Update— Director Schwartz reported that the installation of the synthetic
grass field at Burlingame High School is scheduled to begin on April 18.
B. Capital Improvement Projects—(Because items B & C are affected by each other,
the discussions were combined) Director Schwartz reported that City staff met
with the non-profit groups who use City fields. The groups unanimously agreed
seat improvements to Bayside Parks �ieid 43 & 4 is the :ii4 n priority for iiei�i
improvements within the City, including fields owned by the City, Burlingame
School District and Burlingame High School. They have pledged $350,000 over
5 years for the synthetic turf field at Bayside Park contingent upon any fees
charged by the San Mateo Union High school District for facility/field use. Lynn
Mutto and Schwartz recently had a meeting with the High School District and a
separate meeting with several local City Managers regarding the communities'
use of facilities and fields. There is a series of meetings scheduled in the future to
discuss the needs of all parties. Commissioner Fisher asked if the City had
allocated iundS to elle BHS foC)tbaii +.tiand aquatics center projects in the past
and if there was a leasing agreement fnr use over aSpeced period of time.
Fisher also asked how the Bayside Field would be funded if the groups were
donating over a five-year period. Schwartz responded that the City does have
agreements in place with the SMUHSD and these will be discussed in the
upcoming meetings. For the Bayside project, Schwartz would ask the City
Parks&Recreation Commission
April 17,20033 Minutes—page 2
Council to use money out of reserves to initially fund the project knowing there is
an agreement in place.
C. San Mateo Union High School District Fees— (see item B above)
NEW BUSINESS
A. Allowing Dogs Off-Leash in City Parks — Schwartz reported that the
Commission's recommendation to allow dogs off leash in Washington and
Cuernavaca Parks until 7:30am each day will be on the City Council agenda for
.10onday. rkpi l 21.
B. Consideration of Allowing Businesses to Receive Resident irate on Recreation
Programs - Hesselgren, Shanus and La Mariana reported on the March meeting
of the committee formed to discuss the issue. They identified the stakeholders,
interests and options. The committee recommendation would be to allow
Chamber members only to receive the resident rate via a coupon in the monthly
Chalp�oer retivsletter. The coupon�.ould be limited to classes and activities in the
brochure and that copies would be accepted. La Mariana has contacted the
Chamber and they are supportive of the concept.
Commissioner Carlton felt that requiring a business to become a member of the
Chamber; which costs Kt/proAlrnately X250 a year, so they car.get the resident rate
on recreation classes would not create goodwill with the businesses. The
Chamber provides a list of new businesses in the City that can be used to mail out
a resident rate coupon. Castner-Paine agreed with this.
Shanus said we are not requiring a business to be a member of the Chamber.
Businesses can download the resident rate coupon off the website or get a copy to
use. He said the Chamber was a way to distribute the coupon or perhaps the
coupon could be sent out via the email list serve as a way to help the businesses
get the resident ratC.
Schwartz thought the issue before the Commission is to determine whether or not
business owners and their employees should receive the resident rate on
recreation programs. The issue of finding the proper vehicle to distribute the
coupons can be left to staff.
1•iV il<Vl\ V] t_"l I&"" �J�rVon Uelt 7 LC`-l1t�C111""[i 1• For am%%l LV deveLV/l a
process to allow local business license holders and their employees to receive
the resident rate for all Burlingame Parks 8 Recreation programs. MOTION
PASSED 6-0 (I absent).
Parks&Recreation Commission
April 17,2008 Minutes—page 3
PUBLIC COMMENTS—
Donna Colson, President of Burlingame Girls Softball, distributed a memo dated April 14, 2008
and addressed the Commission regarding the group's 2009 needs for the use Ray Park. She
updated the Commission to the fact that currently there have been only two complaints of minor
issue regarding their Sunday use of Ray Park. She reported that due to the good weather, the
group has not had to use the park for makeup games on Sundays. The 2008 season for the group
ends on May 15, 2008. Colson said that Ray Park is the safest field because of its restroom
placement and the best maintained for the girls, even with the drop-in cricket team at Ray Park
on Sunday mornings that has been roughing up the infield. Regarding their use of the
Burlingame High School fields, the bathroom access was an issue in the beginning and has
gotten better with construction being completed at the track. There was no electricity for the
ball machine and uie liifield was not in the best condition. The Lrroup may have to raise their fees
if the San Mateo Union High School District fees are imposed. vIf this is the case, Colson reports
that the group could cut down on their field use if they were more erncient with their practice
schedule. The group has committed to contributing$15 per child for the turfing of Bayside fields
3 & 4, contingent upon not paying the SMUHSD fees.
(Colson also mentioned that BGS is willing to move the Billy[Sue tournament to Bayside, instead
Vr 1\ay Park,:l B 1 L A can rearrange one of zneir tournaments at Bayside Park so the nates ao not
conflict.
La Mariana commented on the December meeting at Ray Park regarding the group's use of the
park and the anxious neighbors who attended the meeting. He inquired ass the whether
(�there
� have
been any complaints since the meeting. Schwartz reported that there have been no complaints
against BGS' use of the park. Hesselgren asked if there had been complaints in the past
regarding the groups use of the field. Schwartz responded that a minor complaint regarding trash
being left in the park was lodged some time ago and that complaints come when the scope of the
use of the park comes up for change. Fisher asked if there were complaints that perhaps did not
come to the Parks & Recreation Department such as being called into the Police department and
not being reported to the recreation department. Schwartz mentioned that this was possible,
however, the Police Department is aware of the sensitive nature of BGS' use of Ray Park and
usually informs him of any complaints. Shanus stated that he lives near that park and that BGS
U been a good neialibor in the sense that t�;ey have maintained the park well and have been
respectful.
Fisher pointed out that the 500 hours alluded to in Colson's memo would have to be distributed
to other City fields. He also asked what the status of the batting cage proposal was at Ray Park.
Schwartz said he was unsure at the meeting of how many hours BGS uses District fields but
`�A + '''�+ `'-� 1 '��� �V A; a QHS. Schwartz reported that BGS has
poliiu.0 vut Mat we league ham two uiamonuS to use at
access to the batting cage at BHS and therefore this issue has been resolved for the immediate
future. He also stated that BGS' proposal was modified to include a portable batting cage that
could be setup and taken down on a daily basis.
Parks&Recreation Commission
April 17,2008 Nfinmes-page 4
Hesselgren stated that if the District fees go into effect, there will be�a lot of teams displaced and
allmmte�i CornetihRre Plea As ali VAample, sl:V sNAted that Ray Park fields 1 t�A� L could VV turned
K1IV VKLVW JVLLL4 YO LLVLV VLJV.
into a lacrosse field. She would like to wait until the District fees issue is resolved before
proceeding. There is a bigger picture to consider here.
Fisher asked if there Is a date tO act by for tournainent schedules. Schwartz responded that the
youth sports groups set their tournament schedules far in advance and pointed out that as of July
I" the District fees schedule goes into effect. There are a series of meetings scheduled with the
District and other cities in hopes of reaching a solution.
1 i Tl!'1('1 1 _ 7 1 7 Tl1 7 1 1 '
HeSSelgren a!Ked if BGTS would Lig.required to rend the acting cage at BH1 and staled there. 1s an
agreement on the football field and Aquatics Center but not the softball field. BGS has
contributed the batting cage to the District's property. Hesselgren stated that the BGS field space
issue should be revisited in August after determining the direction on the District fees
Castner-Paine suggested that the City or non-profit groups may want to have an accountant look
at the proposed fees and the community's partnership with the District. Schwartz responded that
tuis is an op io[nt tical will be considered.
Hesselgren then directed staff to place this item on the August or September meeting agenda
when more information is available reaardinL-the District fees.
REPORTS/HANDOUTS
A. Staff Reports
1. Monthly Report(see attached)
Z. 2V:;7-OS Revenue Report(see attached;
B. Commissioners
1. Commissioner Shanus reported that the landscaping at Bayside Park
around the snack shack has been completed and three picnic tables have
been installed, BYBA partnered with the City of Burlingame to make
safety improvements to Bayside (pitching area and paved areas). The non-
e— i is r, r •s•.•
profits groups ^ ;'e reap;'to ten ware of the fa:IIl�ies.
?. Commissioner Castner-Paine noticed that the cinder paving in Washington
Park has been replaced by asphalt. She likes the look of the cinder paving
and feels it is more park like. She inquired if there was a maintenance cost
involved that was cost prohibitive to keeping the cinder paving.
t-nr-r_'Paina alcn rays:marl tkat eila at,end tha C nmtiniSSinnarc train inn
/. VK KLLLV LLLJV L-w-LVW LLL she L 11L.�VW V VVLLLLLLL VLLVIJ F.
and has a conversation with a Commissioner from Livermore who has had
similar issues with their District. She mentioned that she would be in
contact with that Commissioner to get more information as to how they
achieved some peace.
Parks&Recreation Commission
April 17,2008 Mimtes—page
Carlton asked how we got to this point with the District and what
agreements are currently In place. e11 grjoups should be able to sit A Av m
talk about this and come to a conclusion. Schwartz responded that the
increases for use of District facilities are due to the District's financial
difficulties. The new Superintendent informed the cities last December
t lati ih� fees fvr use of �iisu it fact hies would be increased, but the
amount was not disclosed until after the School Board meetinL-. Lvnn
Mutto, Recreation Supervisor, and Schwartz sat down and figured out the
impacts of the fees on Recreation and non-profit programs. They have
spoken to the District, who agreed to cut the fees in half for the first year
arlu ili6il go back tG fait propo�bd prllbJ L11creafter. itiluftoJ aild j 11 al�z
met with the non-profits and discouraged them from going to litigation
with the District over the issue, instead suggesting the negotiations as
suggested by the Board. Schwartz noted that the new Superintendent was
not aware of the City's previous donations of money and services to their
fi el ds,
4. Commissioner Fisher reported that Commissioners' training was well
done and informative.
5. Fisher asked if City Council has approved the nominees for the Walk of
Fame. Schwartz confirmed they had been approved and the honorees
would be recognized at the Centennial Ball on June 6h.
6. Commissioner La Marianna reported on the April 1 field use meeting that
VVUO atte11de Vy hlmsel£ Shallus, 1`IVhwartz and MuAW. He coiljrnended
Mutto and Schwartz for being outstanding facilitators. The consensus
among the six organizations was a commitment to donate for the
improvements to Bayside Park. They are looking for community wide
support. La Mariana gave a presentation to the Burlingame Rotary Club
Board regarding the positive impacts for the community as a whole from
the improvements proposed and hopes to receive their financial support.
La Mariana also supported Measure O, the Parks for the Future initiative
on the June 3 ballot. He feels this measure is very important and
encouragcu t110 %orninissloners to vote ill favor or,
TUU 3. He lilcntionvd
there is a rally dinner for the measure on April 24 at 1700 El Camino in
the Miller Room for those interested in attending.
7. Carlton reported on the Cuernavaca Park Playground renovation and that
the deadline for the plans to be submitted is April 29.
NEXT l Iij4' B Y1\V
The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be held on Thursday, May 15,
2008 at 7:00pm in Conference Room"A"of Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road.
Parks&Recreation Commission
April 17,2008 Nfinutes—page 6
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
8:40 ,,,r,
vasa.
Respectfully submitted,
Joleen Butler
Account Clerk III
Cit; of. Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dente
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 ay
BUR!lNGAME phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 -
recreationAburlingame.org 'iw1�w 1
�lfrn m LN°i
Date: April 16,2008
To: Parks&Rmeation Commissioners
City Council
From: Randy Schwartz
Re: Monthly Report
Parks Division
1. Requests for Proposals sent out for Resistograph testing on seven trees on Easton Drive based upon the Oct 2007
assessment a.�re—commendations.
2. Requests for Proposals sent out for playground equipment for Cuernavaca Park.
J. Large Douglas Fir was removed in Washington Park due to significant lean developed in February storm.
4. Merit pesticide injection for trees with chronic aphid problems has begun.
5. Sycamore pruning has been completed in this year's section.
6. Landscaping and 3 picnic benches were added to Bayside Park.
7 The foLoTX;n7 7oups began their spring seasons:Burlingame Girls So1?ball, Coyotes Lacrosse Bruning me Youth
Baseball Association,Burlingame Soccer Club, Youth Gaelic Football
Recreation Division
1. Summer 2008 Recreation Brochure was mailed to all Burlingame/Hillsborough residents and registration began.
2. The second session of Half Moon Music began with 11 of 12 classes filled with 12 participants each.
3. Senior Citizens activities included Spring film Festival and Lunch(25 people);Driver safety(28);Thunder Valley
Casino(38);Carmel (18)
4. Spring Break Camp had 34 registered for the weekly program; another 37 enrolled for the Day-at-a-Time Option.
5. Teen Lounge averaged 4 kids per day during Spring Break drop-in hours(12-4pm). Lounge was highlighted in
Burlingame Daily News& San Mateo County Times.
6. Spring Break driver's education had 27 students enrolled.
7. 15 YAC members attended the 2008 YAC Attack at Burlingame High School on Saturday,March 8a'
8. 200 7 &o' e students attended the March 21'`All City Dance
Upcoming Events
1. Centennial Art,Photography&Video Show—April 25 &26
2. Wine&Hot Chocolate Walk—May 2
3. Historic Tour—May 4
4. Day Or1;e Gr �at BurlingameHigh School sponsored byLive 105.3 &M011y Stones—May t1 on, 20080
5. Centennial Gala—June 6
6. Art in the Park—June 7& 8
Some Benefits of Parr&Recreation
1. In a city environment, every tree is worth$275 in benefits per year due to reductions in air-conditioning costs, erosion
control,wildlife protection and air pollution control.
2. People who are more socially involved are two to five times less likely to suffer from heart disease.
3. Repeated surveys by both Canadian and American health agencies, prove that regular exercise lessens the odds of
becoming depressed or overwhelmed by stress_
4. A study of women in their 40s found that moderate weight training not only improved muscle strength,but boosted
their body image and self esteem more than other types of activities.
BURLINGAME PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Collection Report
Mare 2008
Recreation Division 2007-08 2006-07 2005-06 Year%
Current Month COLL.YTD I COLL.YTD COLL.YTD Comparison
Key IDept I Program Gross Refunds Current Net 06-07/07-08
25 01 Misc.Admin. 742.67 742.67 3,302.37 125.00 1,087.24 2642%
1 10 Advertising 445.00 445.00 1,685.50 3,513.00 2,505.00 48%
26 12 Tix/Bks/ArtSls 432.75 - 432.75 22,729.58 38,831.74 41,591.77 59%
2 13 Bldg.Rental 10,087.00 - 10,087.00 63,992.50 63,860.00 48,308.50 100%
27 Rental Deposits 2,450.00 1,700.00 750.00 2,200.00 1,184.00 1,834.00 186%
3 16 Park Permit 1,225.00 - 1,225.00 4,175.00 5,253.50 4,025.00 79%
28 1294 Pool Rental 8,874.36 - 8,874.36 39,103.56 29,410.00 26,713.00 133%
4 20 Sr.Lunch - - - - - - #DIV/0!
29 21 1 Sr.Activities 834.00 32.00 802.00 10,094.00 16,680.80 17,024.00 61%
5 22 ITeens 2,386.00 1,050.00 1,336.00 17,227.00 16,050.00 18,043.12 107%
30 23 Jr.Teen Camps - - - 14,414.56 12,640.50 7,785.75 114%
8 24 PFRN - - - 48.00 - - #DIV/0!
6 30 Pre-school 11,733.00 - 11,733.00 112,705.50 143,414.85 136,742.32 79%
31 31 P ch.Class 7,730.00 101.00 7,629.00 113,133.00 106,315.75 113,420.25 106%
32 41 Lang.Arts 176.00 - 176.00 3,544.00 12,489.00 8,481.00 28%
9 44 Adult Art 4,105.00 127.00 3,978.00 74,482.00 87,799.00 75,998.00 85%
34 45 lCulinary 170.00 46.00 124.00 5,280.00 6,592.00 4,054.50 80%
10 46 Youth Art 8,480.75 - 8,480.75 67,699.55 76,003.03 50,883.25 89%
35 47 1 Misc.Art - 158.00 (158.00) 3,043.00 1,486.00 42.00 205%
12 48 Computers 134.00 134.00 1,520.00 2,945.00 916.00 52%
7 1 49 jEnrichment 26,248.00 - 26,248.00 131,257.25 102,577.75 107,658.58 128%
11 50 Art in Park 50.00 - 50.00 325.00 - 1,780.00 #DIV/0!
f3837 60 Special Classes 837.00 475.00 362.00 15,698.00 14,272.00 17,629.00 110%
61 Fitness 816.50 - 816.50 46,966.00 49,635.00 48,197.65 95%
62 Sport Classes 1,706.00 - 1,706.00 20,250.50 25,467.00 19,514.02 80%
14 70 Youth Camps/Trips 4,438.00 224.00 4,214.00 35,985.00 29,049.50 16,874.60 124%
15 72 1 Contract Sprts 4,368.00 2,926.00 1,442.00 66,597.80 53,273.50 51,175.30 125%
39 73 j Youth Non-Camps 125.00 - 125.00 1,629.00 #DIV/0!
40 80 Elem.Sports 603.00 - 603.00 27,820.00 29,955.00 33,839.00 93%
16 81 BIS Sports 3,093.00 198.00 2,895.00 71,945.00 63,331.00 70,787.00 114%
41 82 Tennis Lessons 2,037.00 - 2,037.00 25,737.00 26,616.25 20,456.50 97%
17 83 Tennis Courts 76.00 - 76.00 6,906.00 6,858.63 6,806.75 70
42 84 Golf Classes 126.00 126.00 - 3,234.00 10,698.00 10,477.50 30%
18 85 Misc,Sports 1,162.00 28.00 1,134.00 17,005.00 12,065.00 15,721.00 141%
43 86 Field Lgts/Rent 7,370.00 - 7,370.00 26,606.25 28,439.75 22,920.50 94%
19 87 jSoftball 9,782.50 - 9,782.50 37,661.14 36,689.50 39,209.99 103%
44 88 Basketball - - 11,776.00 6,615.00 5,017.00 178%
20 89 Volleyball 707.00 - 707.00 8,410.00 9,768.00 10,955.00 86%
21 90 Yth Aqu.Class 556.00 31.00 525.00 24,385.50 40,420.00 23,763.00 60%
45 91 Adlt Aqu.Class 2,191.50 222.50 1,969.00 10,929.50 13,OW.50 10,633.00 84%
46 92 Lap Swim O_Rec 735.00 - 735.00 3,742.00 3,288.00 16,440.35 114%
22 93 Rec Swim - - - - 3;337.00 20,247.90 0%
24 Yth Schlor.Fund 500.00 - 500.00 660.00 381.00 1,210.00 173%
Sub-totals 127,533.03 1 7,578.50 1 119,954.53 1,155,905.06 1,190,330.55 1 1,130,768.34 97%
ool Revenues 4,180.00 - 4,190.00 50,263.23 41,212.90 22,886.40 122%1
Recreation Totals 1$ 131,713.03 $ 7,578.50 1 124,134.53 1$ 1,206,168.29 $ 1,231,543.45 1 $ 1,153,654.74 98%1
33 Centennial Events $ 12,480.00 $ - 12,480.00 43,070.00 #DIV/01
47 Parks Revenue 50.00 I 50.00 1,31025 250.00 150.00 524°I°
48 Field Prep Fees - - - - #DIV/0!
23 95 Golf Cards - - - - #DIV/0!
Dept Totals $ 144,243.03 1 $ 7,578.50 1 136,664.53 1$1,250,548.54,1-$ 1,231,793.45 1 $ 1,153,804.74 5/l,200312:04
• CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
L �
BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
April 28, 2008 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the April 28, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Osterling, Terrones, Vistica and Yie, (Vistica
arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioner Auran
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Zoning Technician, Lisa Whitman; and
City Attorney, Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the December
10, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:
Correct the spelling of Commissioner Yie's name "Yie"not "Yee".
Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioner Auran and Vistica absent).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke regarding the project at 1473 Cortez Avenue. The property
was sold two days after the Commission's approval was granted. She noted that it was curious that
the current owner has not asked for approval of the as-built changes; the request is being made by
the contractor. The current owner's name does not appear in requests. With respect to the project
at 1348 Drake Avenue; this is an example of why the Commission should review FAR restrictions.
The Commission's direction was to avoid designing to the maximum FAR; the project falls only five
square feet below the maximum.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 9 CHANNING ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR WINDOWS
WITHIN TEN FEET OF PROPERTY LINE AND MORE THAN TEN FEET ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE
AND FOR STORAGE EXCEEDING TEN PERCENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN
DWELLING FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JERRY KUHEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
AND JERRY CARMINE, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Zoning Technician Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 28, 2008.
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION–Unapproved Minutes April 28,2008
Commission comments:
• Clarify what will happen with the fencing at the corner of the property;add this information to the
plans.
• Clarify the use of the accessory structure. The structure includes a telephone jack,skylight and a
window;these elements would not be necessary for a storage building.
• The request for approval of a window within ten feet of the property line could be eliminated with
design changes.
• Move the skylight to front roof ridge to eliminate light impact on the neighbor.
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 7:12 p.m.
2. 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE,ZONED R-3–APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM
PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM(DALE MEYER APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;AND MIKE PRESCOTT,PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report,dated April 28,2008.
Commission comments:
• Clarify the design of the accessory structure exiting the garage;looks too utilitarian;could have more
character to encourage its use;make reference to the gate structure at the front of the property.
• Changes on west elevation;the change is not an improvement at the entry portico.
• Give more definition to ceramic tile decorative element at elevator.
• Noted that the pillars are only cast stone on the first floor;concern that glass fiber elements on
upper floors may age differently.
• Appreciated applicant using glass fiber elements rather than stucco foam.
This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:17 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.
Item 3c,the application for 1790 Escalante Way,was pulled from the Consent Calendar by June Kaufman,
1760 Escalante Way.
3a. 1348 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1–APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE(JAMES CHU,CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING,APPLICANTAND DESIGNER;AND JENNY
NGO,PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN(continued from April 14,2008—
meeting)
4,2008meeting)
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
3b. 2533 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORYADDITION WITH
A TEN-FOOT PLATE HEIGHT (DAVID AND KELLY TILLMAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;
AND GEORGE SKINNER ARCHITECT/DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
3d. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY
GRANGE, TRG ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND JOE MCVEIGH, PROPERTY
OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of the Consent Calendar (Items 3a, 3b and 3d) 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 for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Auran absent).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m.
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?
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
■ 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 Brownrigg 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 fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-
1 (CommissionerAuran absent). This item concluded at 7:38 p.m.
4. 1316 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD & ASSOCIATES,
DESIGNER) 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. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Michael Kaindl, JD &Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
• Since the March 10th meeting, sat down with the owner and suggested a classical Nantucket design.
■ Agrees with findings of designer reviewer.
Commission comments:
■ Design is improved.
■ Need comprehensive notes regarding finishing materials, such as: gable vents; gates; more detail
on entry portico.
■ Concerned with the boxy massing being inappropriate for the site; lot is at the crest of the hill; the
structure will be very prominent; not convinced it is the right style for the location,
■ How does structure relate to maximum heights, particularly relative to the adjacent homes?
■ Could a photo-montage be prepared to show how it fits the setting?
■ Applicant demonstrated that there is a precedent for the style, but not in this location.
Public comments:
■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; beautifully designed; but leaving appropriateness of the design for
the site to the Commission. Concern about the materials, a past project by the applicant came back _
as an FYI with different materials.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes April 28,2008
Additional Commission comments:
• Main concern is the way the building works on this particular site;homes on either side slope down
from the peak. A photo-montage showing the mass and bulk of the proposal would be very helpful
to show how it would fit into the streetscape.
• Consider mature landscaping to soften the fagade. The properties to the left and right have mature
trees,but this site does not,exacerbates the issue.
• A Dutch colonial roofline may be more appropriate.
• The house will read as a three story structure, and it is situated at the top of a hill, which
exacerbates the contrast. Should borrow elements of some of the Colonial examples the architect
provided to bring down the mass.
• The design and massing could be improved with articulation along roofline and re-working of the
dormers. Could support with these changes.
Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to prepare a photo montage
showing how the structure would fit into the neighborhood and looking at design solutions that could lessen
the apparent mass of the structure when viewed from the street. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
• Denial without prejudice is the better option. Concern is that it could be sending a mixed signal to
applicant—Colonial design is not appropriate.
• If the design is not altered to meet the Commission's expectations,the project could be denied.
Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-1-1(Commissioner Brownngg dissenting,
Commissioner Auran absent). This item concluded at 7:56 p.m.
5. 3202 HILLSIDE DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING(FARIBA MOKHHTARI KARCHGANI,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;AND NGHI
THANH LE,DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 28,2008,with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the
report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven(11)conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Raymond Babaoghli;represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
• Clarify the roofing material.
• Asked for clarification regarding landscape revisions in the front yard area.
• Clarify details regarding the intended wood trim;successful execution of the design will rest on the
details.
• Composition tile roof would be better.
• The windows look like they're missing something by lacking the vertical pieces on the outside of the
jambs.
If the brick posts at the outside of the property remain,they should be stuccoed to match house,or
veneered with material from bottom of house.
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
Public comments:
■ Pat Giorni 1445 Balboa Avenue; asked if the representative could talk about the type of aluminum
true divided light windows proposed.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
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
April 3, 2008, sheets A0, A0.2, Al through A5, and 1-1 .0, and that any changes to building materials,
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the roof shall be finished with composition shingles.
3. that the existing brick pillars at the outside edge of the property shall be clad in a material similar to
that used at the base of the pillars flanking the entry to the residence.
4. that the windows shall be installed with a traditional stucco mold jamb detail.
5. that the columns flanking the entry shall be reduced in scale to between twelve to fifteen inches, the
final design of the columns shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI.
6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 13 and October 18, 2007 memos, the City
Engineer's July 23, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 11 , 2007 memo, and the NPDES
Coordinator's July 16, 2007 memo shall be met;
7. 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;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10e that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
11 . that the 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;
6
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes April 28,2008
12. 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
13. 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;
14. 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
15. 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:
The columns could be reduced in scale so as not to overpower roof that is supported;scale down to
as narrow as twelve to fifteen inches would be appropriate.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1(Commissioner
Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m.
6. 1477 CORTEZ AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BART GAUL, APPLICANT; 1477 CORTEZ LLC,
PROPERTY OWNER:AND JACK MCCARTHY DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 28,2008,with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman presented the
report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen(16)conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
• None
Jack McCarthy,5339 Prospect Road,San Jose;represented the applicant.
Asked to separate the discussion of the architectural items from the Conditional Use Permit request.
Additional Commission comments:
• Questioned the design of the sprinkler system standpipe.
• The home is beautiful;it is too bad a seven foot fence was erected.
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
■ There is a good argument for the Conditional Use Permit; rear yard acts as a courtyard.
■ Like the sunburst design.
■ Carriage house style garage doors would have been a better design solution.
Public comments:
■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; the design is fabulous. Provided chain of property transactions.
Amendment request is signed by property owner Bart Gaul; a change of ownership was recorded a
month before the application was submitted; property was sold before completion; changes likely
made by the new property owner. Has observed the frustration of the Commission with flagrant
disregard of desires of the City relative to the design of projects. Takes exception to statements in
McCarthy's letter that all changes were made to improve design; assumes the Commission will turn
a blind-eye to the changes. Should at a minimum require the installation of the desired garage door.
Applicant should replace French doors with original man door; questions installation of glass doors
at the location in the garage. Not inconceivable that space could be converted to living space.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1 . that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped February 22, 2007, sheets 1 through 3, 4 (left side elevation), 5 and L1 , and As-built
elevations (front, right side, rear, front garage, and left side garage) date-stamped April 7, 2008, 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 December 15, 2006 and January 24, 2007 memos,
the City Engineer's December 15, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 18, 2006 memo, and
the NPDES Coordinator's December 18, 2006 memo shall be met;
3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use
Permit as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
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 scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building footprint;
7, that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
8. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect 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 a:
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
8
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled.
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
11. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. that the project shall complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
16. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner
Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
Commissioner Brownrigg commented that the Commission has developed a respect for Ms. Giorni's input,
and appreciated her comments regarding this project.
Commissioner Yie recused herself from the public hearing for 1140 Cortez Avenue (Item 7) since she
resides less than 500-feet from the subject property. She left the dais.
7. 1140 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING (SIMON JANG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD AND
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for
9
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
■ Noted that the proposed FAR is at the maximum allowed.
Michael Kaindl, JD &Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
■ The CAD measures including the exterior finishes, which leads to the maximum FAR.
Public comments:
■ None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped
April 3, 2008, sheets A-1 through A-6, G-1, SF and L-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 conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 1, 2008, memo, and the City Engineer's, -�
Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's February 4, 2008 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
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
7. that the project shall complywith 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,
2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
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 Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
■ Commissioner Brownrigg noted that he supported the motion, but strongly discourages any changes
to finishing materials. Would not support a future request for a Variance to exceed the maximum
FAR.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner
Auran absent, Commissioner Yie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38
p.M.
Commissioner Yie returned to the dais.
8. 2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,
FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE (GILL AND JANE YEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD &
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
■ Asked if story poles were required; staff noted that there was no direction included in the minutes
from the last meeting.
Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; and Gill Yee, 2707 Martinez Drive represented the
applicant.
■ Noted objections from neighbor due to tree issue.
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
Additional Commission comments:
■ Asked if the applicant proposes trimming the trees.
■ Prepared not to get too involved in tree removal issues. Would like some clarification on which trees
are to be removed. Plans call for removal of at least four trees. Two trees in the rear have
branches protruding over property. In front yard, the removal of the two black Acacias and
Eucalyptus trees has an active permit. There are two trees to be removed within rear.
■ Would like to see story poles. Could also tape the trees that are to be removed in order to best
address view impacts.
Public comments:
■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Leo Redmond, 2711 Martinez Drive; and Gill Yee, 2707 Martinez
Drive; Black Acacia are on list of trees that the City Arborist would like to have removed. Once
pruned,the tree will grow more and more and will require more frequent pruning. There is a way for
reasonable people to work out the issues. The trees were encroaching upon the property at 2711
Martinez Drive, and the property owner had them trimmed by an arborist. The owner of the
neighboring property has worked for years with the applicant to have trees trimmed and the distant
Bay views restored. The trees are a problem in the front and rear of the property. The neighbor at
2711 Martinez Drive initiated mediation and made a generous offer with regards to the fence.
Rescinded his offer due to lack of cooperation of applicant. They have done nothing to restore the
view. Have endured a patchwork of materials on the roof of the Yee's house. Has diminished the
value of 2711 Martinez Drive. The applicant is requesting special treatment on the part of the City.
The applicant has not made any attempt to show the plans to the neighbor. Without a firm
commitment to address the issues raised, the neighbor at 2711 Martinez Drive will not support the
project. Requested installation of story poles; the project will have an impact upon the distant Bay
views and the airport. Not opposed to completion of remodel.
Further Commission comments:
■ Requested that story poles be erected and trees marked so that the Commission can assess view
impacts.
■ Front entry element needs to have story poles as does the ridge line tying the elements together,
and to the down slope corner.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item until May 12, 2008, with direction to the applicant to erect
story poles and mark trees that are scheduled for removal when the project is constructed. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (CommissionerAuran absent). This
item concluded at 9:09 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 1837 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BACILIA MACIAS, SPATIALART, INC.,APPLICANTANr
DESIGNER; AND CHRIS DUNNING, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION- Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Melanie Heck and Basilia Macias; 5141 Hilltop Drive, EI Sobrante and Chris Dunning, 1837 Hunt Drive;
represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Questioned the decision to keep slate veneer on front, but not continue it around the structure.
■ The neighborhood has a preponderance of brick veneer;will not serve the intended purpose unless
carried through. Also concerned about the size of the twelve inch squares.
■ The rear elevation appears to have balconies on top of balconies. No details on posts supporting
the decks, may intend to provide detail, but not shown. Reference the design guidelines to look for
ways to refine scale and design.
■ Main concern is broad left side elevation, two-story wall, not consistent with the style of the house.
The addition looks stacked on top of the house. Provide more articulation.
■ Right elevation contains a lot of stucco and no articulation or detail.
■ Massing looks layered.
■ Shift addition over and center door.
■ Concerned about use of vinyl windows.
■ Clarify that wood trim, not stucco foam trim, will be provided.
Public comments:
■ Patricia and Paul Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; would like the addition to not be too high,want home to
blend with neighborhood and retain views.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Usually insist on story poles. Are their distant views from her house?
■ Noted that there is space to lower the plate heights to reduce view impacts.
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 RegularAction Calendar, with direction to
the applicant to install story poles.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
■ Commissioner Vistica noted that he wouldn't support motion, the design should likely go through a
design reviewer since applicant has not worked in the City.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when story
poles have been erected and plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-2-
1 (Commissioners Vistica and Lindstrom dissenting, Commissioner Auran absent). The Planning
`-� Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:33 p.m.
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
10. 1620 FOREST VIEW AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES
FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MARY LOU AND
DOUG MORTON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Nancy Scheinholz, Scheinholz Associates, 1319 Howard Avenue; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Clarify proposed FAR, differences within staff report, which number is correct.
■ Roof structure; hodgepodge of roofs coming together; not opposed to bay structure, but did she
consider doing a hip roof and shed roof.
■ Plans indicate wood windows with wood trim. Will the addition will be same, with simulated or true
divided lights?
■ Supports application. The neighbor's structure encroachment supports FAR Variance, overall the
FAR will decrease, and the existing condition of needing to exit the home to enter the family room
will be eliminated.
■ Asked if the architect considered using part of the laundry room for the family room?
Public comments: —
■ None
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete with
direction to applicant to look at roof configuration.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie.
Discussion of motion:
■ Clarify that the laundry room is seven feet high and that prevents using portion of area for family
room.
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,Auran absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:44 p.m.
11. 466 MARIN DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR
AREA RATIO, FRONT SETBACK AND PARKING FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TOA
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS,APPLICANTAND
DESIGNER; AND STEVE DRUSKIN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA
STROHMEIER
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Zoning Technician Whitman briefly
presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period.
Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., 405 Bayswater Avenue and Steve Druskin, 466 Marin
Drive; represented the applicant.
Commission comments:
■ Requested clarification from staff on whether dormer counts toward floor area.
■ Commented on the hardship for moving wall back to meet parking dimension. The applicant's
justification appears to be worded too strongly.
■ Noted that the platform at the dormer shouldn't count towards floor area because a person can't
stand in the area.
■ Neither the floor area nor the front setback Variances seem justifiable. Adding detail (such as a
front porch) doesn't constitute a hardship.
■ Is there a way to configure the space to eliminate the need for the front setback Variance?
■ Design is good provided that the FAR Variance can be addressed.
■ Creating a usable front porch is good. In order to create a useable porch, it needs to move outward
a bit to provide a place to land. Hindered by the block average. The hardship is the location of the
front wall of the house. The proposed front porch does not encroach too much into the setback.
■ If the dormer counts in FAR, scale back the family room to eliminate the need for the floor area
Variance.
Public comments:
■ None
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 if the
FAR Variance is eliminated, if not, then place on the Regular Action Calendar.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendarif the FAR Variance
is eliminated, or on the Regular Action Calendar if it is not eliminated, when plans have been revised as
directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Auran absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:58 p.m.
Chair Cauchi indicated that he had to leave the meeting by 10:00 p.m. and left the dais, turning over the
meeting to Vice-Chair Terrones.
12. 755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2 — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY USE AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING
VARIANCE FOR A NEW, THREE-STORY, 46-UNIT GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE
ELDERLY(DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT,AND THE YERBY COMPANY,
PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated April 28, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
briefly presented the project description and clarified the scope of the evening's discussion. Mr, Meeker
further explained the reason for the proposed General Plan amendment, and the rationale for considering it
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
at this time. He indicated that no action would be taken regarding the project this evening. Comments
received would be passed along to the environmental consultant to guide the environmental evaluation of
the proposal.
Vice-Chair Terrones opened the public comment period.
Dale Meyer, Dale Meyer Associates, 851 Burlway Road and Mark Hudak, 261 Park Road; represented the
applicant:
■ Reviewed changes made to the project since December 10, 2007 scoping meeting.
■ Noted visiting hours are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. — shouldn't be noise after those times.
■ Current project is roughly 60 square feet smaller than the nearby fire station, is almost exactly the
height of the fire station. Proportions are similar; fire station deeper, but project is somewhat wider.
■ Discussed General Plan amendment; need for consistency between General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. Amendments are not unheard of, may occur up to 4 times per year.
■ The Zoning Code is the most recent representation of the types of uses that should occur on
California Drive.
■ The City is best served by strengthening the connection between Broadway and Burlingame
Avenue. Believes the City will be well-served with the proposed amendment.
■ Referenced Housing Element policies encouraging senior housing.
■ Amendment to General Plan does not eliminate City Control of uses.
■ All of the uses that are not clearly C-2 uses (but referenced in other zones) require a Conditional
Use Permit.
Commission comments:
■ None
Public comments:
■ Betsy McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; Tim Behrens, 1133 Palm Drive; Katie Treu, 745 Neuchatel
Avenue; Nancy Myers, 1117 Edgehill Drive; Tracy Ismert, 853 Paloma Avenue; Toni Montgomery,
741 California Drive; Bob Frudenberg, 1109 Palm Drive; Carol Zell, 756 Willborough Avenue; Dave
Schnell, 924 Chula Vista Avenue; Ramona Martinez, 709 Walnut Avenue; Iry Ungar, 1200 Edgehill
Drive; Brian McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; Tom Paine, 728 Concord Way; Lisa Tyree, 724 Neuchatel
Avenue; Robert Ruth, 1128 Palm Drive; Sylvie Hale, 1208 Palm Drive; Greg Scupazzi, 815 Edgehill
Drive; Margie Ungar, 1214 Edgehill Drive; Cole Montgomery, 741 California Drive; Pat Giorni 1445
Balboa Avenue; and Mimi Argeris, 754 Crossway Road; spoke regarding the matter. It was noted
that only about 50 neighbors tonight, but another 52 could not be present. Mr. Hudak's points
between Broadway and Burlingame Avenue are good; but encouraged looking at the entire area to
create consistency. Do not place an individual building in the area that breaks the consistency. The
Burlingame/North Rollins Road Specific Plan provided guidance for senior housing. Referenced the
public outreach used in the past planning efforts. Encouraged using a similar community inclusive
approach to look at the planning for the entire area. Neighbors have ideas about uses that would be
appropriate for the area. Asked the Planning Commission to carry the message of the need for a
comprehensive, open look at the land-uses along California Drive. Want a specific plan, not a plan
amendment. Asked the Commission to think how they would feel if this type of project were to be
placed in their neighborhood. Submitted a document signed by other interested residents. Spoke to
height and bulk of the project. Doesn't meet the intent of the Design Standards. The project is not
compatible with mass, bulk and scale of existing development. Concerned with the original desigr
that it was a big box. Have taken a floor off, but still appears as a big box, without the types of
architectural features you would find in a transitional area. One-story buildings will be flanking the
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
�— project on either side. Height and mass should be addressed sympathetically to nearby
development. Guidelines encourage a dialog between residents and the developer. Project
appears to be moving forward without engaging the neighbors. Have yet to find one neighbor in
support of the project. Everyone is in favor of having a say in what occurs along California Drive. If
the Commission deems it appropriate to approve the amendment, there are still many issues that
the neighbors have with the proposed project design. It is still a huge box; it impacts the
"environmental quality rights"of the neighbors. Will affect scenic resources(the Eucalyptus trees on
California Drive). Would create a new source of light and glare. Would place added burden on
infrastructure. Mechanical noises of a 24-hour operation would be an impact. Since 2005, traffic
and noise have increased due to merger of Fire Department, and added"baby bullet train"service.
The mass, bulk and character of the proposed project are inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Proposal does not follow Commercial Design Guidelines for transitional land-uses. Requires
commercial building to have massing handled carefully. Should not be built to maximum height limit
when adjacent to residential land-uses. Supports strong and prosperous businesses on California
Drive, but project not appropriate for the area. Would be more suitable for north Burlingame.
Please consider how the proposed General Plan amendment would benefit the Burlingame, and not
just the developer. Noted earlier comments that having an area to walk around is necessary.
California Drive is not a pedestrian-friendly street; the outdoor deck was removed from the project
design. The quality of life of the residents will be affected by the project design. The fire station is a
required function for the area, this project is not needed. Putting through an amendment for the
specific purpose of benefitting one developer is inappropriate. Community needs to be involved in
developing a plan for the area. Do not exclude the neighbors from the process. Do not believe that
the area between Burlingame Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue is an appropriate location for non-
commercial uses. Placing the residential use on the property is an unsafe place for this type of use.
The Blue Ribbon Cleaners would be next door to a building under construction; the mess will affect
the business. Would be problematic to keep the business running during construction. Need to
keep the area commercial oriented. Consider the facility to be a residential use. Seems like in the
last few years, homes are being torn down, multi-family units built with a lot more people living in
them. Contributing to garbage, pollution, traffic, etc. Why are all of the residential uses being
eliminated? Likes the uses that are already present on the street. The existing businesses have
few employees. The City has a tendency to look at number of parking spaces for residential uses.
Why does City not require enough parking for commercial uses. There is a lot of training that occurs
at the fire department that impacts parking and traffic. This use will not help. Should have a lot
more parking. Doesn't think a 35-foot building is appropriate for the area. How many employees will
be needed? Concerned with how many people would be going in and out of the facility.
Summarized a letter from residents at 716 Neuchatel Avenue; referred to a "future general
development plan". Greatest concern is that there is no plan for the area; bad timing for this
proposal. How will we plan for future generations? What is the rush for the project to move
forward? Want to be sure that there is compliance with the General Plan, story poles are erected,
light and noise impacts are assessed, etc. Isn't clear that all of the Commissioner's comments have
been addressed by the scaled-down project. Is the Commission satisfied with the amount of outside
area? Along California Drive, would like to see the storefronts remain. Perhaps stipulate that the
street level maintains a storefront. The project does not belong in this part of town. Concern
regarding "spot zoning". Next area for a specific plan should be Broadway and the California Drive
corridor. Could not conceive of placing a loved-one in a facility of this design and location. A very
active fire station and train station in the area. California Drive is the principle access to downtown
Burlingame. Its development should be planned, rather than backed into. The area deserves a
specific plan. Should try to determine what we want our city to look like for the future. Taking action
on the basis of this application could set the tone for future development along California Drive. A
`— specific plan would avoid that result. Consistency is the hallmark of good planning and zoning. No
evidence that the absence of a residential reference in the General Plan was an oversight. Project
is inconsistent with the surrounding development. Foolish to initiate the environmental review
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
process until it is determined if the use will be permitted in the area. Consider what is good for the
residents and the community. The City is expending a lot of money to have staff evaluate the
project. Look at all of the neighbors who are opposed. There is a lot of traffic with board and care
facilities. If approved, should it be restricted to Burlingame residents. Asked if the use is residential
or commercial; is it custodial, assisted care, board and care? What type of use is it? What kind of
elderly care is to be provided?
Commission comments:
• Include an analysis of existing noise conditions at property lines at nighttime.
• Conduct an evaluation of ratios of outdoor space to patient count when compared to other similar
facilities.
• Evaluate comings and goings of visitors and staff.
■ Evaluate light and glare impacts.
■ Evaluate noise impacts.
■ Consider affect of having such a large structure next to residential uses.
■ Asked if there is some way for this project to contribute some life to California Drive. What are the
impacts of providing commercial uses at the ground level? Commercial uses could add some life to
the street. The applicant was requested to look at uses that enhance pedestrian activity to the
project.
■ Provide a visual simulation showing perspectives of the project from other properties, and not just
from California Drive.
■ Study employee parking.
■ Asked the neighbors to reflect on what the real issue is; the code allows for a 35' building at that
location. What use would you like to see there? —
■ The facades need a lot of work. The roof detail needs to be more prominent. Lack of porosity at
ground level. Front of building needs more study as it relates to California Drive. Lacking in detail
and repetitive.
■ Could be beneficial as a facility for independent living that would contribute to the community and to
the businesses.
■ Story poles will be critical to see impacts.
■ Building frontage could be enhanced by something that at least mimics mixed use (mock
storefronts, openings into building from street); front of the building should be more porous at street
level. More focus should be given to the relationship between the front fagade and the street.
■ Acknowledge that the design is still preliminary.
■ Facades still need a lot of work; northwest elevation is monotonous and repetitive.
■ Roof detail needs to be better articulated and more prominent.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Staff was directed to pass along a summary of the scoping hearing comments to the environmental
consultant to consider when preparing the environmental evaluation for the proposed project.
This item concluded at 11142 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
Xl. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
18
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 28, 2008
■ Reminded the Commission of the upcoming appeal hearing scheduled for May 5, 2008 before the
City Council regarding 3066 Hillside Drive.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 21, 2008:
■ None
FYI: 1537 Howard Avenue— requested changes to a previously approved design review project:
■ Accepted.
FYI: 1473 Cortez Avenue— requested changes to a previously approved design review project:
■ Pulled for discussion.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 11:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
19
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
BURLINGAME
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
G w 11 O R N I w
City Council Chambers
501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California
May 12, 2008 - 7:00 p. m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cauchi called the May 12, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p. m.
II. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie
Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; and
City Attorney, Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES
Commissioner Vistica moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the April 28,
2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes.-
Page
hanges:Page 1, Roll Call: delete "Osterling"
■ Page 1, Minutes: change minutes date to "April 14, 2008"
■ Page 2, Item 2, Commission Comments. revise first bullet to read: "Clarify the design of the
accessory structure exiting the garage; looks too utilitarian, could have more character to encourage
use of the outdoor area".
Motion passed 6-0-1 (CommissionerAuran abstaining).
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Cauchi noted that Agenda Item 9 (2700 Summit Drive) has been withdrawn from the agenda by the
applicant.
V. FROM THE FLOOR
Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; representing "Holiday Inn Express" and "Max's Opera Cafe"; thanked staff
for its work on the proposed Sign Ordinance amendments, and suggested minor language changes to
clarify the intent of the provisions related to non-conforming pole signs.
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.
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes 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 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. Item 2c(1450 Rollins Road) was removed from the Consent Calendar by Oscar Braun("Save the
Bay').
2a. 1620 FOREST VIEW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES
FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND MARY LOU AND
DOUG MORTON PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
2b. 9 CHANNING ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR WINDOWS
MORE THAN TEN FEET ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE AND FOR STORAGE EXCEEDING TEN PERCENT
OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA OF THE MAIN DWELLING FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
(JERRY KUHEL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JERRY CARMINE, PROPERTY OWNER)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of Items 2a and 2b 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 resolutions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
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.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
2c. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR— REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION
OF AN APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
USE AND BUILDING HEIGHT FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING
FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY AND SPCA(KEN WHITE, PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY
AND SPCA, APPLICANT; GEORGE MIERS AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; AND HENRY HORN &
SONS PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. -
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
City Attorney Anderson described the options available to the Commission.
Ken White, representing PHS/SPCA; indicated he was available for questions. He noted that PHS/SPCA
intends to move forward with the project.
Commission comments:
■ Haven't denied an extension request in the past.
Public comment:
Oscar Braun, representing "Save the Bay"; Jennifer Renk, Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, attorney
for PHS/SPCA; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke; "Save the Bay" has legal standing in the
application; requested that a full public hearing be held on the requests. Cited documentation for non-
compliance with disposal requirements of PHS/SPCA; "Save the Bay"would like to put their concerns on the
record at a public hearing; the lawsuit referenced by Braun has no relationship to the PHS/SPCA request,
the court has thrown out the suit; there is no reason to prolong the decision; removing the item from the
Consent Calendar in effect caused a public hearing to be held this evening.
CommissionerAuran moved to approve the application for a time limit extension. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Terrones. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7.32 p.m.
_ Commissioner Auran and City Attorney Anderson recused themselves from participation with respect to
Agenda Item 3 (1316 Drake Avenue), and left the Council Chambers.
3. 1316 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD & ASSOCIATES,
DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 28, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Reference staff report dated May 12, 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.
Michael Kaindl, JD &Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
■ Described photo montage and the revised plans.
■ Noted that no objections from neighbors were raised at any public hearing.
Commission comments:
■ Revisions are acceptable; change to hip roof reduces mass; doesn't appear to be a three story
structure.
■ With respect to windows; clarify that they are to be simulated true divided light windows.
• Entry door; side lights and transoms; indicate that they will be leaded glass.
3
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
Public comments: --�
■ None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Revisions make the project work in the neighborhood.
■ House would look better further back, closer to the plane of the second story at 1312 Drake Avenue.
■ Comfortable with the proposed 26-foot setback.
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
April 30, 2008, sheets A-1 and A-3 and date stamped April 2, 2008, sheets A-2,A-4, G-1, L1.0 and
Topographic Map and Boundary 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 plans shall be revised to indicate that all windows shall be simulated true divided-light
design; and that the transom above, and sidelights flanking the entry door shall contain leaded glass
windows.
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 1, 2008 and February 28, 20081 memos,
and the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's February 4,2008, memos 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 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;
4
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
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:
■ Commissioner Brownrigg noted that he would vote against the motion; the Colonial style of
architecture is too massive on this street.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (Commissioner
Brownrigg dissenting, Commissioner Auran recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 7:47 p.m.
Commissioner Auran returned to the dais. City Attorney Anderson returned to the Chambers,
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 FROMAPRIL 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.
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
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:
■ 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.
6
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
5. 2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,
FRONT SETBACKAND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FORA FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TOA SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE (GILL AND JANE YEE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD &
ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROMAPRIL 28,2008
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
■ None
Michael Kaindl, JD &Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant.
■ With the proposed removal of trees, 60%of additional view will be granted to adjacent property once
the addition is completed.
■ Homes further up the hill will also benefit from tree removal.
Commission comments:
�.. 0 Clarified that the double-trunk Eucalyptus trees and Black Acacias are to be removed as called out
in the tree removal permit.
■ Asked if the applicant has explored excavating the front entry piece; it will appear quite massive as
designed currently and will be 15-20 feet closer to street.
■ Concerned with the type of roofing material to be used; need to eliminate the patchwork effect that
currently exists.
■ Site is difficult to work with; there are places on the site where addition could be proposed with no
impact to neighbors; the proposal is currently problematic due to view blockage.
■ Would like to visit 2716 Martinez to determine view obstruction.
■ Would like to see a design that brings the entire addition down 3-4 feet; the proposed location is the
right location for the addition.
■ The setback Variance is supportable.
■ The addition could be stepped back to reduce impacts on neighbors, and eliminate the setback
Variance.
■ Consider a design with lower plate lines, different roof pitches, etc. to reduce or eliminate view
impacts.
Public comments:
Lena Yen (representing parents who own property across the street at 2716 Martinez Drive); Leo Redmond,
2711 Martinez Drive; Gill and Jane Yee, 2707 Martinez Drive, project applicants; and Pat Giorni, 1445
Balboa Avenue commented. Presented photographs illustrating view blockage from 2716 Martinez Drive;
story poles give a better idea of the potential impacts, but are not that helpful; do provide an indication that
there would be substantial impacts upon his distant views; blockage will be inadequately and incompletely
helped by removal of the trees; should build to the code, no special treatment should be provided; submitted
photos to demonstrate that views will be restored with addition and tree removal; asked if Mr.Yee submitted
a project that can be acted upon; is there somewhere the Commission can go with the project in terms of
7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
direction; neighbors need to understand that the Commission is not responsible for conflict resolution;
explained why roof is in bad condition.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Vistica moved to deny the application without prejudice. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Terrones.
Discussion of motion:
■ If project comes back to the Commission, a tree maintenance plan needs to be prepared and
submitted for consideration; also consider tree placement, and types of trees used, in an effort to
minimize potential view impacts.
■ There may be potential to eliminate the front setback Variance, but not the lot coverage Variance.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 7-0.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:51 p.m.
6. 1473 CORTEZ AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS-
BUILT CHANGES TO ANEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(TONY WARD,APPLICANT; DAVID CHANG,
PROPERTY OWNER; AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, DESIGNER) PROJECT
PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nineteen (19) conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
■ None
Tony Ward and Edward Yuen represented the applicant.
■ Changes are more in harmony with the neighborhood.
■ Visual impact from street side is minimal.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Noted that outrigger/corbel at ridgeline has not been installed.
■ A lot of the charm of the design has been watered down.
■ Leaded glass windows are important at least on the front of the home.
■ Important that the planter boxes be provided as well; compromise is to provide them on only the
front fapade.
■ Agree with changes to headers over windows.
■ Concerned about the lack of detail on the building; need to be consistent in details all around the
structure.
■ Collector boxes and downspouts missing; not sure why removed (can be added).. —
8
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
�- Public comments:
■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; recalls questions asked of applicant at time of approval; porch and
smaller garage with more yard; property has been sold and is not now what was guaranteed.
Should require leaded glass windows on all sides. Have property owner honor the contract agreed
to by prior owner; put in all elements.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Will the 2 x 4 trim look inappropriate with collector boxes and downspouts provided; consider
reducing scale of these elements to conform to the window header scale.
■ If removed, the installed steel downspouts will go to a landfill; shouldn't be using copper; consider
allowing downspouts to remain, with collector boxes installed.
■ Changing all windows to leaded glass is a lot of waste; look at it more from the street impact.
■ Collector boxes can be installed as an embellishment.
■ Would like to see the copper elements installed; would add another element; painted scuppers will
result in lack of detail.
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 Department date
�-- stamped January 12, 2007, sheets A.1 through A.3, and A.6, March 28, 2007, sheet 1-1.0, and April
20, 2008(Sheets FYI.1 through FYIA), 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 leaded glass windows shall be installed on all elevations, as shown on the originally approved
plans; rainwater collection boxes shall be installed on all elevations, and planter boxes and corbels
(as shown on the originally approved plans) shall only be required on the front elevation;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 27, 2006 memo and January 3, 2007
memo, the City Engineer's November 29, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 28, 2006
memo,the CityArborist's November 30, 2006 memo,the Recycling Specialist's November 26,2006
memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's November 27, 2006 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 scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building footprint;
7. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
9
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
8. 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.
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
10. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
11. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit; -�
14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
16. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application;
17. that a certified arborist's report showing how the oak tree in the back yard will be protected during
construction, to be approved by the Parks Department, shall be prepared and implemented;
18. that the tree protection measures detailed in the certified arborist's report will be installed before a
building permit is issued;
19. that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International
Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; and
20. that the 24"box size replacement tree required as part of the tree removal permit issued on August
16, 2006 must be planted before final inspection.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones.
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m.
7. 1800TROUSDALE DRIVE,ZONED TW—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR REVISIONS TOA PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
25-UNIT, SEVEN-STORY CONDOMINIUM PROJECT(PAUL BOGATSKY,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER; AND FORUM DESIGN, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
(CONTINUED FROM APRIL 14, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report,
reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-two (52) conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
■ None
Paul Bogatsky, 1469 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco and Warner Schmalz, Forum Design, 1014 Howard
Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
■ Described changes made to plans since last review.
Additional Commission comments:
■ Questioned the details of the options for the shear wall flanking front elevation.
■ Questions about finishes.
■ Asked about value of the 2 bedroom units.
■ Consider devoting approximately Y4 of open space to a play structure (applicant noted that they are
marketing to an adult population; people downsizing from larger homes).
■ Ensure that the trim materials will always appear as stone, and are not stuccoed over.
■ Clarified that the limestone finish on the trim is made in a shop, not applied on site.
■ Clarified that no Styrofoam trim materials will be used.
Public comments:
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; asked if an alternative to the Italian Cypress is possible.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Further Commission comments:
■ The amendments are well founded.
■ The Italian Cypress will work well on the site.
■ Articulations in shear wall not working as intended, if they are removed it is okay; up to applicant.
Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped April 30, 2008, sheets A0.0,A0.31, C-1, C-1.1, GO.1, G0.2,Al.1 through A1.9,A2.1,A3.0,
A3.1,A3.2 Alt;A3.3 through A3.7,A4,0 and A4.1, Ground Floor Landscape Plan and Podium Level
Landscape Plan;
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
2. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 117.58" as
measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Trousdale Drive (42.58') for a
maximum height of 75'-0", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and
approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing
inspections; should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or
adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height
shown on the approved plans;
3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building,which would include expanding the footprint
or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch,
shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5. that the backflow prevention device and post indicator valve(PIV)shall be located and screened by
landscaping so they will be hidden from both the street and project residents;
6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 27, 2008, memo ,the Fire Marshal's April 2,
2008, memo, the City Engineer's April 2, 2008, March 5, 2008, December 29, 2005 and August 24,
2005, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's August 8, 2005, memo shall be met;
7. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall
be prohibited; —�
8. 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;
9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the
North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of$12,593.70, made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department;
10. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building,the applicant shall
pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of
$12,593.70, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department;
11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the City to establish the affordability of the three below market rate units required as a part of
this project;the applicant shall also submit a below market rate housing plan which shall describe in
detail the applicant's proposal for a third party to meet and manage the inclusionary housing
requirements as required by Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; the applicant shall
enter into an agreement with a third-party non-profit organization approved by the City to administer
the program;
12
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
12. that'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on the
final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and
maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for
parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the three
guest parking stalls, and one service vehicle parking stall, 54 parking spaces shall be available on
site for owners, and none of the on-site parking shall be rented, leased or sold to anyone who does
not own a unit on the site;
13. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)for the condominium project shall require
that the three guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by
condominium residents;
14. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of
escrow on the sale of each unit;
15. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of
the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and
address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees
of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of
the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and
furniture;
16. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment
outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California
Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued;
17. that the security gate system across the right side entrance driveway shall be installed a minimum
20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system
connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest
access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units;
18. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners, set the building envelope;
19. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
20. 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;
21. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height;
22. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface
drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system
`— shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor;
13
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
23. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and
irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application;
24. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins
shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering;
25. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the
sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects
(i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they
meet the City's noise requirement;
26. 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.
27. that in lieu of meeting the requirement specific to fire apparatus access required by Section 902.2.1,
Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by Burlingame Municipal Code 17.04, the project applicant shall
extend the required Class I Standpipe outlets to garage stair landings in accordance with fire
department approved locations, and install Quick Response Sprinklers throughout the garage; (Land
Use, Fire Dept)
28. that the proposed project shall comply with construction standards and seismic design criteria
contained in the Building Code as adopted by the City; (Geology and Soils; Building Division)
29. that before construction of the proposed project, per the Building Code, the project applicant shall --�
obtain a site-specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as
expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) and contains appropriate recommendations for
foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils.The
recommendations made in the soils report for ground preparation and earthwork shall be
incorporated in the construction design. The soils evaluations shall be conducted by registered soil
professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. The
design for soil support of foundations shall conform to the analysis and implementation criteria
described in the Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33; (Geology and Soils, Building Division)
30. that a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions required by the City shall be completed as part of the
building permit process and shall contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork
specific to the project site that would become an integral part the construction design.
Recommendations shall be included in the excavation and construction plans for the proposed
project; (Geology and Soils, Building Division)
31. that although the proposed project would be exempt from preparing and implementing a project-
specific SWPPP, because the City of Burlingame is a member of the STOPPP,the proposed project
shall obtain coverage under STOPPP's Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit and comply with
performance standards set forth by STOPPP's Stormwater Management Plan. The City Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.14; Ordinance
1503 Section 1; June 20, 1994) would also be applied to the proposed project. In addition, the
project applicants shall perform the following actions as uniformly required conditions of project
approval, as identified by the City's NPDES Coordinator upon submittal of project applications to the
City:
14
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
• Implement appropriate stormwater best management practices(BMPs)to minimize pesticide
usage in accordance with the City's New Development/Redevelopment Landscaping Fact
Sheet.
• Incorporate applicable structural source control measures to minimize stormwater pollutants
in accordance with the City's Model List of Structural Source Control Measures.
• Identify the responsible party who would be responsible for the operation and maintenance
of the permanent post-construction stormwater treatment measure(s).
Prior to issuance of a final building permit, submit a completed, notarized Stormwater Treatment
Measure Maintenance Agreement; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department)
32. that the proposed project shall comply with City grading requirements specified in Section 18.20 of
the Municipal Code; (Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Works Department)
33. that the proposed project shall comply with the City's Model Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 18.17.001; Ordinance 1476 Section 1; January 4, 1993), thereby reducing
the amount of project site runoff polluted by landscape chemicals; (Hydrology and Water Quality;
City Arborist)
34. that the project applicant shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during
project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain
at least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
public streets; (Air Quality; Building Division)
35. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction phasing plan and traffic
management plan that defines how traffic operations would be managed and maintained during
each phase of construction. The plan should be developed with the direct participation of the City of
Burlingame. To the maximum practical extent, the plan should:
• Detail how access will be maintained to individual properties where construction activities
may interfere with ingress and egress. Any driveway closures shall take place during non-
business hours.
• Specify predetermined haul routes from staging areas to construction sites and to disposal
areas of agreement with the City prior to construction. The routes shall follow streets and
highways that provide the safest route and have the least impact on traffic.
• During construction, require the contractor to provide information to the public using signs,
press releases, and other media tools of traffic closures, detours or temporary displacement
of left-turn lanes.
• Identify a single phone number that property owners and businesses can call for
construction scheduling, phasing, and duration information, as well as for complaints.
15
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
• Identify construction activities that must take place during off-peak traffic hours or result in
temporary road closures due to concerns regarding traffic safety or traffic congestion. Any
road closures will be done at night under ordinary circumstances.
If unforeseen circumstances require road closing during the day, the City of Burlingame should
be consulted; (Traffic; Public Works Department)
36. that in order to improve the ability of vehicles to turn from the lower level ramp to the driveway, the
project has been revised so that the west driveway is 12 feet wide; (Traffic, Public Works and
Planning Departments)
37. that the proposed project driveways shall be secured with an automatic gate system that would allow
delivery vehicles to enter and exit the driveways with an opener. The entrance gate shall also
provide an intercom system that would allow delivery vehicles to call from the entrance.
Furthermore, rolling dumpsters shall be acquired by the project applicant,which can be maneuvered
outside of the parking garage to the curb, to facilitate garbage pickup from Trousdale Avenue;
(Traffic; Public Works Department)
38. that the project applicant shall include in the proposed project a bicycle parking area that is 12 feet
by 21 feet, in the lower level of the parking garage, as indicated in the site plan which is sufficient
space for approximately 25 bicycles; (Traffic; Public Works and Planning Departments)
39. 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 should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no
earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading,
or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey.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)
40. that the trees proposed to be removed shall be evaluated by a licensed arborist whose report shall
be reviewed by the City arborist to determine whether they are "protected trees" per Section
11.06.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and whether a tree removal permit is appropriate. If
any trees proposed to be removed are protected trees, the City Arborist shall make a determination
regarding the removal and replacement of these trees.As the proposed landscaping plan includes
the planting of 16 new trees, the City Arborist may determine that the proposed landscaping plan is
sufficient and no other replacement trees are required.
• The Municipal Code includes the following requirements regarding replacement trees.
• Replacement shall be three 15-gallon size, one 24-inch box size, or one 36-inch box size
landscape tree(s) for each tree removed; and
• Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 24-inch box size, or two 36-
inch box size landscape trees for each tree removed; and —e
16
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
Replacement of a tree may be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on
the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection
Ordinance; and
• Size and number of the replacement tree(s)shall be determined by the director and shall be
based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed; and
• If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be
made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree-planting fund to be drawn
upon for public tree planting; (Biological Resources; City Arborist)
41. that the project applicant 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.
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)
42. that as required by BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, the proposed project shall implement
preventative measures during demolition and removal of all asbestos containing materials(ACMs)to
prevent emissions of asbestos into the air. The proposed project shall also remove and dispose of
all asbestos and PCB-containing materials according to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
regulations and comply with the Cal/OSHA guidelines for worker safety during removal; (Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, Building Division)
43. that the project applicant shall abide by its declared building height as specified in the FAA
determination for the proposed project. The project applicant shall also ensure that construction
equipment for the proposed project (e.g. cranes) shall not exceed the maximum height restriction
�— specified in the San Francisco Airport Land Use Plan for the project site; (Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; Planning Department)
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
44. that if markings or lighting are to be included in the proposed project, the project applicant shall
ensure that they are installed and maintained according to FAA guidelines; (Hazards and Hazardous
Materials; Planning Department)
45. that the applicant shall incorporate the following practices into the construction documents to be
implemented by the project contractor. These control measures, such as installation of noise control
devices (e.g. mufflers), selection of quieter machinery, and other noise control measures (e.g.
surrounding stationary equipment with noise barriers), all of which would not require major
equipment redesign.
a. Maximize 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. Prohibit 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 and schools, are avoided as much as possible.
f. The project applicant shall designate a"disturbance coordinator"for construction activities.
The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding
construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or
vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem.
g. The construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50
feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site; (Noise; Planning, Public
Works)
46. that the project applicant shall incorporate the following practice into the construction documents to
be implemented by the project contractor. The project applicant shall require that loaded trucks and
other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing
residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; (Noise, Building
Division)
47. that the project applicant shall include in the final project design noise insulation features that would
effectively maintain interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less; (Noise; Planning and Building)
18
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
�-- 48. that the existing sanitary sewer on site shall be examined by the City after project construction to
evaluate the pipe's condition. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe is substandard or if the
pipe has been damaged by project construction,the pipe shall be replaced or repaired by the project
applicant to the City Engineer's satisfaction; (Utilities and Service Systems; Public Works
Department)
49. that if the project applicant does not provide a 12-foot wide driveway, the project applicant shall be
required to purchase maintenance equipment for the City that can access the on-site sewer
easement through the proposed 9.5-foot-wide driveway; (Utilities and Sewer Systems; Public Works
Department)
50. that per the City's Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Requirement,the project applicant
shall submit a waste reduction plan that demonstrates that at least 50 percent of the construction
and demolition waste can be recycled; (Utilities and Service Systems; Building Division)
51. that the project applicant shall design and locate all exterior lighting so that the cone of light and/or
glare from the lighting elements is kept entirely on the project site on or below the top of any fence,
hedge, or wall at the site's property line, as required by the Burlingame Municipal Code Section
18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas). All wall mounted
up-lighting shall be excluded from the proposed project. All project lighting shall comply with
requirements of the California Energy Commission and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North
America for illumination levels; and (Aesthetics; Planning and Building)
52. that the following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to
._.. address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources:
a. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel
shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried
cultural and paleontological resources, including training to recognize such possible buried
cultural resources, as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are
encountered.
b. Retain Project Archaeologist. Since the project area contains a portion of one recorded
Native American archeological resource, and other previously unknown prehistoric or historic
cultural deposits may be encountered elsewhere in the project site during excavations, the
City shall retain the services of a qualified archaeological consultant meeting federal criteria
under 36 CFR 61, and who has expertise in California prehistory and urban historical
archaeology.
C. If potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction,
all work in the immediate vicinity 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. The immediate vicinity wherein work
shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an
appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant.
Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources
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.
d. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if
avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources
19
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
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 archaeological or cultural
resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports 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.
e. 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.
f. 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 Yie.
Discussion of motion:
■ Called out condition 11 regarding the Inclusionary Housing unit, and reminded the applicant to pay
close attention to it.
Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m.
8. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 —APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE
AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION FORA NEW, FOUR-STORY 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1226 EL CAMINO REAL ZONED R-3. (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)
Reference staff report dated May 12, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-eight(48)conditions were suggested for
consideration.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
20
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
Commission comments:
■ None
Kirk Miller, 442 Post Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant.
■ The theme of the building is similar to the Burlingame Library; windows are recessed with shadow
lines.
■ Major remaining issue is the front fagade. Described two alternatives for fagade treatment.
Additional Commission comments:
■ The drawings are so flat that you don't have a sense for the materials.
■ Concerned that the base will be lost by the decline in the grade of the lot; may not be appreciated.
■ Prefer the arched entry.
■ Referenced 1512 Floribunda Avenue as a successful use of Spanish/Mediterranean architecture.
■ Clarify that windows will be aluminum clad wood windows.
■ Specify 4-inch recess depth for windows (from face of wall to glazing).
■ Specify the stucco texture; prefer a "Santa Barbara" style finish as opposed to sand finish.
■ The design of the balcony element over the entry is awkward; since it is not useable, eliminate it and
create a combination of the two proposed elevations; use larger corbels under the balconies and
pair the small corbels under the bay windows.
■ Clarify finish and ensure that a different finish (e.g. limestone) is used forthe`belly band"around the
building, don't want to see foam trim covered in stucco.
■ Call out materials on all elevations.
■ Specify whether wood posts used on elements of the design are to be paint grade or stain grade
and if they will be stained, would prefer a dark stain finish.
Public comments:
■ None
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Terrones moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to address the items
raised during the Commission's discussion; the item may be placed on the Consent Calendar when ready
for review. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. This item
concluded at 10:15 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 2700 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ORA HATHEWAY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER, AND
ADIB AND SYLVIA KHOURI, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant.
21
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes May 12, 2008
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commission Communications:
■ Community Development Director Meeker reminded Commissioners of the upcoming Joint City
Council/Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Saturday, May 17, 2008 from 9 a.m. to Noon
in the Training Room of the Public Works Corporation Yard, 1361 North Carolan Avenue.
Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 5, 2008:
■ Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council considered the appeal of Mimi
Sien related to amendments to a Design Review Permit for 3066 Hillside Drive. The Council
granted the appeal, but directed the applicant to remove paving from the west side of the garage
and to install landscaping, consistent with the original approved plans, subject to review and
approval by the Community Development Director.
FYI: 1221 Cabrillo Avenue: requested changes to a previously approved design review project:
■ Schedule for Regular Action Calendar as a Design Review amendment.
FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log —April, 2008:
■ Accepted
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Stanley Vistica, Secretary
22
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
MAY 5,2008
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson
Carney.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Carney,Benson,Ellis,Grandcolas,Lahey(arrived @ 6:05p), and McQuaide
Absent: Commissioner Wright
Staff: Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, Supervisor Disco,and Admin. Secretary Harvey
Guests: Pat Giorni (1445 Balboa), Jennifer Pfaff(615 Bayswater), Elizabeth Watson (2305 Poppy), David Ferenc
(City of San Mateo)
MINUTES—The minutes of the April 3,2008 Beautification Commission were approved as corrected to read: (Pg. 3/3`d
Paragraph) Recommendation on Suspension of Current Street Tree Planting or New Plan Evaluation:
Superintendent Richmond noted that this item as well as the proposal will be on the April r Council agenda. . . and(4`h
Paragraph),It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairperson Carney and Commissioners Lahey and McQuaide
attend the April 7`h Council meeting on behalf of the Commission. Added to read: (Pg. 4/under Reports: Commissioner
Ellis reported that she attended all the Arbor Day tree planting ceremonies at the elementary schools as well as the
Centennial Tree planting in Washington Park.
CORRESPONDENCE
Memorandum from City Attorney Anderson, dated March 20, 2008, to All City Commissions and Boards regarding the
Ralph M. Brown Act.
Letters dated April 5, 2008, from property owners at 17 & 18 Clarendon appealing the denial of the removal of certain
Oak trees at 15 Clarendon Road.
Copy of letter to property owners on the April 2008 street tree planting list, informing them that Council directed
postponement of the April 2008 tree planting until a citizen's proposal to change the current street tree selection
process/planting policies could be reviewed by the Beautification Commission for further recommendation to the
Council.
Copies of letters from five property owners, commenting on the delayed April 2008 planting, as well as addressing
components of the proposal to change the current street tree selection process/planting policies.
Copy of: City of Burlingame Street Tree Facts. (Data obtained for City's tree inventory software)
Staff Report from Superintendent Richmond, dated April 23, 2008, to the Beautification Commission commenting on
components of the proposal to change the current street tree selection process/planting policies in the City of Burlingame.
Copies of Suggestions for Changes to Street Tree Policies and Plantings from Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff dated May 1,
2008, (received at the May 1, 2008 Beautification Commission meeting).
The Atmospheric Value of Trees submitted by Commissioner Grandcolas, (received at the May 1, 2008 Beautification
Commission meeting).
FROM THE FLOOR
None.
OLD BUSINESS
Business Landscape Award Election-Action
Commissioner Benson reported that the Landscape Award Committee received two nominations from the community:
1) Solo Bambini, 1150 Howard Avenue, and 2) Broadway Grill, 1400 Broadway. Commissioner Benson reported that
the Committee recommends the award be presented to Solo Bambini because the property added custom made pots and
plants with attractive colors, was well maintained, and was well coordinated with the neighboring property.
Commissioner Lahey also noted that the business had a unique charm and was "eye catching". After a brief discussion,
Commissioner McQuaide moved that Solo Bambini be the recipient of the 2008 Business Landscape Award; seconded,
Commissioner Ellis. Motion carried 6—0— 1 (absent/Wright).
1
Business Landscape Award Election–Action (Contd.)
Commissioner Lahey stated a letter would be sent to the winning business informing them of the Commissions decision
and of the award presentation at a future Council meeting. She also noted that artist Dale Perkins would be contacting
the owners of Solo Bambini regarding the pen and ink illustration to be provided to the win ung business.
Proposed Changes to the Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies–
Superintendent Richmond stated that the Commission is in receipt of the Staff Report dated April 23rd as well as the City
of Burlingame Street Tree Statistics, of which, along with letters from 5 property owners commenting on the delayed
April planting components of the proposal,would be reviewed together with Supervisor Disco's recommended additions
and changes to the existing Official Street tree lists. He added that Director Schwartz would be facilitating the gathering
of comments from the Commission as well as from the public before Commission decides on its recommendation to
Council. He noted that the Commission is also in receipt of additional information received at tonight's meeting from
Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff.
Superintendent Richmond and the Commission reviewed the Staff Report, dated April 23, 2008, addressing information
relevant to the suggestions raised by the proposal: Dominant Species,Planting Strip Limitations, Inventory Upgrade,and
Status of Current Tree Planting Programs. Street Tree Statistics was then reviewed as well as correspondence received
from 5 property owners, most of which reflected disappointment with the postponement of the April tree planting,
generally expressing property owners having choice in tree selection as part of the process, but not necessarily wanting
predominate species on blocks to determine those selections.
Supervisor Disco then presented to the Commission his recommended revisions to the Official Street tree lists and
commented that he generally added and retained species on each list that had larger, taller canopies that could be
supported by the existing planter strips. He removed species that were smaller in scale,weaker in structure, or had a high
rate of pest/disease issues. He also stated that he retained"ornamentals"and"evergreens"because there should be a mix
of trees in the urban forest. He noted that of the 45 species currently being offered for street tree planting, the
recommended selection had now been reduced to 33 different species. Supervisor Disco concluded that purchasing
availability from local vendors is "key", and that he would continue researching to make further recommendations as
other species become available. Superintendent Richmond stated that a new inventory system is needed by a qualified-,
company that would at the same time, be able to include new attributes, but is not something that could be efficiently
conducted by volunteers or staff. He noted that current removal and replacement had been stalled by the current process.
He added that staff now also needs to begin the process with property owners for the fall 'Green Trees' grant selection
and planting.
Chairperson Carney then opened and Director Schwartz facilitated the meeting discussion from the Commission and
public regarding the proposed changes to the street tree selection/planting policies.
Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater, stated that property owners have been able to choose what has been planted in the City-
owned planter strips since 1972 which she believes has created a"wish mash" of trees throughout the City. She stated
that she hopes property owners will have"limited" choice because streets and planter strips belong to the City, and that
"themed"streets be retained noting that few streets had"themes".
Ms. Pfaff explained that property owners are transient and should not be able to choose the type of tree in the city-owned
property, and that "ornamental" trees should be removed from the tree lists because they are not long lived, noting
however,that retaining"evergreens"on the list is o.k. because they do help to add a mix. With regard to sidewalk issues,
Ms. Pfaff commented that the old sidewalks did not have rebar like the newer sidewalks and have less movement, and
that the extra money should be spent to enlarge the planter width so that larger trees can be planted.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, stated that letters from the City should be sent to homeowners who live on blocks with "no
theme" by giving the homeowners on the block 3 choices (selected by staff); the winning selection would then be the
"theme"tree for the block or area. Ms. Giorm concluded that policy should be changed so that every block in the City
would have a"themed"planting.
Elizabeth Watson, 2305 Poppy Drive, commented that the homes in Burlingame are very individual, and each has "a—,
look", adding that she lost the city-owned Oak tree during the past storm and that the Oak tree gave a grand look to he;
home, noting that nothing would replace it. Ms. Watson commented that she researched all 15 trees on the list she
received,as to the size and shape of the tree,before making her selection and that she would really react if she had only 3
trees to choose from.
2
Proposed Changes to the Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies–(Contd.)
Ms. Watson continued that she does not think the City should dictate to property owners shade or no shade, or color or
no color;that there are so many different reasons why a homeowner would choose a particular tree in front of their home,
that having a choice of the type of tree is a critical part of her house and is integral with her property value, as well as
how a tree impacts her well-being and comfort. Ms. Watson concluded that she would strongly disagree if she could not
have that"choice",and that she would also find only having 3 choices of trees very offensive.
David Ferenc, stated he lives in San Mateo, is a tree man and works in Burlingame, but had previously lived in
Burlingame for 46 years. He stated that Burlingame is a wonderful community and the most beautiful example of
diversity of tree species can be found in Washington Park. Mr. Ferenc added that because of pest and disease and the
lack of interesting diversity he is totally against monocultures on blocks and thinks entire streets should have diversity.
Following the comments, Chairperson Carney closed the discussion to the public and brought the item back to the
Commission only.
Director Schwartz facilitated while the Commission discussed the different components of the proposal, including
predominate tree planting, existing "themed" streets, diseases and monocultures,property owner choice, vacant planting
sites in the City, "good" trees with tall canopies, "grand" trees, diversity, ornamentals, evergreens, recommended
changes to existing tree lists,reducing smaller trees from lists and adding taller species,limitations of planter strip widths
in the City, ADA compliance, "meandering" sidewalks, existing "themes" vs. sidewalks, delays in planting, impacts on
Tree City USA status,use of Green Trees grant funds,etc.
Following the facilitation and the discussion it was a consensus of the Commission that after review and consideration of
the proposal,the following recommendation be made to Council:
• Retain existing"themed"streets in the City of Burlingame by replacing with existing specie,if the dominant tree
on the street is a tall tree even if it disrupts sidewalks
• Do not create"themed"streets where they currently do not exist and allow the property owners to choose off of
the appropriate tree list
• Revisions be made by staff to the official street tree lists to contain trees that only have the tallest,most
significant canopies
• Retain"ornamentals"and"evergreen"tree species that have the tallest,most significant canopies on the official
tree lists
• Include some larger species from 6' planter strip list to the 3-6' planter strip list where possible or change
dimensions of planting strip requirements
• Create larger planting spaces throughout the City where possible
• Only remove and replace trees when an existing tree must be removed
• Tree planting should begin as soon as possible
Chairperson Carney thanked Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff for their work. Ms. Pfaff asked Supervisor Disco to reassess
the purchasing availability of the Accolade Elm and the Zelkova, that they may be more accessible. Supervisor Disco
responded that he would research availability of those species again.
REPORTS–
Superintendent's
EPORTS–Superintendent's Report
1. Removals:
a. Two Hawthorns failed in the heavy winds two Saturdays back.
b. There were two trees on Easton that Kevin Kielty strongly suggested be removed in the near future—
one a pine with a dead top and a cypress with an irregular top and continuous limb drop. Bob will keep
you updated as any planning unfolds.
2. First search for new Superintendent did not result in a job offer to a candidate;the process has begun again.
Superintendent Richmond will be doing projects for Director Schwartz as a partial interim measure. Parks is
also filling other openings—Leadworker,Tree Worker,Park Maintenance Worker.
3. Parks tree crew is pruning current grid section.
4. Thanks to the Commission from Superintendent Richmond for all the productive time together. Best wishes as
the Commission continues to work on issues of great importance to Council and the entire community.
3
REPORTS—(Contd.)
Commissioner McQuaide
Commissioner McQuaide commented that she will miss Tim Richmond that he had been very helpful during her term z-�
chairperson of the Commission and has appreciated his support over the years.
Commissioner Grandcolas
Commissioner Grandcolas submitted The Atmospheric Value of Trees information sheet explaining the economic and
environmental value tree play due to the oxygen production and carbon removal in the atmosphere. He reported that the
Green Ribbon Task Force will have a booth on May 18th at the Fresh Market and invited any of the Commissioners to
join him in handing out information with regard to trees. Superintendent Richmond commented that the Parks Division
has flyers that addresses the benefits of trees in the environmental that Commissioner Grandcolas may wish to use.
Commissioner Grandcolas then thanked Tim stating he had been extremely helpful to the Commission and would be
missed very much.
Commissioner Lahey
Commissioner Lahey stated that she has enjoyed Tim's input and guidance and that she has learned a lot from his insight
and knowledge.
Chairperson Ellis
Commissioner Ellis thanked Tim and has appreciated all his help to the Commission over the years.
Commissioner Ellis reported that she attended the Training Workshop for Commissioners that was recently conducted.
Commissioner Benson
Commissioner Benson reported that she attended the planting day on Burlingame Avenue on April 6h, planted 28
Lavender plants in the Broadway "bulb outs", renovated the Mills Canyon Kiosk, cleaned up the entrances to Mills
Canyon,and announced that on Friday,May 9th,300 ninth graders will be visiting the Mills Canyon for a nature walk.
Commissioner Benson thanked Tim for helping to revive the Friends of Mills Canyon group by working with them.
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ka;ie-fie
Recording Secretary
4
City of Burlingame
APRIL PERMIT ACTIVITY
" Construction activity was down approximately 60% in April.Although residential alterations were up about 30% non-residential alterations were down significantly.
However, due to the Medical Office Building at Peninsula Hospital, overall construction valuation is up compared to the same time last year.
**A pre-application meeting was held for proposed alterations to the Public Storage facility at 1821 Adrian Road.
THIS MONTH
THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2008 F.Y•2007 DIFF
Permit Type # # % # # %
WATER HEATER 3 3,215 4 7,723 -58 28 48,587 41 64,415 -25
SWIMMING POOL 6 151,000 2 86,500 75
SIGN 5 14,410 3 10,500 37 37 149,015 41 230,095 -35
ROOFING 18 269,633 12 242,566 11 191 2,741,843 222 3,032,270 -10
RETAINING WALL 1 75,000 3 274,020 -73
PLUMBING 10 35,861 13 151,600 -76 115 422,185 143 5372528 -21
NEW SFD 2 1,200,000 7 45,395,000 10 5,369,000 746
NEW COMMERCIAL
NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 3,500,000
NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT 1 650,000 1 650,000
MECHANICAL 3 18,525 2 13,760 35 34 229,523 45 561,358 -59
KITCHEN UPGRADE 3 228,000 1 22,000 936 46 1,522,543 30 960,753 58
FURNACE 1 8,250 1 1,500 450 20 93,949 18 131,496 -29
ELECTRICAL SERVICE 4 5,180 24 100,965 19 41,930 141
City of Burlingame
APRIL PERMIT ACTIVITY
THIS MONTH
THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2008 F.Y.2007 DIFF
Permit Type # # % # # %
ELECTRICAL 8 71,290 12 41,215 73 46 223,829 49 389,261 -42
BATHROOM UPGRADE 6 102,650 4 29,800 244 45 766,259 37 516,300 48
ALTERATION RESIDENTI 50 2,260,061 28 1,769,295 28 329 13,705,377 266 13,842,736 -1
ALTERATION NON RES 9 665,930 12 4,852,000 -86 89 14,625,664 76 14,244,774 3
Totals: 116 3,677,825 99 8,997,139 -59 1,018 80,250,740 13004 44,432,436 81
POLICE DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L. Van Etten
Y
Chief of Police
May 8,2008
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Police Department Statistics and Highlights for the month of April, 2008
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS:
-Two officers are currently in our field training program
-Two officers are currently in the 6 month police academy(two more to hire)
-Another Parking Enforcement Officer will be hired to fill a retirement vacancy
-Four sworn officers and one dispatcher continue on long-term disability
-An additional donated K-9 is coming in the next month or so
-Neighborhood Watch presentations continue
-Added department training continues and more is planned in the upcoming FY
-Citizen emergency and crime notification systems are being finalized and will go public shortly
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 is in training and will attend motor school in June
-Citizen Speed Watch has been delayed, but is about ready to begin in the "pilot" Winchester area
-The pilot parking permit program is beginning
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 to contact me if you have any questions.
Chief Jack Van Etten
Burlingame Police Dep nt
1111 Trousdale Drive-Post Office Box 551 -Burlingame,California 94011-0551 -(650)777-4100-Fax (650)697-8130
05-07-08 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1
FOR: APRIL, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change
Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0
Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0
Rape By Force 0 0 2 1 1 100.00
Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery Firearm 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00
Robbery Knife 0 0 2 1 1 100.00
Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Robbery Strong-Arm 1 0 3 3 0 0.00
Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0
Assault - Knife 1 0 1 0 1
Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 1 5 7 -2 -28.57
Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 1 1 5 3 2 66.67
Assault - Other (Simple) 16 13 42 68 -26 -38.24
Burglary - Forcible Entry 4 2 23 10 13 130.00
Burglary - Unlawful Entry 8 5 30 25 5 20.00
Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 1 0 4 0 4
Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 1 0 1
Larceny Shoplifting 0 3 7 11 -4 -36.36
Larceny From Motor Vehicle 19 24 80 68 12 17.65
Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 5 15 37 54 -17 -31.48
Larceny Bicycles 1 2 5 6 -1 -16.67
Larceny From Building 9 8 26 26 0 0.00
Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 1 0 9 -9 -100.00
Larceny All Other 6 11 24 28 -4 -14.29
Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 2 4 15 25 -10 -40.00
Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 0 7 0 7
Motor Vehicle Theft Other 2 0 3 0 3
------- ------ ------ ------
77 91 323 348
77 91 323 348
)5-07-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1
CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
:rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change
k11 Other Offenses 39 29 142 107 35 32.71
knimal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0
animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0
arson 0 0 4 2 2 100.00
assists 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
2heck Offenses 2 0 3 4 -1 -25.00
:hild Neglect/prot custody 6 13 19 30 -11 -36.67
'omputer Crime 0 0 0 0 0
2onspiracy 0 0 0 0 0
:redit Card Offenses 0 0 1 1 0 0.00
7ruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0
=urfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0
Death Investigation 2 3 10 11 -1 -9.09
Disorderly Conduct 2 0 3 0 3
Driver's License Violations 0 1 1 1 0 0.00
Driving Under the Influence 7 8 36 32 4 12.50
Drug Abuse Violations 4 3 10 13 -3 -23.08
Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Drunkeness 5 3 13 27 -14 -51.85
Embezzlement 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00
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 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Forgery and Counterfeiting 4 4 20 12 8 66.67
Found Property 5 1 24 14 10 71.43
Fraud 1 2 5 12 -7 -58.33
3ambling 0 0 0 0 0
Harrassing Phone Calls 4 5 6 19 -13 -68.42
1
05-07-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2
CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year. . YTD... YTD... Change Yr Change
Hit and Run Accidents 2 2 10 12 -2 -16.67
Impersonation 0 2 1 6 -5 -83.33
Incest 0 0 0 0 0
Indecent Exposure 2 1 2 4 -2 -50.00
Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0
Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0
Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Liquor Laws 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0
Marijuana violations 1 1 4 11 -7 -63.64
Mental Health Cases 6 6 23 27 -4 -14.81
Missing Person 5 9 11 23 -12 -52.17
Missing Property 2 11 15 31 -16 -51.61
Municipal Code Violations 4 6 18 37 -19 -51.35
Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 1 0 1
Offenses Against Children 1 1 2 3 -1 -33.33
Other Assaults 16 13 42 68 -26 -38.24
Other Juvenile Offenses 1 1 7 1 6 600.00
Other Police Service 2 5 11 13 -2 -15.38
Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 -
Parole Violations 1 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 0 0 1 1 0 0.00
Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Prowling 0 0 0 0 0
Resisting Arrest 0 0 2 1 1 100.00
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 1 0 2 0 2
Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0
Stalking 0 0 0 0 0
)5-07-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE. 3
CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change
Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 1 2 2 3 -1 -33.33
Suspended License 2 2 15 13 2 15.38
Pax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0
terrorist Threats 0 0 4 1 3 300.00
rowed Vehicle 19 18 116 114 2 1.75
trespassing 0 1 2 3 -1 -33.33
Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0
Vandalism 13 34 61 69 -8 .-11.59
Vehicle Code Violations 7 3 17 8 9 112.50
Violation of Court Order 1 0 7 2 5 250.00
Warrants - Felony 1 0 7 5 2 40.00
Warrants - Misd 8 3 27 17 10 58.82
Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 1 2 6 -4 -66.67
Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0
------- ------ ------ ------
178 196 716 779
178 196 716 779
05-07-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1
CITY REPORT
FOR: APRIL, 2008
Prev
Last Act Act
Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . .
Parking Citations 1929 3 , 902 11, 083 15 , 299
Moving Citations 431 111 1, 675 733
------- ------ ------ ------
2360 4 , 013 12 , 758 16, 032
------- ------ ------ ------
------- ------ ------ ------
2360 4 , 013 12 , 758 16, 032
BURL IAUAiAh
' Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 05/07/2008 at 01 : 49 : 45 PM
Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 04/01/2008 to 04/30/2008
Data Type Reported on: PARKING
valid
All Voids % All %
Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALVISO 355 583 33.41 11 44.00 98.15
DOTSON 509 833 47.74 11 44.00 98.70
GARRETT 501 97 5.56 2 8.00 97.96
ROSCOE 503 50 2.87 0 0.00 100.00
SMITH 654 182 10.43 1 4.00 99.45
Total 1745 25
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
April 30, 2008
Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM
Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
LAIF&County Pool 22,872,421.43 22,872,421.43 22,872,421.43 50.97 1 1 3.290 3.336
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 22,000,000.00 22,308,200.00 22,000,751.60 49.03 1,737 1,523 4.774 4.840
44,872,421.43 45,180,621.43 44,873,173.03 100.00% 852 747 4.017 4.073
Investments
Total Earnings April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 153,864.80 1,465,286.41
Average Daily Balance 41,313,761.74 36,089,211.58
Effective Rate of Return 4.53% 4.86%
Pursuant to State law,there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types,and
availlity of some of these funds is restricted by law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust�&'�Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds).
/ /0-
FINANCE
ZFINANCE DIR./TREASURER
Reporting period 04/01/2008-04/30/2008 Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:05/09/2008-11:45 PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 2
Portfolio Details - Investments
April 30, 2008
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date
LAIF&County Pool
SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 11,547,432.04 11,547,432.04 11,547,432.04 3.400 3.400 1
SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 11,324,989.39 11,324,989.39 11,324,989.39 3.270 Aaa 3.270 1
Subtotal and Average 20,310,135.14 22,872,421.43 22,872,421.43 22,872,421.43 3.336 1
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon
31331XB35 536 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/04/2007 1,000,000.00 1,003,440.00 1,000,000.00 5.600 5.600 1,495 06/04/2012
31331YGR5 545 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/07/2007 1,000,000.00 1,019,380.00 1,000,000.00 4.490 4.490 1,681 12/07/2012
3133XJ6F0 531 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/20/2006 1,000,000.00 1,003,750.00 1,000,000.00 5.025 Aaa 5.025 963 12/20/2010
3133XKL94 534 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/23/2007 1,000,000.00 1,030,940.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,453 04/23/2012
3133XKU37 535 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/30/2007 2,000,000.00 2,005,620.00 2,000,000.00 5.450 Aaa 5.450 1,490 05/30/2012
3133XL5L3 537 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/0812007 1,000,000.00 1,002,500.00 998,501.60 5.250 Aaa 5.330 399 06/04/2009
3133XMKS9 541 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/22/2007 1,000,000.00 1,036,250.00 1,000,000.00 5.020 Aaa 5.020 1,635 10/22/2012
3133XMRN3 542 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/30/2007 1,000,000.00 1,014,380.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 1,643 10/30/2012
3133XMTP6 543 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/05/2007 1,000,000.00 1,014,690.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 1,649 11/05/2012
3133XMSW2 544 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/16/2007 1,000,000.00 1,028,130.00 1,000,000.00 4.850 Aaa 4.850 1,660 11/16/2012
3133XNW21 546 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/07/2008 1,000,000.00 1,021,250.00 1,000,000.00 4.375 Aaa 4.375 1,712 01/07/2013
3133XNYV5 547 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/22/2008 1,000,000.00 1,012,810.00 1,000,000.00 4.050 Aaa 4.050 1,727 01/22/2013
3133XP3C6 548 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/29/2008 1,000,000.00 1,011,250.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 Aaa 4.000 1,734 01/29/2013
3133XQEH1 549 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/18/2008 1,000,000.00 1,008,750.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 Aaa 4.000 1,782 03/18/2013
3133XPSF2 551 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/24/2008 1,000,000.00 999,690.00 996,250.00 3.875 Aaa 3.980 1,404 03/05/2012
3133XQZT2 552 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/30/2008 1,000,000.00 1,010,940.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 Aaa 4.000 1,825 04/30/2013
3128X5LP1 529 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/06/2006 1,000,000.00 1,011,020.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,253 10/06/2011
3128X6AZ9 538 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 08/30/2007 1,000,000.00 1,035,050.00 1,006,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.254 1,495 06/04/2012
3128X6NV4 540 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/17/2007 1,000,000.00 1,015,020.00 1,000,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.400 1,630 10/17/2012
3128X7BK9 550 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 03/26/2008 1,000,000.00 1,011,780.00 1,000,000.00 4.200 Aaa 4.200 1,790 03/26/2013
3136F8RX5 539 FANNIE MAE 09/05/2007 1,000,000.00 1,011,560.00 1,000,000.00 5.500 Aaa 5.500 1,588 09/05/2012
Subtotal and Average 21,003,626.60 22,000,000.00 22,308,200.00 22,000,751.60 4.840 1,523
Total and Average 41,313,761.74 44,872,421.43 45,180,621.43 44,873,173.03 4.073 747
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Dates 05/09/2008-11:45 PM(PRF_PM2)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 3
Portfolio Details - Cash
April 30, 2008
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity
Average Balance 0.00 0
Total Cash and Investmentss 41,313,761.74 44,872,421.43 45,180,621.43 44,873,173.03 4.073 747
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:05/09/2008-11:45 PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 4
Activity By Type
April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2008
Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending
CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance
LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary)
SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCYINV.FD. 3.400 126,498.48 0.00
SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 3.270 5,042,552.59 0.00
Subtotal 17,703,370.36 5,169,051.07 0.00 22,872,421.43
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon
3133XKKM6 533 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.250 04/23/2008 0.00 1,000,000.00
3133XPSF2 551 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 3.875 04/24/2008 996,250.00 0.00
3133XQZT2 552 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 4.000 04/30/2008 1,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal 21,004,501.60 1,996,250.00 1,000,000.00 22,000,751.60
Total 38,707,871.96 7,165,301.07 1,000,000.00 44,873,173.03
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:05/09/2008-11:45 PM(PRF_PM3)Sym Rept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 5
Activity Summary
April 2007 through April 2008
Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number
Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average
End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity
April 2007 13 34,250,399.91 4.899 4.967 5.027 2 2 401 282
May 2007 14 36,803,146.43 4.906 4.974 4.995 1 0 472 352
June 2007 15 36,293,438.53 4.981 5.050 5.010 2 1 524 416
July 2007 15 34,975,633.40 5.031 5.101 5.093 0 0 544 419
August 2007 16 32,703,250.60 5.021 5.090 5.063 1 0 635 488
September 2007 16 31,668,522.79 5.017 5.087 5.049 1 1 679 524
October 2007 17 32,552,669.40 5.083 5.153 5.060 3 2 761 652
November 2007 18 33,111,553.85 4.981 5.051 4.865 2 1 826 725
December 2007 17 35,305,823.83 4.855 4.922 4.696 1 2 764 686
January 2008 20 39,645,080.87 4.721 4.787 4.564 3 0 819 735
February 2008 20 39,674,639.82 4.519 4.582 4.171 0 0 818 721
March 2008 22 38,707,871.96 4.460 4.522 4.026 2 0 933 818
April 2008 23 44,873,173.03 4.017 4.073 3.336 2 1 852 747
Average 17 36,197,323.42 4.807% 4.874% 4.689 2 1 694 582
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:05/0912008-11:45 PM(PRF_PM4)Sym Rept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 6
Distribution of Investments By Type
April 2007 through April 2008
April May June July August September October November December January February March April Average
Security Type 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 by Period
LAIF&County Pool 67.9 64.7 61.4 60.0 54.1 52.6 50.8 48.6 54.7 52.1 52.1 45.7 51.0 55.1%
Certificates of Deposit-Bank
Certificates of Deposit-S&L
Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln
Negotiable CD's-Bank
CORP NOTES
Bankers Acceptances
Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing
Commercial Paper-Discount
Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 32.1 35.3 38.6 40.0 45.9 47.4 49.2 51.4 45.3 47.9 47.9 54.3 49.0 44.9%
Federal Agency Issues-Discount
Treasury Securities-Coupon
Treasury Securities-Discount
Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon
Miscellaneous Securities-Discount
Non Interest Bearing Investments
Mortgage Backed Securities
Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2
Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:05/09/2008-11:45 PM(PRF_PM5)Sym Rept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management Page 7
Interest Earnings Summary
April 30, 2008
April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
CD/Coupon/Discount Investments:
Interest Collected 155,850.00 556,691.67
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 256,794.17 256,794.17
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 326,437.91) ( 90,169.32)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Interest Earned during Period 86,206.26 723,316.52
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Earnings during Periods 86,206.26 723,316.52
Pass Through Securities:
Interest Collected 0.00 0.00
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00)
Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00
Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00
Cash/Checking Accounts:
Interest Collected 211,359.62 956,506.22
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 399,108.02 399,108.02
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 542,809.10) ( 613,644.35)
Interest Earned during Period 67,658.54 741,969.89
Total Interest Earned during Period 153,864.80 1,465,286.41
Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Total Earnings during Period 153,864.80 1,465,286.41
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date:05/09/2008-11:45 PM(PRF_PM6)SyrnRept 6.41.202a
Report Ver.5.00
ccomcast Comcast Cable
� P.O.Box 5147
San Ramon,CA 94583
O Office:925.973.7000
May 6, 2008 Fax:925.901.7015
www.comcast.com
Mr. Jesus Nava
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Jesus Nava:
As you may already be aware, it is our goal at Comcast Cable to ensure that your
office remains informed of the programming services we offer to our subscribers
who reside in your community.
In pursuit of attaining our goal, we are sending you this letter as notice of our
intent to adjust the programming services on the existing channel line-up.
Effective May 21, 2008 we will add the following channels to the line-up:
Action Channel Name Channel # Level of Service
Add Discovery Science HD #756 Digital Classic High Definition
Add ABC Family HD #764 Expanded Basic High Definition
Add Disney HD #765 Expanded Basic High Definition
Our customers have been informed of the adjustment via a message on their Digital
Control Terminal.
If you should have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact your local
Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling at (415) 715-0549.
Sincerely,
Mitzi Givens-Russell
Franchise Compliance Manager
Bay Area Market