Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2004.05.17 City OfBurllrlgdme 6lERl.INGA M!* )fir CITY HALL-501PRIMROSE ROAD r' BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)5_5&7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, May 17, 2004 Page 1 of 2 CLOSED SESSION: a. Meet with City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, City Manager and 6:30 p.m. Conference Rm A Bob Bell, Human Resources Director to discuss labor negotiations with American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Police Administrators pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular&Finance Authority meeting, May 3, 2004 Approve 5. CEREMONIAL a. Introduce new Battalion Chief, Drew Flinders Introduction 6. PRESENTATION a. Recognition of Kimberly Rosales for organizing a fund Presentation raising drive for the City's Pre-school program 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayormaylimit speakers to three minutes each. a. Weeds and rubbish abatement on private property - Public Hearing/Action Hearing and approval of Resolution 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 9. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Introduce Ordinance amending the standards for placement Introduction and maintenance of newsracks in the public right-of-way b. Introduce Ordinance to amend zoning code with the new Introduction regulations for development on emerging lots in the R-1 Zone C. FY 2004-05 proposed budget transmittal Discuss City ofBwAggame BURLINGAME CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)556.7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting -Monday, May 17, 2004 Page 1 of 2 d. Consider appointment to Traffic, Safety &Parking Appoint Commission C. Consider appropriation from contingency reserve to fund Approve or take other action Consultant to evaluate EMF provisions of proposed EMF Ordinance 10. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Tentative and final parcel map for a lot split of Lot 9 into Parcel 9A and Parcel 9B, Block 22,map of Easton Addition to Burlingame No. 2 - 1261 Balboa Avenue b. Resolution accepting the playground rehabilitation at Washington Park C. NPDES Stormwater Management Plan 2004-2005 General Program Budget d. Final condominium map for a 4 unit condominium at 1405-1407 El Camino Real, Resubdivision of Lot 19, Block 50, Map of Easton Addition No. 4 e. Warrants &Payroll f. Budget Study Meeting date,time and location g. Resolution accepting Easton Creek storm drain improvements for box culverts at North Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road by Northwest Construction 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. OLD BUSINESS a. Request direction on whether to cancel the Regular City Direction Council meetings scheduled for July 19 &August 16, 2004 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library,March 16, 2004; Planning, May 10, 2004 b. Department Reports: Building, April, 2004; Finance,April, • City ofBurhngame 80 RLINGAME CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA wio (650)55&7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, May 17, 2004 Page 1 of 2 2004 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.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Tuesday, June 1, 2004 CITY SURLJNGAME 0 �oy'y. ao GNAT®Jw[6. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of May 3, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Fred Palmer, retiring Police Chief. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 19, 2004 Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested amending the minutes of April 20, 2004, under New Business, the fifth paragraph, third line to read: "...the end result was..." instead of"the ended result was..." Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the April 20, 2004 Special meeting with Hillsborough City Council; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2004 Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock abstained). 5. CEREMONIAL a. INTRODUCTION AND SWEARING IN OF NEW POLICE CHIEF Mayor O'Mahony performed the swearing-in ceremony of new Police Chief Jack Van Etten. Congratulations to the new chief! 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Because of the level of interest, Mayor O'Mahony asked Council Members if staff report item 7c could be moved to the first public hearing; Council agreed. 1 Burlingame City Council May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes 7c. CITIZENS' REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE SETTING MINIMUM DISTANCES BETWEEN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINES AND RESIDENCES, HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS CA Anderson outlined the possible consequences and outcomes of adopting the proposed ordinance. He noted that adoption of the ordinance could be postponed until after the Administrative Law Judge made a recommendation to the California Public Utilities Commission on the route of the Jefferson-Martin transmission line or after the CPUC makes the final decision. CA Anderson suggested that the Council retain a consultant to advise the Council on EMF issues and authorize the conduct of an initial study under CEQA. Mayor O'Mahony opened public comments from the floor. The following citizens spoke on this issue: Dennis Zell, Co-Chair of Concerned Residents of Burlingame; Dr. Robert Jacobs, 2965 Arguello Drive; Christy Armstrong, 3040 Trousdale Drive; Ingrid Afshar, 3015 Trousdale Drive; Evelyn Clayton, 2950 Trousdale Drive; Marvin Silver, 3005 Trousdale Drive; Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way; Frank Campos, 2935 Trousdale Drive; Dave Pine, 320 Chapin Lane. There were no further comments from the floor. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso to read the title of the proposed ordinance setting minimum distances between electric transmission lines and residences, hospitals and schools. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. CA Anderson will meet with the proponents of the ordinance to dicsuss timing of further consideration of the ordinance. Mayor O'Mahony requested CA Anderson report on the following closed session item: a. Threatened Litigation(Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(c)) Claim of Patricia Smith. Council instructed CA Anderson on further handling of this claim. 6a. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1734 CHANGING ALL PARKING LIMITS TO TWO HOUR PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE 800 AND 900 BLOCKS OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND TO REMOVE OVERNIGHT PARKING RESTRICTIONS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE 700, 800 AND 900 BLOCKS OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE DPW Bagdon requested Council hold a public hearing to change all parking limits to two hour parking on the west side of the 800 and 900 blocks of California Drive and to remove overnight parking restrictions along the east side of the 700, 800 and 900 blocks of California Drive. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Ellen Gruber, 841 California Drive, wanted to know if overnight parking permits could be obtained for her two tenants; Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, representing Mrs. Jonhson, owner of 891 California Drive, wondered if it would be possible to extend the two hour time zones around the corner on Maj ilia and up 100-150 feet so that the corner locations be also available for retail users. There were no further comments, and the hearing was closed. 2 Burlingame City Council May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes DPW Bagdon referred the first question regarding the parking permits to the Police Chief; stated he did not believe the ordinance extends up the side street at Majilla, but recommended Council adopt this ordinance and return to the TSP Commission for clarification of that point. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to adopt Ordinance #1734 changing all parking limits to two hour parking on the west side of the 800 and 900 blocks of California Drive and to remove overnight parking restrictions along the east side of the 700, 800 and 900 blocks of California Drive; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. 6b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF 2004 LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS FD Nava requested Council hold a public hearing on the issuance of 2004 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds in order to refinance the 1995 bonds and secure a better rate. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to adopt Resolution# 44-2004 authorizing the issuance of 2004 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6c. CONSIDER FORMATION OF BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR 2004-2005 IN THE DISTRICT BY: (1) ADOPTING ORDINANCE NO. 1735 ESTABLISHING THE DISTRICT; AND (2) ADOPTING RESOLUTION #STABLISHING THE 2004-2005 ASSESSMENTS IN THE DISTRICT CA Anderson requested Council hold a public hearing on the formation of Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District and proposed assessments for 2004-2005 in the District. He noted that the area encompassed all subarea A and most of subarea B, except for some parcels extending north along California Drive at Lorton. So far, only 11 individuals consisting of$2,500 in assessments had protested. Total assessment is approximately $140,000. Since 50%protest is required to stop formation, the legal requirements have been met to form the district. This is an assessment on business owners. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, spoke supporting the BID. He also read a letter written by local business owner Sam Malouf, who was unable to attend the meeting. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Road. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to adopt Ordinance#1735 establishing the Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to adopt Resolution#36-2004 establishing the 2004-2005 assessments in the Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 3 Burlingame City Council May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes 6d. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF BROADWAY AREA IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SETTING 2004-2005 ASSESSMENTS CA Anderson requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of Broadway Area Improvement District 2004-2005 assessments. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to adopt Resolution#37-2004 adopting the Broadway Area Improvement District assessments for 2004-2005; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6e. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 2711 MARTINEZ DRIVE CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and recommended Council hold a public hearing and take action. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke regarding this issue: Mr. Leo Redmond, owner and applicant of 2711 Martinez Drive regarding the addition to his home. Mr. Tom Carruba, Square Three Design Studio, Architect, made comments about the design and roof. Mr. Chris Wong, 2720 Martinez Drive, spoke against the addition based on its impact on the view at his home. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Coffey noted that the real problem to distant views is not a project like this that raises a roof ridge two feet but the tall trees; feel this request for a modest addition is a property owners right; applicant is within the code requirements; talked to the neighbors and the Planning Commission found the design to be within the criteria of the design guidelines. Councilman Coffey made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's action to approve the design review, hillside area construction permit and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at 2711 Martinez Drive; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion to uphold the Planning Commission action was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Galligan requested the Beautification Commission look at an ordinance to address trees that block views. Mayor O'Mahony suggested a five-minute recess. Because of the number of people interested, Mayor O'Mahony asked Council to move the public comment period before item 6f. Council agreed. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following citizens spoke regarding the possible elimination of the school crossing guards: Diana McGary, 601 Concord Way, Joseph Begun, 1230 Vancouver, Peter Stevenson, 508 Howard Avenue, Liz Gindraux, 208 Clarendon Road, David Hyman, 711 Lexington Way, Alex Floro, 1124 Paloma Avenue#3, Yvonne Wun, 1440 Columbus Avenue, William Pollock, 409 Concord Way, Annamarie Holland Daniels, 515 Howard Avenue, Derek Daniels, 515 Howard Avenue, Vic Escobar, 229 Dwight Road, Linda Lees Dwyer, 324 Dwight Road, Steve Fong, 1001 Cabrillo. 4 Burlingame City Council May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes 6L (2) APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE AND AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1537 DRAKE, LOT 11, ZONED R-1 CA Anderson excused himself from this agenda item because the California Courts of Appeal issued two decisions that said that if a City Attorney's office takes a somewhat adversarial position with regard to an applicant pending before the City, the City Attorney's office would then be disqualified from providing legal advice to the advisory bodies or the City Council that is making the decision regarding the matter. In this case, CA Anderson was a central player in having a stop work order placed against the property, and therefore, under state law he is required to recuse himself from participation in order to protect the City's position. The City has obtained outside counsel, which will be available at future meetings if Council needs any further legal advice regarding this application. CA left the dais and Council Chambers. CP Monroe noted that the action this evening would be clearer if item 6f(2), 1537 Drake Avenue, Lot 11, were taken first. Council agreed to that change in the Agenda. CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and recommended that Council hold a public hearing on this appeal and take action on the request for Lot 11, at 1537 Drake Avenue. The City Arborist was present. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney representing the property owner , 216 Park Road; Sean Yapsa, attorney representing the neighbors, Janny Ochse, 1512 Drake, Ann Grimes- Thomas, 1520 Drake, Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake, Gina O'Neal, 1516 Drake, Chris McCrum, 1540 Drake, Dave Taylor, 1561 Drake, Bob Bear, 1510 Drake. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's action approving amended conditions of approval, design review and a special permit for an attached garage at 1537 Drake Avenue, Lot 11, for the reasons cited by the commission in their action. The motion was seconded by Councilman Coffey. Council asked on the motion if the arborist reports prepared by Levinson had been considered; City Arborist responded that he had reviewed and considered them and that all three arborists discussed and agreed that there would be no impact on the Redwood tree grove from development on Lot 11 and from using the 20 strip on the north side of Lot 10 for a staging area. Given history, not confident that this project will be built as approved unless all three lots are built a once, will reduce impacts on the neighborhood. Noted that this action includes additional conditions to protect the Redwood trees, not matter if built at once impact on the trees is different with each lot. Mayor O'Mahony called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the conditions of approval, design review and special permit for an attached garage at 1537 Drake, Lot 11. The motion passed on a 3-2 (Baylock,Nagel dissenting) roll call vote. (1) APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE AND AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR EACH LOT AND FOR ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS 9 AND 10 AT 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 5 Burlingame City Council May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and recommended Council hold a public hearing and take action on the request to amend the conditional use permit for Lots 9 and 10 at 1537 Drake Avenue. She noted that any future construction development on these two lots would require review by the Planning Commission. This action would establish conditions for each lot and would provide for ongoing maintenance activities for the Redwood tree grove until the lots 9 and 10 were developed. The City Arborist was present. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, represented the applicant; Janet Garcia, 1516 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake; Sean Absha, attorney for neighbors; spoke. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's action on Lots 9 and 10 for the reasons they noted particularly that this amendment adds more tree protection measures. The motion was seconded by Councilman Coffee. Mayor O'Mahony called for a roll call vote on the motion to uphold the Planning Commission and approve the amendment to the conditions of approval for each lot and for additional tree protection requirements for Lots 9 and 10 at 1537 Drake Avenue. The motion passed on a 3-2 (Baylock, Nagel dissenting) roll call vote. 8. STAFF REPORTS a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AND APPROVE RESOLUTION#42-2004 STATING CITY'S INTENT TO AMEND THE CONTRACT FOR FIRE EMPLOYEES WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CalPERS) AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HRD Bell requested Council approve the Resolution of Intention#42-2004 to approve an Amendment to the Contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Staff also recommends that the Council review the proposed Ordinance to amend the City of Burlingame's contract with CalPERS. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso to read the title of the proposed ordinance to amend the City of Burlingame's contract with CalPERS. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the Resolution of Intention#42-2004 to approve the Amendment to the Contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS); seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. b. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT FD Nava presented Council with a presentation outlining the third quarter financial report. d. COMMISSION INTERVIEW COMMITTEES 6 Burlingame City Council May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes CM Nantell requested Mayor assign two-member interview committees for each of the three commission that have upcoming vacancies. The committees will be as follows: Planning Commission—Councilwoman Baylock and Councilwoman Nagel Traffic, Safety and Parking—Vice Mayor Galligan and Mayor O'Mahony Library Board—Councilman Coffey and Vice Mayor Galligan e. APPOINT CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT JOINT POWERS BOARD REPRESENTATIVES FC Reilly requested Council appoint two Council Representatives to the Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Board. Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to appoint Vice Mayor Galligan to the Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Board; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to appoint Councilman Coffey to the Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Board; seconded by Mayor O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. CA Anderson noted that this is a formal Joint Powers Board and that there are no alternates. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. DISCLOSURE OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TWO-YEARS ADDITIONAL SERVICE CREDIT RETIREMENT INCENTIVE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM WaIPERS) GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 20903 HR Director disclosed costs associated with the two-years additional service credit retirement incentive with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) Government Code Section 20903. b. ADOPT RESOLUTION #43-2004 FORMALLY ADOPTING BRAVO COMPANY 1/327 101ST AIRBORNE DIVISION CC Musso requested Council approve Resolution#43-2004 formally adopting Bravo Company, 1/327, 101St Airborne Division under the guidelines of the organization "America Supporting Americans". Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 11. OLD BUSINESS 7 Burlingame City Council May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes Councilwoman Baylock requested that signs be posted in an appropriate place noting that the upgrades for Pershing and Cuernavaca Parks are being paid for out of Proposition 41 funds, not out of general funds. Vice Mayor Galligan noted he does not feel that the Council representation on the school liaison commission is representing the Council majority. 12. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, April 8, 2004; Parks & Recreation, April 15, 2004; Planning, April 26, 2004 b. Peninsula Policy Partnership letter concerning attracting businesses to the Peninsula c. Three letters from Comcast concerning programming additions and fee adjustments 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 12:18 a.m. in memory of Carl Aue former Mayor of Hillsborough and Ron Stern, a Burlingame CPA. Respectfully submitted, Ann T. Musso City Clerk 8 Burlingame City Council May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes CITY BURLJNGAME Y-11 om W— ♦�-b BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of May 1,2004 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame Financing Authority was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 12:19 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Fred Palmer. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION #FA2-2004 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF 2004 LEASE REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS AND EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH SALE FinD Nava requested Council adopt Resolution#FA2-2004 authorizing the issuance of 2004 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds and execution of documents in connection with sale. NQ . Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve Resolution i� 2004 authorizing the issuance of 2004 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds and execution of documents in connection with sale; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 6. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 12:23 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann T. Musso City Clerk 1 Burlingame Finance Authority May 3,2004 Unapproved Minutes STAFF REPORT B W119AME AGENDA ITEM# 6a MTG. 5/17/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SU TED Q DATE: April 6,2004 APPRO D / FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY 72k SUBJECT: RECOGNITION OF KIMBERLY ROSALES FOR ORGANIZING A FUNDRAISING DRIVE FOR THE CITY'S PRESCHOOL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council recognize Kimberly Rosales for her organizing a very successful fundraising campaign to assist the Parks &Recreation Department's Preschool programs. BACKGROUND: Kimberly Rosales has been a parent at Village Park Preschool for 3 years. Her two children, Alexandra(age 4) and Courtney(age 2), are participants in the Village Park Preschool program. Alexandra(Ally)has been attending the program since she was just shy of 2 years old and will be graduating this year. Courtney began with the Lil' Sprouts program this fall and will be continuing with the Cottage Kids program next year. When Recreation Supervisor, Karen Hager, sent out a letter to the preschool parents explaining the City's difficult financial situation and a desire to do a preschool fundraiser, Kimberly responded immediately citing her experience as a fundraiser for Stanford University. She generously volunteered to chair the fundraising committee and help with the entire process. To date,Kimberly has spent countless hours compiling information from fundraising surveys, recruiting parent volunteers, creating a donor list, writing thank you notes, etc., in addition to contributing over$1,500 of her own money and donating over$300 in supplies. The campaign has already exceeded$8,000 and should reach the$10,000 goal soon. These funds will be used to hire a music specialist to supplement our excellent program due to the amazing level of parent support. Kimberly's organization, excellent attitude, and sense of humor are responsible for the success of this effort. The Parks &Recreation Department is honored to have such a wonderful parent as a volunteer for our program! BUDGET IMPACT: Kim has helped raise nearly $10,000 in donations for the City's preschool programs. ATTACHMENTS: None City of Burlingame BURLINGAME parks & Recreation Department VILLAGE PARK PRESCHOOL ` ° 2004 CAMPAIGN DONORS MANY THANKS To the following individuals who have contributed generously to our 2004 Campaign and are helping to sustain excellence in preschool education $1,000 or more Up to $199 Eric &Donna Colson Family Amiel & Judy Azzaria Family Mark&Kimberly Rosales Family Tony& America Brown Family David& Carole Brooks Dasarathy Raghunathan& Suganya Dasarathy Family Brian&Kim Firenze Family $400 to $999 Michael & Teresa Garrett Family Greg& Cathy Everson Family Fatma Kilic Family John&Diana Petersdorf Family Cedric &Lisa Lai Family Jon&Jenny Varni Family Scott&Julie MacArthur Family Niall & Yvonne McCarthy Family $200 to $399 Diana Mills&Family Arman&Mondana Arami Family Mark&Jodie Penner Family Brian&Jenifer Beswick Family Chris&Kerrie Ronan Family Edd&Barbara Carey Family Taoufik& Tracy Tahiri Family Steven& Christine Chan Family Woody & Sylvia Chung Family Supply Donations Bob & Lisa Disco Family Amiel &Judy Azzaria Family Jeff&Karen Flood Family Tony&America Brown Family Rick&Molly Gomez Family Steven& Christine Chan Family Troy& Karen Hager Family Ken &Julie Kanzaki Family Scott & Linda Jones Family Kevin& Jette Kinsella Family George &Joann Mahaffey Family Jeff& Stacy Novitzky Family Greg Kall & Shaun McKall Family Steve &Diane Phillips Family Ken&Julie Kanzaki Family Mike&Kathleen Shea Family Bob Komin&Charlie Hays Family Jon&Jennifer Varni Family Patrick& Catherine Lee Family Mitchell &Maria Oliver Family Niteen Patkar& Amita Jain Family Fitali & Jaje Rush Family Mark Silva&Darci Fletchall Family Faysal & Shazia Sohail Family Bill &Rochelle Toland Family Nancy Tuck Family Marc & Sue Worrall Family AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM# 7a MTG. DAT 5/17/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: MAY 3, 2004 BY Z;�fr_o APPROVE FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: WEEDS AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT ON PRIVATE PR ERTY - PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION - CITY JOB NO. 81020 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council hold a public hearing to receive any objections to the proposed weed and rubbish removal and approve a resolution"Ordering the Destruction of Noxious and Dangerous Weeds and Rubbish, a Nuisance in the City of Burlingame." BACKGROUND: Each year the City establishes the Weed and Rubbish Abatement Program.As part of the program,Council declared weeds and rubbish a nuisance on April 5,2004. Since then,staff has surveyed the City and posted properties which require abatement. The Public Works Director will have a list of all posted properties available at the time of the hearing. After Council approves the resolution, staff will notify the affected property owners by certified mail as to the deadline for weed and rubbish removal. All unabated nuisances will be addressed by a City contractor, and a lien will be placed on the property to recover removal expenses. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Sample Posting Notice Mu uP.E. /�ed ity Engineer (650) 558-7230 c: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\WEED.STF RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING THE DESTRUCTION OF NOXIOUS AND DANGEROUS WEEDS AND RUBBISH, A NUISANCE IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame on April 5, 2004, at a regular meeting of said Council, adopted a resolution declaring certain weeds growing upon various streets, squares, lanes, alleys, avenues, courts and places within said municipality, and upon private property within said municipality,which said weeds bear seeds of a wingy or downy nature and are otherwise obnoxious and dangerous, and all rubbish, refuse and dirt upon parkways, sidewalks or private property, to constitute a public nuisance; and WHEREAS,said resolution fixed Monday,the 17"day of May,2004,at the hour of seven p.m. of said day,at the City Council Chambers of the City of Burlingame, located in the City Hall of said City, as the time and place when objections to the proposed removal of such weeds shall be heard and given due consideration; and WHEREAS it appears that notice of said hearing has been given for the time and in the manner and form provided by law; and WHEREAS, it appears that no objections to the proposed removal of such weeds were presented; 1 NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that the City Engineer of the City of Burlingame be, and he hereby is directed to remove and eradicate such weeds as described in the Resolution of Intention passed and adopted on April 5, 2004. AND said City Engineer of said City of Burlingame is hereby authorized and directed to fix the costs of such removal and eradication of weeds, and in the event of any delinquency of the payment of said costs to report the same to the City Clerk of the City of Burlingame so that the costs may be collected in the manner provided by law. Mayor I,ANN MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\MISCELLANEOUS\WEEDDEST.RES 2 N 0 T I C TO REMOVE WEEDS AND RUBBISH Notice is hereby given that on the 5th day of April,2004,pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Burlingame, Chapter 11.08 (Ordinance No. 469), the City Council of said City passed Resolution No.27-2004 declaring that all weeds growing or rubbish existing upon any private property or in any public street or alley,of such character as to be a fire menace or otherwise noxious or dangerous, constitute a public nuisance and must be abated by destruction or removal thereof. Notice is further given that property owners shall,without delay,destroy and remove all such weeds or rubbish from their property and the abutting one-half of the street in front and alley,if any,behind such property and between the lot lines extended and maintain a clean condition continuously throughout the year;or such weeds and rubbish will be destroyed and the nuisance removed by the City,in which case the cost of destruction or removal will be assessed upon the land from which,or from the front or rear of which, such weeds or rubbish shall have been destroyed or removed;and such cost will constitute a lien upon such land until paid, and will be collected upon the next tax roll upon which general municipal taxes are collected. All property owners having any objections to the proposed destruction or removal of such weeds or rubbish are hereby notified to attend a meeting of the Council of said City,to be held at the Council Chambers in the City Hall in said City,May 17,2004,at 7:00 P.M.,when and where objections will be heard and given due consideration. THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Syed Murtuza,City Engineer Dated:April 19,2004 WEEDS AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT LOCATIONS OF NOTICES POSTED JOB NO. 81020 I I I I I I 1 i L 0 CA 7 /OA/,5 OF WEZ"OS o J > o A 34 rZ-1WZ�t/7T N07/CE5 PO5TE0 0. z w -5 - / 7 - Og NO LOCAT/ ON PARCEL No, p l 8 �,�n/iNsuGA !lU�". X29-303/,30 20 X X 2 508 PE1VINYOLQ AvE, 02 9 Z94-170 A:21 X X 5/D PEA11115VZ4 AYE. 029-294/gD 5 / gA .Sm1w,74 -0091 X x CLFANED 10-S 6 5/D -04� 4/7 1,au�g2o Av"g. m-28/-010 ¢�� X X X r, /OD 3aeZ141a4M6 46'e: 029 2/4 -OZO X X X c L6QtilED 45 of /3 -0 4- 7 /Z 029-274.050 1 X >�\ x AS L O CA TICW5 OF WE�"OS ti a A13ArE�ZNT No 71c,,-4 75 POsTEo ? z NO LOCAT/ ON PARCEL No, p Z � j � � � �i ti 2EAIU/ZAC S 8 /5 4 'ZAaENDa,V QoAO 029-293-120 fl X X X cl 28 13zooN/F/ELD ,20.40 o29 293-250 %/ X X X <24EAA160 As /0 /Zo ffLOo, tfl, L5 J Ra.40 0 2F-2 73 -ZZo X X X ll /24 eZaaNlrf'1EL0,2©AD 029 273 -ZM X X X 1Z 123 C4ZIA0e" PkIPZ 029-273 -d6D ON /G -14w0 q Vim, / 3 l6/ 17116 'u4416 E o29.23/-060 X Cat S7o/1A6E L07 /¢ 428283130 ¢23 X x X r,4 A14,0 qs O< sio o¢ L 0 C;9 7-ICA19 OF WEEDS a A3ArE�ENr N07ICeF5 P0572 o ? a NO LOCQ_ZT/ON PvCEL /o, p Z J 3 `v /5 30/ occeAWjoL At1E. 028-3/2-o6o z9- X X X /6 15/6 fL019uND9 ,41146. o29/ad-286 X X X /7 7/ ! UE MAI W4 00-122-040 %q- x X X a,-w1z0 4S of 5-/o-o¢ l8 4B7C/lArWwAl '2 w 029/ba-0/0 4 X I< CG64NE0 ,45 ajC .s-/o -off /7 /250 2ozzle 2owo 026-/34.090 � X 25 CLEANED A5 of 45-10-04 - 20 /26o-/270 /ZoCl-rA4-led D 61,E 13541-IOC 4 PAzcELZ' ZS 2 1 1290,QoZZINS ROAD 0Z6'I3¢-/00 jS X CLIA vE/> As of S/Q -0 L 0 C4 7-ICA15 OF WEEO.5' o o o A/3ATE�ENT /✓OT/CES />05TE0 e w NO L.O. C4.7ION 22 /344 ROILIAls &W 026/23 D&I X rf/AR�HousE 23 /34W hzL N52QAD 026/23 0%O f25 X X c��o,v�o As of sib-a4 24 /3S8 10OZZ110/ AogD 0261 XV-A60 of S/o -4¢ 25 /368 %LLi,�/s.�ol1D 6Z6/2350 is X x ctFA,uEo As d� �i6-a4 2� g55 851 X c��,v,�p 4s 5-10-04 /2oLL-11vs 2aA0 2I 740 I-IA0, N ,4E. 029061-3O X X A L'LEANfD As ac ¢-27-04 ZS 30op, 936 a29 06/--250 �y X X ���q�v �45 of 5-10 -c oAK � eavE v L 0 C,4 i/aW5 OF WEEDS `� a A13ArEWENT NOT/C.L"5 naSrEo ? z NO L0.C4..7-/ 01V PARCEL /V0, 0 Z j tet, REINJA2A� S 30 ///SS%d/C/,/EZ.q 5, 026-20/-,W X X CLEANED 4.5 r- 5-4-D4- 5 1 - 51 974 �116,CA 51,4 SUE, 026-201-190 X C'LEAit/EO 32 626- S J 34 /341 L46UNr» 4/� 026-89-00 X x x /87�- p X X VACAN7 CAe U/R5� L O CA 7-161n/5 OF WEEDS ,43475-i IV T NOT/CE5 RO51ED z w NO 1-.004-7T/ON Pwca NO, p Z 3 h `v ti RE/1!lA2/L S 3� l8/0 EL CAM//Jo2E�IL a25-/.50-07o S 025 -/30-090I X X 31 /337 Poew eE 4(JE . 026 033-0go X . X X 36 /52/ 0k4,4�z Ar/E, 026 033-060 X X X 3 45'17 ,4e oce ,qvE. OZb 033 Oto X X X ¢0 2202 S61oox,111 .1,9k. 02727/3¢0 jo x �( D C 1, IV �ol Lq Rix q LN .� `�• O ��/ r V/) ` \16 / �I �. / .� '�" •ear Af PtL cr 41 It AN 31 Z OA 1 ,Y i E m �„ moo .. WEED ABATEMENT LETTER LIST 2004 MAY 14, 2004 _ Elizabeth & Robert Hornauer 8 Peninsula Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 8 Peninsula Avenue/APN 029-305-130 Diana & Dino Ropalidis 839 Laurel Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 508 Peninsula Avenue /APN 029-294-170 Cornelius Finnegan 1080 Macadamia Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 510 Peninsula Avenue /APN 029-294-180 Maureen Johnson 3442 Taraval Street San Francisco, CA 94116 417 Howard Avenue /APN 029-281-010 Zakatchenko Trust 15 Clarenden Road Burlingame, CA 94010 15 Clarenden Road /APN 029-293-120 Lynne & Khoi Le 120 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 120 Bloomfield Road /APN 029-273-220 Anna De Zan TR 124 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 124 Bloomfield Road /APN 029-273-230 Bruce O Sullivan TR 4729 Sorani Way Castro Valley, CA 94546 161 Highland Avenue /APN 029-231-060 Helen L. Rader 301 Occidental Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 301 Occidental Avenue /APN 028-312-060 Bo Thorenfeldt _ 725 Jacaranda Circle Hillsborough, CA 94010 1516 Floribunda Avenue /APN 029-100-280 _ PG&E 275 Industrial Road San Carlos, CA 94070 1260-1270 Rollins Road / S.B.E. 135-41-1OC - Parcel I Kenneth Merrill TR 733 Jacaranda Circle Hillsborough, CA 94010 1344 Rollins Road / APN 026-123-080 Michellaine/Renato Mercado Valerie & Mark DeLeon 1035 Chula Vista Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 1035 Chula Vista Avenue/ APN 026-195-030 Rene A. Arias 1341 Laguna Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 1341 laeuna Avenue / APN 026-084-040 Otto J. Miller P.O. Box 121 Burlingame, CA 94010 1875 California Drive / APN 025-150-010 Mitzi Lee 8B Bowen Road 19/F Hong Kong, China 1810 EI Camino Real / APN 025-150-070, 025-150-090, 025-150-100 Otto Miller P.O. Box 121 Burlingame, CA 94010 1537 Drake Avenue / APN 026-033-030 Buran 1999 Trust 305 Pepper Avenue Hillsborough, CA 94010 1521 Drake Avenue / APN 026-033-060 Jennifer & James Frolik 1517 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 1517 Drake Avenue / APN 026-033-070 Jennifer & Warren Donald 2202 Summit Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 2202 Summit Drive / APN 027-271-340 w 1 N 0 T TO REMOVE WEEDS AND RUBBISH Notice is hereby given that on the 5th day of April, 2004, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Burlingame, Chapter 11.08 (Ordinance No. 469), the City Council of said City passed Resolution No. 27-2004 declaring that all weeds growing or rubbish existing upon any private property or in any public street or alley, of such character as to be a fire menace or otherwise noxious or dangerous, constitute a public nuisance and must be abated by destruction or removal thereof. Notice is further given that property owners shall, without delay, destroy and remove all such weeds or rubbish from their property and the abutting one-half of the street in front and alley, if any, behind such property and between the lot lines extended and maintain a clean condition continuously throughout the year; or such weeds and rubbish will be destroyed and the nuisance removed by the City, in which case the _ cost of destruction or removal will be assessed upon the land from which, or from the front or rear of which, such weeds or rubbish shall have been destroyed or removed; and such cost will constitute a lien upon such land until paid, and will be collected upon the next tax roll upon which general municipal taxes are collected. All property owners having any objections to the proposed destruction or removal of such weeds or rubbish are hereby notified to attend a meeting of the Council of said City, to be held at the Council Chambers in the City Hall in said City, May 17, 2004, at 7:00 P.M., when and where objections will be heard and given due consideration. THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Syed Murtuza, City Engineer Dated: April 19, 2004 fAGENDA BURL .LINGAME ffi�I Nh STAFF REPORT ITEM # 9S MT 0 5/17/04 4TE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: May 7, 2004 BY APPROV FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STANDARDS F R PLACEMENTAND MAINTENANCE OF NEWSRACKS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council begin adoption of the attached ordinance to amend the regulations governing newsracks on the public right-of-way by: A. Requesting the City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waiving further reading of the ordinance. C. Introducing the proposed ordinance. D. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: Staff met with the Newsrack Committee and local Broadway merchants, including BID President, Ross Bruce, on June 26, 2003, to discuss the attached modified newsrack ordinance which essentially restricts the addition of any new newsracks along Broadway due to safety and access concerns. The existing newsrack locations cited in the ordinance appear sufficient to meet the news space demand, as the ordinance allows ten foot-long newsrack groupings at all four corners of the Chula Vista, Laguna, Paloma and Capuchino Avenue intersections (see map of Broadway newsrack locations). It should be noted that the streetscape improvements were specifically designed to accommodate this length of newsrack groupings. In addition, there are approximately 80 unused newsrack locations available on Broadway side streets. The modified ordinance increases the newsrack height by four inches to accommodate a more aesthetic angled roof design. The ordinance also establishes a six foot minimum distance between tree wells and newsracks to provide sufficient space for maintenance and pedestrians. The Newsrack Committee and merchants support the modified ordinance. However, the committee will review the effect of the ordinance over the next year and may identify additional modifications for Council consideration. EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance; Map BUDGET IMPACT: Any newsrack installation costs resulting from the ordinance will be borne by the newspaper companies. c: City Clerk Ross Bruce SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Ord 4 Newsracks.wpd I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 12.23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE 3 TO REVISE STANDARDS FOR THE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF NEWSRACKS 4 IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The newsrack ordinance adopted in 2000 has worked well with the 8 cooperation of all concerned. However, issues have arisen with regard to placement of the 9 newsracks on Broadway and near tree wells, and the newsrack industry has developed a 10 newsrack with an angled roof that is easier to maintain in an attractive condition. This 11 ordinance allows newsracks to be an additional four inches tall to meet the angled roof design 12 and will not cause any apparent visibility problems because of the other standards for 13 placement. Broadway has recently undergone an extensive streetscape improvement program 14 in order to make public travel and access easier and more inviting. This ordinance limits 15 placement of newsracks on Broadway to certain locations that have sufficient room for 16 pedestrian travel, landscaping, and newsracks. These locations appear sufficient to meet the 17 demand for newsrack space, because this ordinance also allows up to ten feet in length of 18 newsrack grouping at the key intersections immediately adjacent to Broadway, where the 19 sidewalks have been built specifically to accommodate this newsrack access. In addition, there 20 is no standard for proximity to tree wells and this ordinance will establish a distance that will 21 allow clearance for maintenance and pedestrians so that the trees will be allowed to survive in 22 the urban setting. The Newsrack Committee will review the effect of these ordinance changes 23 and determine if any modifications are necessary in the coming year. 24 25 Section 2. Section 12.23.050 is amended to read as follows: 26 12.23.050 Design. 27 (a) No newsrack shall be installed in the public right-of-way that does not meet the 28 dimensions of: 1 1 (1) not more than - fifty-eight (58) inches high including pedestal, 2 measured from the ground to the top surface of the newsrack; 3 (2) not more than two (2) feet deep; and 4 (3) not more than two (2) feet wide; and 5 (4) not less than fifteen(15) inches from the ground as measured from the ground to the 6 bottom surface of the lowest compartment. The bottom of a newsrack may be as low as five (5) 7 inches from the ground, so long as it is set back as required in subsection 12.23.070(a)(3)(c) 8 below. 9 (b)No group of newsracks shall extend for a distance of more than eight (8) feet 10 without the written permission of the director. However, a group of newsracks may extend up 11 to ten (10) feet along Chula Vista, Laguna, Paloma, and Capuchino Avenues at each of those 12 streets' intersections with Broadway. If sufficient space does not exist to accommodate all 13 newsracks sought to be placed at one location without violating the standards set forth in this 14 subsection, the city or its designee shall approve permits for that location as follows: 15 (1)First priority, first come first served basis; 16 (2) Second priority, a lottery will be held to assign spaces. 17 (c) All newsracks shall be permanently affixed to the ground within the Broadway 18 Commercial Area and Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. 19 (d) The highest operable part of the coin slot, if provided for the newsrack, all controls, 20 dispensers and other operable components of newsracks shall not be greater than forty-eight 21 (48) inches above the level of the adjacent pavement or sidewalk, nor lower than fifteen (15) 22 inches above the level of the adjacent pavement or sidewalk. 23 (e)Newsracks are not subject to design review. 24 25 Section 3. Section 12.23.060 is amended to read as follows: 26 12.23.060 Placement. 27 (a)No person shall install, stock, use or maintain any newsrack which projects onto, 28 into or over any part of the roadway of any public right-of-way, street, or which rests, wholly or 3/8/2004 Draft 2 I in part, upon, along or over any portion of a roadway. 2 (b)No person shall install, use or maintain any newsrack which in whole or in part rests 3 upon, in or over any sidewalk or roadway, when such installation, use, or maintenance 4 endangers the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public 5 utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other government use, or when such 6 newsrack unreasonably interferes with or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, 7 including disabled access, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, or 8 the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, postal service collection boxes or other 9 objects permitted at or near said location. 10 (c) Each newsrack shall be installed in a permanent fashion to the public sidewalk. The 11 owner or operator of the newsrack shall provide the installation pursuant to the provisions of 12 this chapter. Should the newsrack be relocated at any time in the future, the then-owner or 13 operator of the newsrack shall bear the costs of repairing and restoring the sidewalk to a safe 14 and attractive condition. 15 (d) In the Broadway Commercial Area and Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue 16 Commercial Area, all newsracks shall be contained in modular units for display and sale that 17 meet the specifications established by the city. The distributors shall provide the modular units. 18 The modular newsracks shall be of a multi-unit configuration in order to provide the safe 19 passage of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, while ensuring equivalent access to distribution. The 20 modular units shall be subject to and shall be attached to one another to facilitate consolidation. 21 No alteration of these modular newsracks shall be permitted without the express written 22 direction of the city. 23 (e) A publication not previously circulating in a given area which chooses to do so, may 24 place an industry standard rack on a temporary basis for sixty(60) days so long as: 25 (1) The newsrack is tagged by the distributor with the placement date and the date of 26 removal; and 27 (2) The tag indicates that this is a test location; and 28 (3) By the sixty-first day, the distributor shall either obtain a newsrack permit or 3/8/2004 Draft 3 I remove the newsrack; and 2 (4) During the sixty(60) day temporary basis, the distributor adheres to all other 3 aspects of this chapter, except for permanently affixing it to the public sidewalk. 4 (5) This subsection (e) shall not apply to the Broadway Commercial Area. 5 (f) The number and placement of newsracks located on the public right-of-way 6 parallel to Broadway between California Avenue and El Camino Real shall be limited as 7 follows: 8 (1) Eight(8) newsracks immediately in front ofl 160 Broadway; 9 (2) Six (6) newsracks immediately in front of 1226 Broadway; and 10 (3) Four(4)newsracks immediately in front of 1308 Broadway. and 11 (4) Four(4) newsracks immediately in front of 1159 Broadway. 12 Any additional newsracks shall be located on the street corners located at Chula Vista,Laguna, 13 Paloma, and Capuchino Avenues. 14 15 Section 4. Subsection 12.23.070(k) is amended and a new subsection 12.23.0700 16 is added to read as follows: 17 (k) Within six (6) feet from the edge of a tree well for a street tree planted in the 18 public sidewalk. 19 If there are any conflicting dimensions with the placement of a newsrack as 20 described in subsections (a) to-ft(k) above, the greater dimensions shall control. 21 22 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 23 24 Mayor 25 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 26 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 27 on the day of , 2004, by the following vote: 28 3/8/2004 Draft 4 I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 4 City Clerk 5 C:\Documents and Settings\dmortensen\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2C\newsrackrev2004.ord.wpd 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3/8/2004 Draft 5 O /c L � OWN/ QO 1100 / 1 1126 / 1101 1128- 136 1286- SrY\� AL67/R}=tL S 1160 1145 v j,� IV 1170 ^'tea' 1174 1178 1 59 1184 1163- 1190 1169 A ti a At._ q`�jf7 1200- 1199 14 WNUT /t1204fv^H�� GTA�L3UO S ,210 ,20, 222-,21 1205 c 1236 0 , �. 121 (� ' 2 1233-9 3 223 1300- 124 4 �U 8 WAY 1310 1251 1316- 1322 1301- 1326 1305 do321- 1 1360 1 1327 h 355- ryo 13 1400 1399 0 �� 1408- �tO 145 410 1454 405- l 1480 3 City Parking t! Lot R 1461/ / Broadway Commercial Area Existing News Racks on Broadway Sidewalk (Note - does not include any news racks on the side streets) ��41 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 9b ITEM# MTG. DATE 5.17.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED kJ L,. � BY DATE: MAY 7, 2004 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUB.IECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CO E WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE. Introduction: City Council should set the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to establish new regulations for development on emerging legal lots in the R-1 (single family) zoning district. Staff would recommend that this item be set for public hearing at your meeting on June 7, 2004. Introduction requires the following council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. History: At the April 5, 2004, Council meeting, the Planning Commission proposed changes to the zoning regulations for emerging legal were sent back to the commission for additional public notice. On April 26, 2004, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing on the proposed regulations. The second commission public hearing was noticed to 31 property owners who were identified as owning multiple lots (two or three) merged by current single family residential development. The hearing was also noticed in a newspaper of general circulation(San Mateo County Times) as required by law. At the Planning Commission's second hearing two members of the public spoke. Their concerns were focused on the public notice; that the reduction to 30% lot coverage for 10 years would place an additional burden on the property at the time of development and reduces its current value; and that the lot coverage should be based on the average of current new construction, not existing average lot coverage. In their discussion the Commissioners noted in favor of the ordinance: • prefer having standards to regulate development on these lots than rely totally on design review which is discretionary and difficult for developers to know in advance; • these proposed modifications to the zoning code for legal emerging lots came from 100's of hours of testimony from adjacent owners who felt that the value of their lots was affected by the cumulative impact on their blocks and neighborhood of 2 and 3 lot emerging situations, • believe that there is a cumulative effect caused by development on these lots, it will change Burlingame if it is not controlled; INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE May 17,2004 • these regulations address FAR well, put it below grade; • this ordinance is not a taking, it is softening the cumulative effect of such development. except for the two different standards for lot coverage, this is the right direction and an excellent solution; • want to strike the right balance of fairness and accomplishing the objectives we try to get by way of the design guidelines; • if you read the proposed ordinance and the annotations you see a balance, the ordinance allows what is lost in FAR above grade in an optional basement and it has a 10 year sunset on the to coverage reduction; and • reemerged lots are developed by developers not homeowners, they are a division of a larger lot, feel that this effort is a step in the right direction given all the Commission has heard on the subject. Commission also made comments in opposition to the proposed ordinance: • feel that the issue on development on these emerged legal lots is mass and bulk and application of the design guidelines is adequate to address this issue; • when we prepared the ordinance did not look at all situations, some people are affected a lot,these regulations restrict people's rights; • design guidelines are the place to examine the issue of mass and bulk on emerging legal lots; • like the idea of looking at the design review guidelines in conjunction with the cumulative effect of development, we need to look at the whole picture not just FAR to address mass and bulk; • work on design guidelines would be to add incentives to gain design elements; • at joint meeting concern was expressed about a lot of new homes looking the same as the result of the current design guidelines, need to increase diversity, now we have FAR to address mass and bulk do not need more regulations; and • goal is how the house fits in the design guidelines, need to tighten the design guidelines, basements are an OK alternative but should be an option not a requirement; Following the discussion the commission voted on a roll call 4-2-1 (Crs. Auran, Keighran dissenting; C. Brownrigg absent)to recommend the new regulations for emerging legal lots to the City Council for public hearing and action. BACKGROUND: At Commission direction, the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been studying the issue of how the city's present zoning codes address emerging legal lots. Emerging legal lots are groups of parcels which have been informally merged by past development and on which, when the original structures are demolished, the original property lines become re-established. The parcels recreated in this way can be "legal" meeting the minimum lot size, street frontage etc. for their location under the current zoning regulations, or then can be "substandard". There are already development standards in the zoning code to address re-emerging substandard lots (CS 25.28.090). However, currently the reemerging legal lots are treated in the zoning code as any other free standing lot. It was the Commission's observation that development on legally sized lots emerging 2 or 3 at time can have a substantial impact on the character and even the ambience on an existing block and in an existing neighborhood. The proposed regulations, summarized below, are recommended to the City Council for approval by the Planning Commission (March 8 and April 26, 2004). (See Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2004 and April 26,2004 attached) It should be noted that in March the Commission held a public hearing on the INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-I ZONE May 17,2004 proposed regulations for emerging legal lots and new regulations for development on creek side lots at the same time. However the actions on the two ordinances were separated. At their meeting on April 26, 2004, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission returned the regulations for single family development on creek side lots to the subcommittee for further consideration. It should be noted that only the regulations for emerging lots were considered at the April 26 public hearing; and they were recommended on to City Council for action. The regulations for re-emerging standard lots were first studied by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2004. (See Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 attached) The revised regulations for emerging legal lots are summarized below. Also attached to the staff report are the annotations dated March 22, 2004, staff prepared which explain the reasoning behind each of the proposed changes to the code for emerging standard lots. The annotations also address issues raised by the Subcommittee of the Planning Commission and Planning Commission during their discussions through the March 8, 2004, Commission meeting. No changes were recommended as a part of the commission's recommendation on April 26, 2004. Summary Regulations to Address Emerging Legal Lots ■ Requires a conditional use permit for emerging legal lots, demolition may not occur until a conditional use permit has been issued. ■ Limits the dimensions and placement of light wells for basement areas to side and rear yards, insures that there is and area for safe passage by light wells in the side yard. ■ Limits exterior stairs from habitable basement areas to the rear yard. ■ Residential structures and their accessory structures shall be subject to design review. ■ Tree removal permits shall be obtained, as necessary, and tree protection measures installed before construction and on-going tree maintenance requirements follow after construction. ■ For development on two or more emerging lots the following limitations shall be adhered to: o Maximum lot coverage of 30% for 10 years, then the lot coverage may be expanded to 40% or whatever lot coverage is allowed in the code at that time; o Maximum floor area above grade shall be 80% of the total FAR allowed above grade for all the lots combined. The 80% may be divided among the lots above grade so long as no single lot has more than 100% of the total FAR allowed on that lot. o Remaining floor area for each lot, up to 100% of current code for each emerged lot, may be put in an habitable basement area, so long as the basement does not extend beyond the foundation walls of the house above, current restrictions on bathroom size and bedrooms in basements are removed. o For houses with habitable basement areas there shall be , a two car garage, no matter how many bedrooms are designed into the house. Current regulations for Substandard Emerged Lots (adopted in1996, amended in 1998) are included below for your reference: ■ Based on lot size, the floor area ratio formula is reduced, 32%plus 750 SF, as opposed to 35%plus 1,100 SF for a standard lot. ■ The FAR bonus for a detached garage is reduced 50 SF to 350 SF, the bonus for a detached garage on a standard lot is 400 SF. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE May 17,2004 Several code sections were added to make the new regulations work these include: ■ Definitions for Exit Well and Light Well. ■ Section to define placement of Exit Wells and Light Wells on single family lots (CS 25.28.074) All of these provisions and requirements are discussed in detail in the attached Annotated Development Standards for Emerging Los. General Plan Compliance The proposed changes to the zoning regulations will affect the areas of the city with the land use designation of low density residential (up to 8 dwelling units per acre). These new provisions to address residential development on emerging legal lots will have no effect on the density of development allowed in the areas low density residential area because the original subdivision met the General Plan density standard. Therefore there will be no general plan land use implication. In regards to the other elements of the General Plan, this revision to the zoning code will not result in an extension of area to be developed in single family houses and will not lead to the creation of more lots, since the emerged lots were created with the original subdivisions of the city in the 1920's and after and have been under used by being merged by a single structure. The development of these lots will result in the return to the original planned density of each neighborhood. Environmental Review The provisions of this code amendment are categorical exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15332 In-fill Development Projects (a) (e), The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation; and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Regarding the change in regulations: Section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Regulations, Class 5, (a) minor lot line adjustments, side yard and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. Public Notice The legal noticing requirement for a change to the zoning regulations for a General Law city is publication in a newspaper of general circulation within the city. The notice shall be published 10 days in advance of the public hearing. In the case of the Planning Commissions March 8, 2004, public hearing on the proposed regulations, the notice was published in the San Mateo County Times legal notices on February 27, 2004. There was no notice required for City Council introduction on April 5, 2004. At that meeting Council returned the item to the Planning Commission for another public hearing and directed staff to send mailed notice to property owners who had lots which would be affected by the emerging legal lot regulations. Staff identified 31 properties from the original survey of such lots prepared when the city adopted the regulations for emerging substandard lots. For the Commission's April 26, 2004, second public hearing, postcards were mailed ten days in advance(April 16, 2004)to the 31 property owners identified in the original survey and a legal notice was also published on April 16, 2004, in the San Mateo County Times as required by law. At the public hearing a property owner asked why he and his neighbor, who have larger lots and received notice for the creek side lot regulations, did not receive notice for the emerging standard lot regulation hearing. Staff reviewed the city maps once again, and identified all emerging lots situations of three lots,two lots and side- by-side 1 '/2 lots, legal size or substandard size. Together there were 60 such property owners in the city. For the City Council public hearing on this matter all 60 will be noticed. As a footnote on the creek side lot owners, one had a lot which was an oversized single lot and a standard lot with a submerged lot line. The other lot was an oversized lot with no previous division, e.g. not an emerging lot line issue. The caution here is that every large lot in the older subdivisions was not a combination of previously subdivided lots. The property owner who does not have an emerging lot line was not added to the noticing list. The property owner A INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-I ZONE May 17,2004 with the creek and emerging lot line has been contacted and will receive mailed notice when the Council sets the public hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Annotated Development Standards for Emerging Lots, Revised as Recommended by Planning Commission, March 22, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2004 City Council Minutes, April 5, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes March S, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 Jerry Deal, e-mail memo, April 27, 2004, to Monroe Draft, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Establish Design Requirements for Development of Lots that were Formerly Put to Combined Use, to Define Light Wells, and to Establish Regulations Regarding Light Wells. U:\CCStaftRepts\CCSR2004\lntro2EmergingLegalLots 5.17.04.doe c March 22,2004 Annotated Development Standards for Emerging Lots (Revised as Recommended by Planning Commission March 8,2004) In late 2003 the Planning Commission directed their Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to review the existing zoning regulations as they apply to emerging standard lots. The purpose of review was to make suggestions for revisions to the regulations so that when reused,new development on these adjacent lots would better blend into the existing development on the residential block. An emerging legal lot is a lot which was merged by development crossing previously established lot lines. These lot line emerge (return to their original status)when the structure which informally merged them is removed.If the emerged lot is consistent with the current minimum lot size in the area,it is considered to be a"legal"lot. The Planning Commission Subcommittee met with staff several times to discuss the development issues created by legal emerging lots. On the first full commission review of the Subcommittee's recommended regulations,the whole Commission noted that development on creek side lots(some of which are also emerged lots)had also become an issue,so directed the Subcommittee to meet again and add regulations for creek side development.The Subcommittee last met on February 6,2004 and recommended development standards for both emerging standard lots and for creek side lots. On March 8,2004,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended the new development standards for emerging legal lots annotated below. For the record,and to facilitate administration later,each recommended development standard is annotated to document the objective anticipated to be addressed. Creek side lot development regulations are addressed in another annotated document. Currently the zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit for the following kinds of emerging lots. CS 25.28.030(5)and(6) 5. Demolition of a residential structure or an accessory structure thereto,which structure is built over or across two or more legally subdivided lots,and the construction of a structure upon one or more of said lots. See section 25.28.090. 6. Demolition of a residential structure or any accessory structure thereto,which structure is built on a site consisting of a legally subdivided lot and a portion of another lot which when combined with an adjacent lot will result in more building sites than existing before the demolition of said structures,and the construction of a structure on one or more of said lots. Annotation: These provisions apply to standard and substandard sized lots. Therefore,the code now requires all emerging lots to have a conditional use permit prior to any construction. In addition,all new single family residential construction is subject to design review(CS 25.57.010). Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 Add to CS 25.28.073 Exceptions Section (4) (4) Light wells. A light well may extend up to three(3) feet into a side setback so long as the outermost edge of the light well is at least three(3)feet from any lot line. Annotation: These proposed regulations encourage a full basement of living area and allow light wells for air and ventilation only on the sides and rear of the property.Generally these light wells cannot be covered and so they create open pits in the side and rear yard. If light wells are to be allowed at the side of a building it is important that safety personnel and residents can travel safely through the side yard area. for these reasons, an exception to side setback has been added. This provision would allow light wells in the side yard no closer than 3 feet to property line and extend into the rear yard no further than 3 feet Based on the current California Building Code exit wells must be a minimum of 3 feet by 3 feet. Light wells (for light and air) may be 18 inches. Thus 3 feet out from the building would be a maximum distance for a light well, particularly one which included an exit ladder. Later in the ordinance exit stairs are allowed from basement areas so long as they exit only into the rear yard. Section 4. A new Section 25.28.074 is added as follows: 25.28.074 Placement of light wells and exit wells. (a) Light wells shall meet the following requirements: (1)Not be located in the front of a dwelling unit; and (2) In the rear of a dwelling unit, not be wider than three (3) feet nor have a cumulative length of more than twenty-five(25)feet; and (3) On a side of a dwelling unit, not extend more than three (3) feet from the dwelling unit nor have a maximum length of more than 15 feet; and (4) Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. (b)Exit wells shall meet the following requirements: (1) Be located only in the rear of a dwelling unit, not be wider than three (3) feet, and not have a cumulative length of more than twenty-five (25) feet; and (2)Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Annotation: Currently the zoning code does not address the location or dimension of light wells or exit wells. Since construction which includes habitable basement areas is becoming more popular, a section is added to the R-1 (single family)district regulations to address light wells and exit wells. Exit stairs from habitable basement areas is addressed later in the ordinance in CS 25.28.090 (c) (3). 2 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft:March 22,2004 The current single family residential zoning requirements also establish criteria for reviewing development on emerging lots. The current code reads: 25.28.090 Multiple lots developed with a single structure. (a) This section shall apply to all lots that are required to obtain a conditional use permit pursuant to section 25.28.030 (5)or(6). Demolition of existing structures or construction of new structures upon any such lot shall not be commenced until and unless a conditional use permit, any variances and special permits required by this section and a building permit are first obtained. Annotation: This section clarifies that the standards set out in this section and in the R-1 district apply to all emerged lots whether they are standard or substandard based on the city's minimum lot size for the area. CS 25.28.090(cont) Revised from Original to Read: (b) In considering the conditional use permit for either standard or substandard lots the commission shall evaluate in addition to the criteria for a conditional use permit: (1) The blend of mass, seale and derninant structural characteristics of the new construction with the existing street and n ..l.l o fee hdi e...i e > (2) The variety Of F06 f l:«e> F gaily> e.,ter:er finish materials .....1�f-the l proposed new stme4wes. (3) That the design of the house and all accessory structures shall be subject to design review criteria as set out in chapter 25.57; and Annotation: After the current standards for development on emerging lots were codified, the city adopted single family residential design review. The criteria used for residential design review included the first two standards of the emerging lot line code section. It suggested that the original section (item 1 and 2 above) be combined and the residential design review criteria/standards included instead. This change would make code administration more consistent. (2) The commission shall also consider the necessity or mitigation for the removal of any protected trees,that are located within the footprint of any proposed structure and shall establish conditions to protect such trees during construction and to maintain protected trees following construction. 3 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 Annotation: The requirement placing priority on protected trees over siting of new development on these emerged lots is retained. This provision is more restrictive than the design review guidelines and an appropriate guideline for development on these older lots. The added provisions (italics)for requiring tree protection and post construction maintenance are based on experience the Commission has had with reuse of existing older lots with protected trees. Problems with trees have occurred frequently enough that it seemed wise in the code to remind applicants and staff about the need for tree protection during construction and maintenance after construction. The Subcommittee recommended that the condition of approval regarding long term maintenance of protected trees on a site be revised from 3 years to 5 years for post construction protection, after the building permit is finaled. Staff will make this change to the standard conditions of approval. It is too specific for the zoning regulations to put in the years for which maintenance is required. Moreover this is a policy matter based on experience which the city should be free to adjust based on further experience. Homeowner pruning is regulated by the citys Reforestation Ordinance. Pruning is limited to removal of no more than one-third of the canopy of the tree; the Subcommittee thought this to be sufficient regulation. Both the tree protection and pruning requirements are administered by the City Arborist through a permit program. CS 25.28.090 (cont) Proposed Wording (c) The conditional use permit granted pursuant to this section for a lot that is a standard lot size conforming to the lot dimensions of chapter 25.28 shall include the following conditions: (1) The maximum allowable lot coverage of all structures on each such emerged lot shall not exceed thirty (30%)percent for the ten (10) years immediately following the approval of the conditional use permit, and Annotation: This section sets out different development standards for new houses on standard emerged lots. It reduces the lot maximum coverage allowed from 40%to 30% in order to encourage smaller footprint development, generally more in keeping with the scale of the older existing houses in the early subdivisions where the great majority of the emerging lots are located.To offset the reduction in lot coverage these proposed standards (Section 3 )allow full, habitable basement areas. The proposed 30% lot coverage number was arrived at by reviewing the existing lot coverage for the projects acted on by the Planning Commission from 2001 through 2003. A review of the data indicated that the average lot coverage of existing single family houses reviewed over the three year period was 29.9%. The average lot coverage of the houses with additions or being replaced in the same period was 32.9%.The 30%maximum lot coverage for 10 yeas is consistent with existing average footprints, based on planning experience. Since the proposed regulations would allow living areas in basements, the square footage that would be in the additional lot coverage could be shifted to the basement area without exceeding the footprint of the building above. It should be noted that the reduction in lot coverage may 4 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 discourage over large garages because the additional parking space would need to be taken from the footprint of the house. The proposed regulations include a two covered parking space requirement if a basement is included in the house. (See Section 3)The ten year limitation on lot coverage is an entitlement. After 10 years from the time the construction is completed the property owner may add up to 10% to the footprint of the structures on the site without an amendment to his conditional use permit. However, the future addition would still be subject to design review and all the other city development regulations in effect at the time application is made for the addition, remodel or replacement. (2) The maximum allowable floor area above grade on each lot shall be based on eighty percent (801/o) of the combined total floor area for all of the lots encompassed by the conditional use permit that would otherwise be allowed pursuant to this title. In order to encourage variety among the new structures, the eighty percent (80%) of the combined floor area may be divided among the emerged lots unevenly, so long as the total floor area on any one lot encompassed by the conditional use permit does not exceed one hundred percent (100%)of the maximum floor area that would otherwise be allowed on a single lot pursuant to this title. Annotation: Section 2 provides that the floor area allowed above grade also be reduced on emerging standard lots. The formula proposed is to calculate the floor area allowed for each of the legal emerged lots. Then to take 80% of the sum of the FAR for each emerged lot. The "80%square footage' may then be distributed among all the emerged lots, for the above grade (first and second story) portion of the future structures. The developer may decide how to distribute the 80%square footage between or among the lots.The additional square footage allowed for each house, based on the FAR formula for that particular lot, may be placed in a basement (Section 3 below). However, the basement area in any structure may not exceed the first floor footprint, as defined by the exterior wall foundation, e.g. excluding any patios and decked areas; and each emerged legal lot with a basement area must include a two car garage. The basement may not cause the total floor area on any emerged lot to exceed 100% of the floor area that would be allowed under the city's fomxila for development on existing legal lots, e.g. one that did not re-emerge. The objective is to provide the developer with as much opportunity for variety in design and above ground massing among the houses to be built as possible. In addition, since the basement areas are habitable and it is difficult to control future conversions of these areas to bedrooms, adequate covered parking to address this eventuality should be provided on the site from the beginning e.g. the two car garage requirement(attached or detached). A note on basements: The Subcommittee felt that if basement living areas were to be allowed in order to reduce the lot coverage (e.g. mass and bulk) the basement area should be allowed to be used for all types of living area without size constraints on rooms such as bathrooms.This revision would allow bedrooms and full baths in basements without a conditional use permit or variance, which would not be allowed in remodeled or new houses on existing legal lots. This 5 Development Standards jor Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 would be an appropriate trade off for the restrictions on lot coverage and floor area of structure above ground. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title and without the requirement of a special permit under subsection 25.28.035 above, any dwelling unit built upon a lot subject to the conditional use permit may include habitable area in a basement that does not extend more than two (2)feet above grade and that does not exceed beyond the dwelling unit's footprint. This basement area shall not be included in the calculation of the maximum allowable eighty percent (80%) floor area under subsection (2) above, but shall be included in the maximum allowable floor area for the lot calculated pursuant to section 25.08.265. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, this basement may contain bedrooms, bathtubs, and shower stalls, and bathrooms in the basement may exceed twenty-five(25) square feet without a special permit. An exit well required by the California Building Code shall be only allowed at the rear of the structure. Annotation: To compensate for the loss of floor area above grade (the 80% of 100%formula, see Section 2 above). The Subcommittee felt that a full basement area (equal to the footprint of the first floor) should be allowed. The remainder of the FAR of each legal lot could be put in the basement This would encourage variety of the house size with, for example, 65% of the allowed FAR above grade and the rest below. Based on the average FAR for new or remodeled houses reviewed by the Planning Commission in the last 3 years. Total FAR for a 6,000 SF lot would be 3, 420 SF. 800/0 of this would be 2,736 SF if the garage were detached and 2,336 SF if the garage was attached. Therefore, the remaining 600 to 1000 SF could be placed in a habitable basement, so long as the basement was within the exterior walls/foundation of the house. The resulting size house would be consistent with the average house size being built currently. Moreover, this provision would keep the portion of the house above grade smaller (especially since a two car garage is required) and still provide incentive for the developer to meet all the city's objectives and allow sufficient development to carry the cost of the land. If a future owner wishes to expand the footprint of a house on an emerged legal lot which includes a habitable basement area the future addition would probably need a FAR variance, so would be reviewed by the Commission- In reviewing the proposed ordinance, the Chief Building Official has pointed out that if a basement area is greater than 3000 SF or the hole in the ground for the basement is 8 feet deep or greater, then an exterior door and stairway are required by the building code. In addition, because of safety concerns, particularly fire, he notes that the exiting requirements from basement areas will likely be changed in the next few years to require an exterior door and stairway from all basement areas. Given this situation he would strongly recommend that a prohibition on exterior doors and stairways from basement areas not be considered. His concern is that this requirement may, in certain circumstances, put the zoning code in direct conflict with the building code. The result would be that the Commission would approve a project with a basement for which the applicant could not get a building permit. The current building code basement exiting requirement for exterior door and stair has not come up under current zoning code allowances of 700 SF basement areas because of the small size. 6 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 Exiting lightwells are required but the small basement size (700 SF) and the interior stair requirement adequate address exiting under the current building code requirements. However, the Chief Building Official has indicated that if the regulations currently being considered nationally are adopted in the next couple of years, even these 700 SF areas will be required to have exterior doors and stairwells. Note: originally the Planning Commission recommended that there be no exterior door and stairwell exits from habitable basement areas. However, in their action on March 8, 2004, the Commission changed their recommendation because of the building code requirements and possible conflict vvith the zoning code. Now the Planning Commission is recommending allowing an exterior door and stairwell from habitable basement areas when required by the building code, only at the rear of buildings.The text of the proposed revisions (3) above was changed to reflect this recommendation. Staff would note that if the language as proposed in CS 25.28.090 (3) is removed, basement area access would float with the building requirements. The Commission could add a standard condition on each single family house with a basement, that the basement area shall never be used as a second dwelling unit. This would provide the maximum coverage for code enforcement should a basement be converted to a second unit in the future. Moreover, through the title report the restriction would be recorded with each property and disclosed as a limitation on the use of the property each time the property is sold. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title all dwelling units with basement areas built on lots subject to the conditional use permit shall have at least two covered parking spaces and each lot's covered parking shall be designed to match the architectural style of the dwelling unit on the lot. Annotation: The Subcommittee members recommended that any single family house on an emerged standard lot which took advantage of having any habitable basement area be required to also provide two covered parking spaces on site.The reason for the requirement was that there is no way to prevent future owners from converting or using basement area originally shown as family room or den with open walls into bedrooms or sleeping areas. Conversion of such space to sleeping area would be particular hard to fight later since egress requirements for sleeping areas would already be met So rather than having to rely on code enforcement(probably at the time of sale) it seemed prudent to simply require the maximum covered parking on site at the time of construction. CS 25.28.090(cont.) Now Reads: (d) A variance shall be required, in addition to and as a part of the conditional use permit, if, on a substandard lot, the following maximum gross floor area of all structures is not met: 7 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 (1) Thirty-two(32) percent plus 750 square feet with an attached garage. (2) Thirty-two (32)percent plus 750 square feet plus up to 350 square feet in a detached single or two car garage and other accessory structures. Annotation: These are the current requirements for development on substandard emerged lots. No change is proposed to these requirements. While the FAR is reduced with these requirements, all other development regulations would apply including 40% lot coverage. All other siting requirements are based on the zoning code and automatically adjust to the smaller dimensions of the lot It should be noted that the City Attorney is comfortable with requiring a variance in this case since the lots are substandard, and it may be legitimately difficult to build a new house on such lots because of some aspect of their dimension, terrain etc. Now Reads (e) The maximum allowable house size and lot coverages established pursuant to this section in the conditional use permit shall become effective upon the issuance of a building permit for the approved construction; and may not be exceeded as required by this code section without amendment of the conditional use permit. Annotation: This statement is reminding us that future owners of development on emerged lots can come back to the commission at a later date (after 10 years) and request an addition for up to the maximum then allowed by the zoning code on their lot In other words, For emerged legal lots, in ten years the applicant would be eligible to expand the lot coverage on a legal lot from 30% to 40%without applying for a conditional use permit amendment. However, the addition would still be subject to all the requirements of design review and the other standards in the zoning code in effect at the time. To implement this regulations basement access requirements need to be clarified Add to definitions section CS 25.08.253: 25.08.253 Exit well. "Exit well" means an excavation with an open top through which light and air are conveyed from the outdoors to windows or doors at the bottom of the shaft and that provides a means of exiting from the basement of a structure. Add to definitions section CS 25.08.393: 25.08.393 Light well. "Light well" means a shaft with an open top through which light and air are conveyed from the outdoors to windows on or at the bottom of the shaft- 8 Development Standards jor Emerging Lois Draft.March 22,2004 Annotation: While light wells and exit wells are becoming increasingly popular as habitable basement areas are added to single family residences, there has been no definition of them in the zoning code. This addition addresses that problem and defines them for planning purposes. Add new code section 25.28.074 to clarify location of lightwells and exit wells. 25.28.074 Placement of light wells and exit wells. (a) Light wells shall meet the following requirements: (1)Not be located in the front of a dwelling unit; and (2) In the rear of a dwelling unit, not be wider than three (3) feet nor have a cumulative length of more than twenty-five(25) feet; and (3) On a side of a dwelling unit, not extend more than three (3) feet from the dwelling unit nor have a maximum length of more than 15 feet; and (4) Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. (b) Exit wells shall meet the following requirements: (1) Be located only in the rear of a dwelling unit, not be wider than three (3) feet, and not have a cumulative length of more than twenty-five (25)feet; and (2) Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. Annotation: A significant impact of full basements with habitable area is how the Building Code egress requirements will be met. Since habitable basement areas require pr exit wells for emergency egress, light and air, which intrude into the surface area around the foundation, it is important that the zoning code give direction regarding location and size of these features. There is also a public safety(fire) issue here since the light wells cannot be covered over with grates, and fire personnel need space to get by them. The minimum encroachment into the side setback for a light well or exit well is based on the current requirements for bay windows, which have been in the zoning code for a number of years. Further, in the case that the California Building Code requires an exterior door and stair from a habitable basement area, the Planning Commission determined that such door and stair should only be located at the rear of the structure exiting into the rear yard. This location was to discourage the future use of the habitable basement as a separate, illegal dwelling unit. Prepared/Revision History August 22, 2003 (for Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee) Revised September 19, 2003 Revised October 3, 2003 Revised October 6, 2003 Revised December 29, 2003 (for Planning Commission) Revised February 13, 2004 (for Planning Commission) Revised February 27, 2004 9 Development Standards for Emerging Lots Draft.March 22,2004 Revised March 1, 2004 Revised March 10, 2004 (for City Attorney) Revised March 22, 2004 (for City Council Introduction) U:\ZoninglssoesTmergingStandardLots\41ntroCCEmergStandardLotsRev3 3.22.04.doc 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Apri126,2004 opportunity to influence. Planning Commission subcommittee considered many of these concerns over many months and developed appropriate changes to address; feel compelled to defend staff on noticing issue, did notice as required and frequently;having said that wider involvement on this issue is appropriate,don't know how to accomplish Subcommittee will have to discuss; not aware until tonight the level of concern about these regulations; Commission's experience has been mainly with new construction on creek side lots on vacant area, understand people's concerns about limiting remodeling opportunities on their property, in the case of existing development it is hard to determine how the regulations would work on all lots; the definition of creek will mean that it is different on each lot and depends on the volume of water through each lot. CA Anderson commented that Commission could refer the ordinance back to the Subcommittee, following their review Commission could hold a study session, sounds as if the 6 foot setback is not an issue, might develop templates for different lots to show how it would work"typically". C. Osterling thanked the interested residents for coming and made a motion to return the creek side regulations to the Planning Commission Subcommittee for further discussion and revision. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: the regulations need work, the City Council was correct for asking for broader notice; commission needs to address the issue of big new houses on creek side lots that cantilever over the creek, however thought house on Bernal where a deck connected the garage on one side of the creek to the house on the other worked very well; concerned about relating the development to the contiguous area outside of the creek, particularly since the creeks are privately owned in Burlingame. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the creek side regulations back to the Planning Commission Subcommittee for further consideration. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. Chair Bojues called for a five minute break at 9:05 p.m.. The commission reconvened at 9:10 p.m.. All Commissioners were present on the dais except C. Brownrigg.Chaia 7. EMERGING LEGAL LOT REGULATIONS - PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS (39 NOTICED AND IN NEWSPAPER)PROJECT PLANNER MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report April 26,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe noted that at the Planning Commission meeting on March 8, 2004, a public hearing was held on these proposed regulations for development on emerging legal lots. At that time the Commission had recommended the regulations to the City Council for action. On April 5, 2004,rather than introduce these changes to the code,the City Council sent the ordinance back to the Planning Commission for another public hearing after the affected property owners had been directly noticed. Thirty-one property owners of lots on which current development has submerged original property lines were noticed. These current ownerships include combinations of two lots, three lots and adjacent lot-and-a-half configurations. The hearing was also noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, the San Mateo CouM Times, as required by law. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the key points of the regulations being considered tonight,noting that they are the same as the Planning Commission considered at the public hearing on March 8, 2004. Commissioners asked if staff had received any calls on the proposed emerging legal lot regulations. CP Monroe noted that she had not and did not believe that any other staff member had either. There were no further questions of staff. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April26,2004 Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Robert Cody, 1240 Drake Avenue, Philip Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue spoke. The issues they identified regarding the proposed new regulations were: • House is on two lots and did not receive a notice of this ordinance,came for creek side,neighbor who has two lots did not get notice either(staff said they would investigate); • Regulations discriminate against people who own emerging lots, they get 30%lot coverage, where people with regular legal lots get 40%, doesn't matter that goes to 40% in 10 years, its an added burden and reduces property values now; • Staff analysis is flawed when show current lot coverage, should use lot coverage for new construction only as the basis for reducing lot coverage. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussion: Why were two lots on Drake not noticed;and how was this ordinance previously noticed? CP Monroe noted that sometimes the tax bill goes to Trust, direct notice list was based on information gathered when prepared first ordinance on emerging lots, the particular analysis included all emerging lots so should be accurate;not clear on circumstances of the two particular mentioned lots but will investigate. The public hearing on this ordinance tonight and previously was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law. Cannot support this ordinance although I did before,feel that the issue on development on these emerged legal lots is mass and bulk and application of the design guidelines is adequate to address this issue, when prepared did not look at all situations, some people affected a lot, regulations restrict people's rights;need to rethink,the design guidelines are the place to examine the issue of mass and bulk on emerging legal lots. Concerned about the appearance of discretion using the guidelines and resulting lack of predictability for the developer, he doesn't know what to expect, its OK to tinker with the FAR at least it tells what the limitation is , now saying not like that either;would like to hear from property owners-do they want Planning Commission discretion or numerical limitations; only problem with this ordinance is it creates two different standards for lot coverage, except for that, all for these regulations, it is the right direction and excellent solution. No win here; these modifications came from 100's of hours of testimony from adjacent owners who felt that the value of their lots was affected by the cumulative impact on their blocks and neighborhoods of 2 and 3 lot emerging situations, should send this one on to City Council and see what happens; believe that there is a cumulative effect, it will change Burlingame if it is not controlled, design review is one way to do it without 30%lot coverage;FAR addressed well can put below grade, am strong for the two car garage with the basement,this is not a taking,it is softening the cumulative effect. Lots of mixed messages here, negative effect of houses next to each other, design review and FAR work together, reducing the FAR is not the solution would just take square footage out of the rear where it would not affect mass and bulk, goal is how the houses fit the design guidelines, need to tighten the design guidelines, basements OK alternative if they are an option not a requirement, every one should be treated fairly but how it affects the community is important, this does not do it. Commission discussion continued: Can support because these regulations strike the right balance of fairness and accomplishing the objectives we try to get by way of the design guidelines;don't know what it means to "tighten up"the design guidelines,think that is inconsistent;read the proposed ordinance and the annotations and see a balance,the ordinance allows what is lost in FAR above grade in an optional basement,and it has a 10 year sunset on the lot coverage reduction;reemerged lots are developed by developers not homeowners, they are a division of a larger lot; these regulations strike a good, fair and reasonable balance with a mechanism to meet the concerns of the neighbors and gives tools to the Planning Commission to work with. Don't know the answer,the areas to work on in the design guidelines are addition of incentives to gain design elements;remove opportunity for 10 years then add it back, why 10 years. CP Monroe noted that 10 years was picked by the Subcommittee because it would give the neighborhood a chance to catch up in terms of other new and remodel construction and the occupant's family time to mature and see if more space was 8 City oJBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 26, 2004 required or needed in the house on the emerged lot. Regulations and design review guidelines work together. Design review has limits, FAR is a part of design. Feel this effort is a step in the right direction give all Commission has heard on this subject. Chair Boju6s made a motion to recommend the regulations for emerging legal lots without amendment to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: At joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting expressed concern about a lot of new homes looking the same in response to the current design guidelines,need to increase diversity,now have FAR to address mass and bulk,not need more. Like the idea of looking at the design review guidelines in conjunction with cumulative effect, it is important, need to look at the whole picture not just FAR to address mass and bulk. Chair Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend the regulations for emerging legal lots without change to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 (Crs. Auran, Keighran dissenting; C. Brownrigg absent) roll call vote. This item will go forward to the City Council for further action. This item concluded at 9:50 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS S. 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, SINGLE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that two letters were submitted by Greg and Deborah Cosko, 6 Hillview Court and Catherine Payne, 2754 Burlingview Drive, requesting story poles be installed to show the proposed building envelope. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Denise Balestrieri and Sonia Sohn, property owners, and James Chu, designer,were present to answer questions,noted that they met with two neighbors at the site,they are in support of the project; reviewed the letter from the neighbor at 6 Hillview Court and is aware of his concern with height, proposed building is not that tall,existing house is approximately 19 feet from adjacent grade, will erect story poles to show the proposed height and envelope; the view of the bay is to the northeast, Mr. Cosko has a view towards the west, will not impact his view; error in staff report, existing house has an attached two-car garage,not a one-car garage as indicated in staff report. Plr. Hurin noted that type of protected view is not defined in the Hillside Area Construction Permit ordinance, only indicates that review shall be based on obstruction from construction on long distant views especially from habitable areas. Commission asked what is the current ridge height;designer noted that the existing ridge height varies slightly but is four feet lower than the proposed ridge height at its highest point. Commission pointed out that the staff report indicates the proposed height to be 26-10" above average top of curb. Greg Cosko,6 Hillview Court,noted that he has a fabulous view of the airport and towards the hillside in the northwest direction,he loves the view and wants to preserve it,living room faces the subject property,do not see rooftops now, concerned about the new extension out towards the rear of the lot where their current view corridor is now, concerned about how the new increased ridge height and chimneys will affect his view, chimneys are a real issue since the shape may get quite large and block more view, it appears that the new ridge height may be five feet higher than the existing ridge height, would like to see story poles installed so 9 Page 3 of 7 Ckll Cajy)&1 � 5 live in the community, many employees cannot afford to live here now, would be a 20% affordable component, services are not that far away. There is a need for recreational opportunities for visitors and residents in the Bayfront area, housing is not as profitable to the City as hotels, this area is a key economic base for the community, should hold out for the greater long term revenue benefit, there are other opportunities for affordable housing in the north end of Burlingame near BART and Peninsula Hospital, this is not the logical place. Mayor O'Mahony called for a motion on the mitigated negative declaration and the Bayfront Specific Plan. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve the mitigated negative declaration and approve and amend the Draft Bayfront Specific Plan to the General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission, with the following revision: • that Commercial Recreation and Restaurant uses be added to the list of land uses appropriate for the State Lands parcel_ The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion also included direction to staff to study the issue of time share hotels and whether that use is similar in its revenue and physical impacts to an extended stay hotel, and make sure there is provision to capture transient occupancy tax with that land use. The motion was approved on a 3-2 roll call vote (Councilmen Coffey and Galligan dissenting). - 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke regarding traffic issues related to riding bicycles in residential neighborhoods and safety concerns with on-street parking. Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way , asked if Caltrans could provide comment on whether future tree removals would be evaluated on a case by case basis with full analysis, or whether there would only be a survey of the entire grove on El Camino Real before decisions were made on individual trees. Mayor O'Mahony noted that because of the late hour caused by the delay of the power failure and relocation of the meeting, Council should consider the consent calendar before the study items. The Council concurred. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS �y a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LEGAL LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE Councilman Coffey made a motion to delay action on this item so that it can be sent back to the Planning Commission for consideration with notice given of the proposed ordinance change to all property owners of potential emerging lots. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Galligan Mayor O'Mahony called for a voice vote on the motion to send back to the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a 3-2 voice vote (Councilwomen Baylock and Nagel dissenting). b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON CREEK SIDE LOTS Councilman Coffey made a motion to delay action on this item so that it can be sent back to the Planning Commission for consideration with notice given of the proposed ordinance change to all http://www.burlingame.org/council/minutes/2003/04-05-04min.htm 5/7/2004 City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 8,2004 Chair Bojues called for a ten minute break. The commission reconvened at 9:55 p.m. 10. PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ON EMERGING STANDARD LOTS AND CREEK SIDE LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT(NEWSPAPER NOTICE)PROJECT PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented the proposed regulations noting that there were two sets. The first addresses zoning standards for lots on which old property lines emerge when a structure is demolished,and the emerging lots are consistent with the minimum lot size in the area. She noted that in reviewing the regulations for these legal standard sized lot there were a couple of issues to focus on addressed in the March 5,2004 staff memo including the minimum 9 SF size of light/egress wells,the prohibition of these wells at the front of a structure and insuring 3 feet of clearance between wells and side property lines. Also she noted in some circumstances the California Building Code requires exterior door and stairs from habitable basement areas. To avoid contradiction between zoning and building codes,exit stairs from habitable basements cannot be prohibited. CP Monroe also noted that the March 5,2004 memo addresses clarification of the creek side lot development regulations. Key was clarifying the line from which the proposed 6 foot side setback would be measured. This line is the 100 year flood or flow limit line. It is established by calculating for each lot how the volume of water at that point in the creek would be accommodated within the exiting channel. The highest point on the creek bank of the 100 year flood flow would be the limit line from which the setback would be taken.This point my be lower than the highest elevation on the creek side lot. There can be no cantilevers over the 6 foot setback from the 100 year flood flow limit line. Anyone developing or making an addition on a creek side lot in the future would have to hire a surveyor to establish the 100 year flood flow limit line for their property before submitting plans to the Planning or Building Departments. Commissioners asked: Some existing development will not meet the new 6 foot setback line from the 100 year flood flow limit line,how will that be addressed? CP Monroe noted it would be treated the same as other nonconforming setbacks on existing development;some are minor modifications(if minor)others require a variance,but the change would only require an exception if the addition extended into the required setback. Can the tree canopy be trimmed? Yes,for maintenance as limited by the City's Reforestation Ordinance,but not so that the life of the tree would be threatened. On creek lots how is the FAR and lot coverage calculated? CP Monroe noted that the lot coverage and FAR calculations are proposed to be based on the square footage of the lot out side of the 100 year flood flow limit line. Because of subdivision regulations,this area would not be less than 60% of the lot with street frontage. Was concerned about exterior stairs from basement living areas, understand the code problem,can exterior stairs be limited to the rear yard,it would discourage use of the basement area as a second unit. CP Monroe noted that it was possible to limit exterior stairs to the rear yard area,also the required 3 foot setback requirements for light wells and well exits would also apply to stair wells and would make location in side yards difficult. Can kitchens be located in the basement?CP Monroe noted yes,but there can be only one kitchen in a single family dwelling,so if it were in the basement there would be no other kitchen in the structure. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor on the regulations for either emerging legal lots or creek side lots. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: should the setback be taken from the 100 year flood flow limit line or the top of bank whichever is greater?Would not work,in some cases the top ofbank(highest elevation from the creek) could be off the property;will we end up with houses cantilevering over the creek?;Subcommittee felt that this regulation works because we have a good data point for establishing a limit fine on which to base the setback and the additional space of the setback will reduce the possibility of structures cantilevering 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 8,2004 significantly over the flow of the creek. Is the allowance of 80%of the 100%total FAR to be allowed above grade for emerging lots the right number? Commissioner noted it is to some extent an arbitrary choice however, it does provide a reduction and at the same time gives the developer some design option, he can build 100%FAR with no basement on one lot and do something very different on another, if he wishes. C. Osterling moved to recommend the two ordinances on emerging legal lots and creek side lot development standards to the City Council for action with the revisions in the March 5, 2004 memo and requiring basement exit stairs only at the rear of the building. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the additions to the code to the City Council for hearing and action. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. CP noted that this item would go to the City Council for action in April. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 123 DWIGHT ROAD,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE(MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TADHG CANNIFFE,PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment.Mark Robertson,918 E.Grant Place, San Mateo,project designer, was available to answer questions. Noted that property owner already built a mirror image of this house at 325 Occidental Avenue, was a spec house and fell in love with the design so he wants to do it again. Commission asked applicant to describe the difference in the setting between the Occidental site and the Dwight site. What is the height of the adjacent houses on Occidental? Applicant noted that on Occidental most of the adjacent houses are two stories,on Dwight Road there are single story houses on each side ofthe subject property, there are two story houses on the comers, also duplexes and single story homes with detached second units on the block, kind of a mixed, eclectic neighborhood. Commission asked to explain why there are two small windows on the north elevation. Applicant noted that these are two small windows in the kitchen that will be installed between the counter top and the upper cabinet to expand wall space for cabinets and to get light in the kitchen. Commission asked what is the box shown on the south elevation. Applicant noted that this is a recessed area, will put planting in this space. The Planning Commission had the follow comments: • Would like to see true divided light wood windows for this project; • Doorway is not celebrated enough,hidden,need to pull out entry farther, and not have it so recessed, rooms on each side of entry dominate, needs to be improved and embellished; • Too much stucco, would like to see more variety of materials, add other materials, maybe a water table detail for a change in material and texture, add window trim, dress it up; and Would like to see unit pavers used for the landscaping hardscape, driveway and walkways. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chair Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 12, 2004 Council Chambers L CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojues called the January 12, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. H. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran,Bojues,Brownrigg,Keighran,Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan M. MINUTES The minutes of the December 8, 2003, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Brownrigg asked if staff could prepare for the Commissioners a report on the residential fire sprinkler requirements, what is their intent and how they are triggered. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1129 CLOVELLY LANE,ZONED R-1-FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION. (JERRY DEAL,JD&ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;JEFF AND DIANE FELTMAN PROPERTY OWNERS)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • How is the setback measured,is it to the closest portion of the structure; • What is the front setback of the houses on either side of the project; • Would any addition to the front of the house trigger the front setback variance,for example could the addition be held back to the required front setback without triggering a variance. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. ` 2. REVIEW OF NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RE-EMERGING LOTS —PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed changes to regulate emerging legal lots. Commissioners discussed and noted: • Is 10 years long enough before a development is allowed to increase lot coverage to 401/9. Staff noted that the 10 year time was picked because it would allow for other changes in the neighborhood to catch up with the reuse ofthe emerged legal lots;at the end of 10 years the additions affecting lot City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12,2004 coverage would still be subject to design review and other single family residential requirements in effect at the time of the remodel; • While like the idea of putting FAR in the basement,how will this greater excavation affect emerging lots with a lot of established, protected trees; • Will smaller footprint result in more boxy houses; • Did the subcommittee consider basing the permitted FAR on the existing average FAR on a block, similar to the front setback standard; • Creekside lot regulations should be included with emerging legal lot regulation changes, footprint/FAR should be calculated on the 601/o that is developable not on the total lot size; • Creek side lots should look at setbacks from top of bank not from property line, cantilevers should not be allowed; • Reduction in lot coverage is a good idea but is 30'/o the right number,what is the typical maximum lot coverage of existing development, can staff collect some information, in fact 30% may not be reducing by 10%but by some other amount; • How does section on protecting trees address trimming trees? • Understand reason for not having an outdoor connection from basement living areas to discourage area becoming second unit, but is this a real concern; • Concerned that with 30%lot coverage will cause all houses adjacent on the emerged lots to look the same,how will we insure variation among the new houses,would prefer a sliding scale so that one is 100% of the permitted FAR, second 80% of permitted FAR and third 75% of the permitted FAR; • Sliding scale for FAR among emerged lots could result in a clouding of the title for the new houses, the cookie cutter appearance can be dealt with through the design review process; and • Think 25%reduction in lot coverage from 401/6 to 30%is pretty radical. Commissioners suggested that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meet again and discuss the issues raised by the Commission and report back. Would like to do this soon, since this is an important issue and would like to hear from developers on this topic. Chair Bojues directed that this item be returned to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for more study and then return to the Commission for action. Recognizing the importance of this issue,he encouraged the Subcommittee to meet soon. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Bojues asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner Auran requested that item 3a Policy on FYI Review be removed from the consent calendar. There were no requests from the audience to remove items. Item 3a was moved to be the first item on the Regular Action Calendar 3 b. 360 & 380 BEACH ROAD, ZONED O-M—APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 360-380 BEACH ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 2, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 1 SUBDIVISION,PM 03-11 (MICHAEL T.MCCALLION,APPLICANT;BEACH ROAD ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY OWNERS)(10 NOTICED)PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG 2 Page 1 of 1 PLG-Monroe, Meg From: Jerry Deal Um@jerrydeal.biz] Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 2:13 PM To: mmonroe@burlingame.org Subject: Multiple lots A few comments about the multiple lot situation. I don't see regulations which restrict the end product on multiple lots as creating two classes of citizens. I believe in the system which states that the more you ask for, the more review you must withstand. This situation is similar to the regulations which state that corner lots are allowed to build less because their impact on the neighborhood is greater due to the double frontage. Similarly a home with an attached garage is allowed less square footage because it has more of an impact on the streetscape. Therefore the concept is not new but common. Two or three homes...and especially three homes going up at the same time places a burden on the neighborhood and therefore time constraints and square footage reductions is appropriate to help compensate the neighborhood for the dramatic change. The developer may build at any time the following reduced square footage houses. (This square footage must also be coupled with the Design Review Guidelines and guidance for second floor reduction of mass must be added for multiple lots.) An example of square footage could be: 6,000 x .32 + 1 ,100 square feet with a detached garage and 6,000 x .32 + 700 square feet with an attached garage ( two-single doors with different front setbacks OR The developer may build in intervals of 4 years, houses which can be developed to the maximum allowed FAR in force at that time. This is similar to how the California lottery pays its big winners. You can take a lesser lump sum now or get the full amount by waiting. Just some thoughts that I would appreciate you forwarding to the City Council along with the ordinance. Sincerely, Jerry Deal 4/27/2004 i I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ESTABLISH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS THAT WERE FORMERLY 3 PUT TO COMBINED USE,TO DEFINE LIGHT WELLS,AND TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF LIGHT WELLS 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. As the prices for property on the Peninsula continue to escalate, it becomes 8 economically feasible to develop lots that had previously been put to use in a combined form,often 9 having natural features such as creeks and stands of trees.The sudden development of these properties, 10 usually coupled with removal of the existing home, with two, three or even more homes has a 11 tremendous impact on the neighborhood.This ordinance is intended to dampen that impact byproviding 12 design requirements for the new homes that will reduce the mass and bulk of the homes while providing 13 the property owners with similar total square footage of development. The ordinance also provides a 14 definition and design requirements for light wells that are a key component of basement construction 15 and use. 16 17 Section 2. A new Section 25.08.253 is added as follows: 18 25.08.253 Exit well. 19 "Exit well'means an excavation with an open top through which light and air are conveyed from 20 the outdoors to windows or doors at the bottom of the shaft and that provides a means of exiting from 21 the basement of a structure. 22 23 Section 3. A new Section 25.08.393 is added as follows: 24 25.08.393 Light well. 25 "Light well'means a shaft with an open top through which light and air are conveyed from the 26 outdoors to windows on or at the bottom of the shaft. 27 28 Section 4. A new Subsection 2528.073(4)is added as follows: 1 3/13/2004 • • Y 1 1 t l iMIA r,1%1 - a oil no Ill I a 11 or.1 1 • / • t 1 1 .1 1 1 J t • • • • .1 • Y • °5�..� ix � + .3%t et,i, a 'A:;` `:''a 1,nor. ;" 1 � �� bY� *3Ln a� .xyce.�t � ',$�:^��}' pf, &~ ��a�S`^:; + f - _�� - �•_> as • �z$,��inp�c:vR.tt���.,, s�'� r. o- F� • T - �£: a � y RY}i 1 2 3 4 5 6 A variance shall be required,in addition to and as a part of the conditional use permit,if,on 7 a substandard lot,the following maximum gross floor area ratio of all structures is not met: 8 (1)Thirty-two(32)percent plus 750 square feet with an attached garage. 9 (2)Thirty-two(32)percent plus 750 square feet plus up to 350 square feet in a detached single 10 or two car garage and other accessory structures. 11 Such maximum allowable house siz 12 shall become effective upon the issuance of a building permit for 13 the EM construction and may not be exceeded without amendment of the conditional use permit. 14 15 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published according to law. 16 17 Mayor 18 19 I,ANN T. MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing 20 ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of ,2004, 21 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 22 ,2004, by the following vote: 23 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 24 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 25 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 26 27 28 City Clerk 4 3/13/2004 i 1 (4)Light wells. A light well may extend up to three(3) feet into a side setback so long as the 2 outermost edge of the light well is at least three(3) feet from any lot line. 3 4 Section 4. A new Section 25.28.074 is added as follows: 5 25.28.074 Placement of light wells and exit wells. 6 (a) Light wells shall meet the following requirements: 7 (1)Not be located in the front of a dwelling unit; and 8 (2) In the rear of a dwelling unit,not be wider than three(3) feet nor have a cumulative length 9 of more than twenty-five(25) feet; and 10 (3) On a side of a dwelling unit,not extend more than three(3)feet from the dwelling unit nor 11 have a maximum length of more than 15 feet; and 12 (4)Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by 13 roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage. 14 (b)Exit wells shall meet the following requirements: 15 (1)Be located only in the rear of a dwelling unit,not be wider than three(3)feet, and not have 16 a cumulative length of more than twenty-five(25) feet; and 17 (2)Be designed with a proper drainage system and be substantially protected from the rain by 18 roof eaves or overhangs that shall be included in the calculation of lot coverage- 19 overage19 20 Section 5. Section 25.28.090 is amended to read as follows: 21 25.28.090 Multiple lots developed with a single structure. 22 (a) This section shall apply to all lots which MM are required to obtain a conditional use permit 23 pursuant to section 25.28.030 (5) or (6). Demolition of existing structures or construction of new 24 structures upon any such lot shall not be commenced until and unless a conditional use permit and any 25 variances and special permits required by this section and a building permit are first obtained. 26 (b) In considering the conditional use permit for either standard or substandard lots the 27 commission shall evaluate in addition to the criteria for a conditional use permit: 28 (1)The design of the house and all accessory structures shall be subject to design review criteria 2 3/13/2004 CITko_, STAFF REPORT BURLJMGAME AGENDA 9C ITEM# MTG. W 5/17/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY _ DATE: May 17, 2004 APP VED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY 650-558-7222 SUBJECT: FY 2004-05 Proposed Budget Transmittal & Set Timeor Study Session RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept the Proposed FY 2004-05 Budget and set the time and location for the Budget Study Session. BACKGROUND: The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 is transmitted to the City Council for their review and discussion. The following is the proposed budget review schedule: City Council Budget Study Session - Tuesday, June 1, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. in the Burlingame Library Lane Room. The City Council will present their review of department budgets and consider community agencies' requests for funding. Public Hearing and Adoption of the New Budget -Monday, June 21, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. As in prior years, the Council members will assist us by dividing the budget review assignments and meeting with department heads to ask questions and obtain answers to potential budget issues. The following are the Council assignments: Budget Chair—City Hall (CM, CA, Clerk, HR, Finance) .....Mayor Rosalie M. O'Mahony City Hall (Planning and Public Works) ...........................Vice-Mayor Joe Galligan Library .................................................................Councilmember Mike Coffey Fire and Police........................................................Councilmember Cathy Baylock Parks and Recreation ................................................Councilmember Terry Nagel CITY OF BURLINGAME GENERAL FUND BUDGET MODEL (Showing Impacts of Governor's May Budget Revision) Proposed Budget rte Impacts 03-04 03-04 04-05 05-06 04-05 05-06 Budget Estimate Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Beginning Undesignated Fund Balance(1): $0.70 $0.70 $0.75 $0.26 $0.75 -$0.36 Projected Gen.Fund Revenues(2): 32.72 31.57 33.44 34.44 33.44 33.80 Transfers Into General Fund(3): 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.70 0.57 0.70 Use of Reserves: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 State Take Aways: included 0.00 0.00 Total Available Financing: $34.61 $33.86 $35.76 $36.40 $35.14 $34.52 Operating Expenditures(4): $32.34 $31.15 $34.00 $36.42 $34.00 $36.42 Transfers Out(Debt Svc.&Shuttle Bus): $1.46 $1.46 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 Total Expenditures: $33.80 $32.61 $35.50 $37.92 $35.50 $37.92 Shared Services: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Budget Balancing Tier 111: 0.00 0.00 included 0.00 included 0.00 Strategies: Tier IV: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.00 Tier V: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 Total Budget Reductions: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 40 Net Operating Expenditures: $33.80 $32.61 $35.50 $36.40 $35.50 $34.52 Cost of Golden Handshakes included 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Expenditures: $33.80 $33.11 $35.50 $36.40 $35.50 $34.52 Ending Fund Balance: $0.81 $0.75 $0.26 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Ongoing Revenue Shortfall Reserve Balance 4.80 4.80 3.80 2.80 3.80 2.80 Contribution to CIP(5): 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance After CIP Contributions: 0.81 0.75 0.26 0.00 -0.36 0.00 Notes: General Fund Reserves (1)FY 03-04 represents the Audited Year-Ending Unreserved Balance (2)FY 03-04 Estimated Year-Ending Amount based on 8 months actuals (as of June 30,2003) FY 04- represents the Proposed Budget Amount FV OS-O606 represents the Forecasted Amount(3%increase in annual collections) (3)Transfers from Enterien-nd 1:11,r Fund,(Parking,Water,S-) CalPERS $ 3,300,000 6URLINGAME (4)FY 03-04 represents the Estimated Year-Ending Amount Economic Stability $ 2,000,000 FV 04-05 represents the Proposed Budget Amount Contingency $ 500,000 FY 05-06 represents the Forecasted Amount(3%increase) (5)FY 03-04 CIP funded from carry-over funds($2.3 m.) ITotal Reserves: $ 5,800,000 FY 04-05 04-05 CIP funded from Corp Yard Bonds Reserve Substitution($1,1 m.) Budget Model May 2004.xis 5/17/2004 5.17 PM CITY AGENDA 9d 0 ITEM # ryBURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE May 17 2004 -1.T—J NE b, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMED BY r-11 Aj — DATE: May 11 , 2004 VWV APPROVED FROM: Netie Shinday (558-7204) BY SUBJECT: Consider Appointments to Traffic Safety Parking Commission RECOMMENDATION: Consider appointment recommendation of interview committee and make appointment, or take other action. BACKGROUND: One commission position is due for appointment to replace Lisa DeAngelis, who resigned due to relocation. The position was advertised and five applications were received. The interview committee has interviewed all applicants and will be making a recommendation at the Council meeting on May 17, 2004. The term will be for three years ending in November 2007. ��CITY G AGENDA � � ITEM# 9e BURIJNGAME STAFF REPORT 4. ....a... MTG. Tgarco duu[6,9o0 DATE 5/17/2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED,---- BY �. DATE: May 17, 2004 APPROC BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT TO CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATION FROM CONTINGENCY RESERVE TO FUND CONSULTANT TO EVALUATE EMF PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED EMF ORDINANCE The development and implementation of the proposed ordinance has 3 or 4 potential costs to the City: 1) Consultant and staff time to evaluate the ordinance standards. The appropriation consideration on this evening's agenda is a significant step in that evaluation. As stated in the May 13 report, the estimated cost for this evaluation is $18,000. Staff had also recommended that the ordinance be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, but has not received direction on that issue; the proponents of the ordinance believe that the ordinance does not constitute a"project" under CEQA and is therefore not subject to CEQA review. If a CEQA review were undertaken, staff would prepare a budget for Council approval; it is difficult to estimate the costs at this juncture, but roughly $15,000 would be a good placeholder. 2) If the ordinance is adopted, the City could expect PG&E or the State of California, or both, to challenge the ordinance in court. Given the experience in the CPUC proceeding, attorneys fees and costs in meeting this challenge would probably range to about $250,000. 3) If PG&E were to prevail in such a challenge under certain theories, PG&E might be able to recover its own attorneys fees and costs from the City. Because of the high costs of this type of litigation, one can expect those fees and costs to be significant, ranging up to $400,000 or more. 4) Finally, if PG&E were to prevail in such a challenge under some theories, PG&E might be able to recover damages against the City. Until the challenge is shaped and articulated, it is not really possible to estimate this possibility. CITY AGENDA 9e ITEM# Bl1RL,NGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 5/17/2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED___ BY DATE: May 13, 2004 APPROVED ,1 BY— FROM: FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROPRIATION FROM CONTINGENCY RESERVE TO FUND CONSULTANT TO EVALUATE EMF PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED EMF ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION: Consider appropriation from City's contingency reserve to fund EMF Consultant to evaluate EMF provisions of proposed EMF ordinance. DISCUSSION: On May 3, 2004, the City Council introduced an ordinance that would attempt to prevent the installation of electric utility transmission lines near any residences, hospitals, or schools in the City. Staff outlined a possible budget at that time for the costs of consultants and attorneys to provide information regarding the standards in the ordinance and to defend the ordinance. Dennis Zell, a proponent of the ordinance, has obtained a proposal from Cindy Sage of Sage Associates who has done extensive work on EMF issues and is willing to assist citizens and the City in the matter. Her projected budget is approximately $18,000. Mr. Zell has requested the Burlingame School District to contribute $6,000 and is also seeking the assistance of Peninsula Hospital. However, in order to move forward, it is important to make a commitment to the consultant as soon as possible. There is no current funding for this project, so an appropriation of up to $18,000 from the City's contingency reserve is needed. Attachment Proposed Resolution approving transfer from contingency reserve. Distribution Dennis Zell BUI AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT 1 ITEM# l0a MT 5/17/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: May 5, 2004 BY APPROVE / FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT"SPLIT OF LOT 9 INTO PARCEL 9A AND PARCEL 9B, BLOCK 22, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION TO BURLINGAME NO. 2- 1261 BALBOA AVENUE - PM 03-10 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve this proposed lot split as a Tentative and Final Parcel Map subject to the following conditions which will be attached to the map: 1. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 2. Any future building finished floor elevation shall be a minimum one foot above the 100 year storm flood elevation. 3. All property corners shall be set in the field and shown on the map. 4. Final site development plans on Parcel 9B that include any supports or construction within the identified 100-year flood plain or flow shall be reviewed by a registered Civil Engineer. This review must confirm that any such construction will not impede the 100-year flow capacity and that such construction will not cause any flow changes that will adversely affect adjacent properties. BACKGROUND:At their meeting of February 9,2004 the Planning Commission reviewed the attached tentative parcel map and recommended that Council approve the map with the conditions listed above. The parcel map should be considered as both the tentative and final parcel map to facilitate processing. Staff will ensure that the proper map is recorded. EXHIBITS: Tentative Parcel Map; Staff Memorandum; February 9, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes Philip B. AonaghaP.E. Senior Civil Engin er c: City Clerk, Applicant S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\03.10.STF.wpd P.C. 2/09/04 ITEM# 4� MEMO TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: JANUARY 15, 2004 SUBJECT: STUDY MEETING FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF LOT 9 INTO PARCEL 9A AND PARCEL 9B, BLOCK 22, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION TO BURLINGAME NO. 2 1261 BALBOA AVENUE-PM 03-10 Site Information: Zoning: R-1 Existing Lot Size: 12,000+ Square Feet Proposed Lot Size: Parcel 9A=6,000+ Square Feet Street Frontage=50 Feet Parcel 9B =6,000+ Square Feet Street Frontage= 50 Feet Required Lot Size: 5,000 Square Feet Required Street Frontage: 50 Linear Feet Background: This parcel map application proposes to subdivide one lot into two lots. All proposed parcels will meet the required fifty foot(50') street frontage (C.S. 25.28.050a-1). A small portion of Easton Creek traverses through the northwest corner of Parcel 9A. The hydraulic calculations and the tentative parcel map show that approximately 14.8% of Parcel 9A will likely be flooded by storm water during the 100-year storm event. The Engineering Department has reviewed the map for utilities and easements and has the following comments: 1. No developmental approvals are part of this mapping action. 2. Any future building finished floor elevation shall be minimum 1.0 feet above the 100 year storm flood elevations. 3. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. Page 1 of 2 This mapping action should be considered as a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for the lot split to speed processing. Staff will see that the Final Map is properly prepared. The existing building must be demolished prior to the final map. The Planning and Fire Department have no comments on this application. This application is a Categorical Exemption Section 15315, "Minor Land Division" under C.E.Q.A. Victor�V Aea Engineer Attachments: Assessor's Map, Drainage Map, Tentative Map sAapublicworks\plann ing\03-10.mmo Page 2 of 2 8 V U TAX CODE EL CAM/NO 16K. 1 08 - �— 953-30 W ^ 0 103.75' 30. -9 �- loa' �lSo.a33' S0. 50- a. �,+ T jj �1_ / PARCEL A lO I ".as- 48' 6 7 \"48\ 2 1 3 , Ia7.3B" �� 150' 3 $0. J :. 151 ,o o /6 3 5a 50 75• 25•:.— Q 5 50- 47' S0' N 90• I - 1431- . ! ! /5 /4 /3 1 /2 1, // /O 24 i 23 22 o . 4 \ �I t „ /✓ O / N � -� ' N � N I I ,9 a3-:1 W.n' 61.50 50' 50- 75' 75' 4r 50- SO 1J55-oa•w BAL BOA No' 50' So' too' ' 50' 50" = o ' o O O 4 6 O ZO 3 124.ao• o o , • N N 1 tte.8o 50- 7 �8 ��/ / /O / 2 3 t69.9o; /4 50 50- 3 152 � IG2.21' 5� So' - So• � 50 - - ,a4.a6 M4f /3 I /2 // 24 23 22 . 0 5 � lt3.25 89•i5 1 00 50' 50. L 50 N55'o4' . CORTEZ 194.29' ' 100 so' - � o 18G.St: / ttt Q t o 1 p o 6 7 8 . 9 y / 2 3 1 W- 121.911- 56.l, - ^ �a to0' So' So' � 50" J O o 3 -� o_ :n r- N 6 �I50 I - 54• — 50' 50' 10n9, /3 /2 // j /O 24 23 22 i � i 4 / LLQ —I°,a5 o 6.TT -03 ' -100' 50' _ j0- So' _ 1455. OA-W a cBR/L L OA S 1 �. . z� /7 PARCE _ � O cr 7 +534 2 x1 16n 15 z1 , 13121110 9 . L Ll F ►2.s � � NSp0'r So. al' -50-ol , bO.o�` ggfr " -s.vl ' 3�. L�: ' s�.r,, DI DI D23 D2.3 AMINO, 1 C8-}._: So' /03.7sso' . sl 13:'L?' sol -5Z ZVOL . 53 0 2a CA 4 97.38' So r-17,38' 3.71 ' s r Q Zp tq a N 15 14 13 12 it IGS ° 24 . . 23__ 77.6& ' CY- n� Y s9 ch c ��' 1 ti CV '� y TS-I N So' 3a. h h 13 17 ' ALSO so ' so 8 �P D 4.8 47 so' z - - CB-0 is s �' �p�, - D NA wx WIVERT .r--- DI CB-0 - V.G. - r3o ' so , so , ino ' �r - --- - so• s` 6-00 h rip , 11l284.1/.�46Ox8''. 0p so' _ Ld 9 10 \ a 1J 160 . Q CIV 76x7 '16 - 162 21E �2p 140. 13 ' 17 /d�� `^ f6i� A G ► 13 12 1 { Y N 2 4 23 o a h h !IBES D W � 0 ,✓ L7 �Q 16 16/� e a ��' �' so• sv' �o so• s o. 151. 36 ' LZ Ill--25 202 .-s ULVCWW cs- 7a" .Sbso' so' snso/��fi^33f86Wt4-09ARNO 9 ' �.fra , tog� d IS ' X17s 171,E : /Jim 1 • i 13 12x24 23 1/0-20 ' Q til?/6 �` /�/f? - 't fB,93 �., W SO ' SO' SO' Ste✓' tj SO' So' I t City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 12, 2004 Chair Bojues opened the public Baring. Kathy Phengrasamy, Jaidin Consul ' g, 205 13t1 Avenue San Francisco, wa vailable to er questions. The Pl ing Commission h no questionZthe licant. There we r no other co ents from the floor the public hearing w closed. C. itan move o approve the appli tion, by resolution, h the following conat the ject shall be uilt as shown on t plans submitted to a Planning Departme date stamped April 1 ,2004, She A0.0 through A4.3 rte plan, floor plans d building elevations; that any increase to the habitable asement floor area d any changes to the ize or envelope of the rst or second floors, which would ' clude expanding t footprint or floor ar of the structure, repl ng or relocating a window (s), addyng a dormer (s) or c ging the roof hei or pitch, shall be subj t to design review; 3) that prior to seneduling the frami inspection, the prof architect, engineer or er licensed professional shall Ovide architectural cert ation that the archit ural details such aswi ow locations and bays are buil shown on the appro7d plans; if there is no icensed professional i olved in the project, the prop owner or contractor shall providethe certi ation under penalty of erjury. Certifications shall be bmitted to the Buildingbepartment; 4) tha prior to final inspectio , Planning Department staff 1 inspect and note compance of the architec al details (trim materia , window type, etc.) to verify at the project has been but according to the ap oved Planning and Bui ing plans; 5) that all air duct lumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, ere possible, to a sin termination and installed o the portions of the roof not visible from the str et; and that these venti details shall be included and proved in the construction plans before a Buildi permit is issued; 6) t prior to scheduling the roof eck inspection,,, la licensed rveyor shall shoot t height of the roof rid and provide certification of at height to the Building partment; 7) that the onditions of the Recyc 'ng Specialist, City Enginee and Fire Marshal's memos ated January 21 , 200 shall be met; and 8) t t the project shall meet all t requirements of the Calif is Building and Fire odes, 2001 edition, as ended by the City of Burl' game. The motion was se nded by C. Auran. 6ommission discussio on the motion: nice job, clition blends well with t existing house, applicant answered all of the lanning Commission's q tions, no more concerns ith view blockage; ent to neighbor's house t 1547 Los Montes to vie story poles from both t first and second flo , saw no obstruction of ew; went to 1540 Los Mo�xtes next door house beauti 1 view of bay out frost on this side see roof an treet, do not feel any dist t views are obstructed, an ere are no additiona concerns by the residents egarding view blockage. Chy'r Bo�ues called for a voi vote on the motion to Vprove. The motion/passed on a 5- -2 (Crs. o Bfwnrigg and Vistica abse t)Appeal procedures wera'advised. This item concluded at 7:2;. p.m. C. Brownrigg arrived a 7:25 p.m. 4. 1261 BALBOA MVENUE, LOT A AND LOT B, ZONED R-1 (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CHRISTINE MUNDING, PROPERTY OWNER) (82 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN a. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT A - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING b. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT B - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING `.- c. APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 12, 2004 Reference staff report, April 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report which addresses the proposed houses for both lots and the division of the 12,000 SF lot into to two lots, reviewed criteria for action including those from the Municipal Code for division of property, and staff comments, �-' noting that action on this item should include a recommendation to City Council on the division of the lot. Twenty-four conditions were suggested for consideration for Lot A, and twenty-five for Lot B, a creek side lot. Commissioners asked how the action on the parcel map is handled. CP noted that Commission would make a recommendation to City Council, but the Council makes the final decision on such maps. Usually the arborist reports are complete including recommendations for tree protection and maintenance, that is not the case with this arborist report, noted in field that there is disease on one tree and concerned about the condition of the Magnolia on Lot A, and what the impact of construction would be on this tree, all the pruning up to ANCI standards should be done before construction. CP noted that she would advise the City Arborist who can require these protection steps be included in the arborist's report before it is approved and a building permit is issued. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, represented the project; Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; Ario Gregori, 1258 Balboa; Christine Munding, property owner 1261 Balboa; spoke. Architect noted the project has changed since the original submittal, for comparison also looked at proposed regulations for development on creek side lots; the project on Lot B as now proposed meets them with only 30% lot coverage of the 85% of the lot above the 100 year flood flow limit (Lot B). On Lot A, although this is not an emerging lot, looked at the emerging legal lot requirements could not revise project to comply since full basements, the corner stone of that regulation for reducing lot coverage, are not permitted at this time; but did remove a bedroom and bath reducing the structure by 250 SF and adjusted the one story elements to reduce mass and bulk as well as pushed the second story to the rear; the design is bungalow style with the flared eaves taken from the house across the street. On Lot B picked a craftsman style with a low slung nature, common style in Burlingame, narrow with articulation which slips into the lot, removed 251 SF by creating a Great Room e.g. no formal living or dining room, pulled back the second floor to create more rear yard, lot has more open space than most, 50% is soft scape; oriented the house to the creek with a private setting. Public comments on the project: Represent neighbor at 1600 Sherman, who is opposed to the project; because of the siting of his house on a corner he does not have the rear setback to separate him from the new house next door, both will be close to property line. Tried unsuccessfully to talk to developer, would like added screening trees along the shared property line with Lot A and a decent fence in keeping with the quality of the fence in place, sent a letter to Mrs. Munding requesting this but did not hear back. Would ask the commission to add a mitigation for additional trees along the side property line between 1600 Sherman and the new house next door and for full fencing similar in size and quality to what is there now. Live across the street, is this division of this site into two lots legal and will both be buildable, my understanding is yes they are buildable; property owner brought plans to show him and his wife, have prominent view from inside house of this poorly maintained lot and house, this is an improvement, done their best to fit in; is building to meet current space demand, otherwise people will remodel to get bigger houses they want; am sure developer will protect trees, she loves them; when the Oak tree is removed will there be protection to the neighbors from the flight of termites which will occur, will the house be fumigated before it is removed for the same reason. Want to respond to attorney for neighbor, tried to contact neighbor, objected to terms of letter received, have planned around the neighbor at 1600 Sherman's laundry room which is close to property line. Commissioners asked if opposed to installing screening trees along property line and replacing fencing with same quality? Applicant responded not a problem. There were no further comments `-- from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 12, 2004 Commissioner discussion: like project, the architecture on the two houses is well done, concerned about the arborist's report, would like the revision of the report as approved by the City Arborist to come back to the Commission as an FYI including the removal of one Oak tree; overall the architecture fits and it will be a good addition to the neighborhood; reduced Lot A, 270 SF and one bedroom, like orientation of house on Lot B the creek side lot where conformed to proposed regulations when not need to. C. Osterling made a motion to approve the design review for the two houses, the special permit for an attached garage on Lot B, and to recommend to the City Council approval of the parcel map by resolution for the reasons stated and with the following conditions for 1261 Balboa Lot A and Lot B: 1261 BALBOA AVE, LOT A 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 13, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5 and L1 .0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or detached 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; 3) that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an arborist report for the protection and preservation of all existing protected sized trees on this lot as well as trees bordering this site; tree protection measures for the protected-sized trees described in the arborist report shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit and shall be complied with during construction, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the arborist report; 4) that the property owner of Lot A install a 6 foot solid board with one foot of lattice fence along the property line between Lot A and 1600 Sherman Avenue and plant screening trees within the side yard as approved by the City Arborist prior to final inspection of the construction on Lot A; 5) that the required tree protection measures shall be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 6) that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing the protected-sized trees prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees for three years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the three-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the three-year period; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Fire Marshal's December 1 , 2003 memos, the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2003 memo, and the City Arborist's January 16, 2004, memo shall be met; 8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10) that 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 prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the �-- building footprint; 12) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April IZ 2004 height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 13) 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; 14) that clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be performed only during dry weather (April 15 through November 14th ); 15) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 16) 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; 17) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 18) that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation; 19) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 20) that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the storm drain; 21) that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a spill cleanup plan; 22) that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 23) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 24) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 25) 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. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE, LOT B 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 5, 2004, sheets A- 1 through A-5 and L1 .0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or detached 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; 3) that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an �— arborist report for the protection and preservation of all existing protected sized trees on this lot as well as 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 12, 2004 trees bordering this site; tree protection measures for the protected-sized trees described in the arborist report shall be approved and inspected by the City Arborist before issuance of a building permit; and all protection requirements shall be complied with during construction; 4) that the required tree protection measures shall �- be monitored during construction by a Certified Arborist who shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; the project arborist shall probe for and based on root location, identify the proper locations and design for the house and accessory structure foundations, as well as any grading; this work shall be completed, reported to in writing and reviewed by the City Arborist prior to issuing a grading permit for any grading on the site; 5) that the applicant shall submit to the City Arborist for approval a Certified Arborist report detailing a three year protection plan with post-construction guidelines concerning trimming and fertilizing the protected-sized trees prior to building permit issuance; the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of the trees during construction and for three years after construction is finaled by the City and shall bear the penalty fee should the trees not survive the three-year period; the trees shall be inspected for compliance twice a year by the City Arborist during the three-year period; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Fire Marshal's December 1 , 2003 memos, the Recycling Specialist's November 26, 2003 memo, and the City Arborist's January 16, 2004, memo shall be met; 7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 8) that prior to 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; 9) 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; 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; 11) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building envelope; 12) 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; 13) Applicant shall provide a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney that provides as follows: a) Owner agrees and understands that the construction proposed in the application is adjacent to a creek that drains a large part of Burlingame. The Owner has obtained professional analysis of the effects that the construction, maintenance, and use of the project may have on the Property and its relationship to the creek and the soils, vegetation, and topography of the Property. b) Owner agrees and affirms that Owner is relying solely on Owner's own knowledge and the representations of Owner's own experts and consultants in designing and constructing the project and in no way relying on any representations or analyses of the City or any of its officers or employees in proceeding with the construction and use. c) Owner agrees that Owner shall defend and indemnify the City, its officers and employees against, and will hold them and each of them harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or properties, penalties, obligations, and liabilities, including any attorneys fees or associated costs, that may be asserted by any person arising from the approval, design, location, methods, installation, operation, and existence of the project approved by the City. d) This Agreement shall be recorded by the City in the Official Records of the Recorder of San Mateo County. 14) that clearing, earth moving activities and the application of pesticides and fertilizers shall be performed only during dry weather (April 15 through November 14); 15) that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 12, 2004 and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 16) 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; 17) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 18) that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation; 19) that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 20) that fiber rolls and other erosion prevention products are installed around the construction site as a barrier to prevent erosion and construction runoff into the storm drain; 21 ) that oils, fuels, solvents, coolants and other chemicals stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage by structures such as berms and roof covers; bulk materials stored outdoors shall be protected from drainage with berms and covers; equipment stored outdoors shall be stored on impermeable surfaces, shall be covered and shall be inspected for property functioning and leaks; all storage areas shall be regularly cleaned, including sweeping, litter control and a spill cleanup plan; 22) that landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 23) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 24) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 25) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: would like to be sure that the screening trees and replacement fencing are installed between 1600 Sherman and the new development on Lot A, would propose an added condition that the property owner of Lot A install a 6 foot solid board with one foot of lattice along the property line between Lot A and 1600 Sherman Avenue and plant screening trees within the side yard as approved by the City Arborist prior to final inspection of the construction on Lot A. The maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment to"the conditions for Lot A. Nice job with the houses was concerned originally, appreciate the architects efforts including looking at the proposed creek side regulations and conforming to them in his re-design; houses are nicely articulated especially on Lot B perfect use of the creek setting; appreciate reducing both houses a good amount and increasing the rear setbacks and rear yard. Will vote no, appreciate work done and adherence to the creek side lot development regulations and increase in rear yard, but believe that there is a commercial element in developing creek lots, when divide a parcel on gets increased capital gain from taking one lot and making it two, want the neighborhood to get back something and want to see much smaller houses on these lots, one story houses which step up to a two story house on the adjacent lot, not a four bedroom house abutting a creek. The attached garage on Lot B, the creekside lot, is appropriate 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 12,2004 since it reduces lot coverage and the amount of impervious surface on this lot,contributing to maintenance of the natural, creek dominated setting, valuable to the neighborhood. Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the design review for two houses one on Lot A and one on Lot B, for a special permit for an attached garage on Lot B, and to recommend to the City Council the parcel map which would create Lots A and B. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 5. 1861 EL C INO REAL,Z D C-1—AP LICAT19X FOR CONDITIONAL SE PERMIT FOR A FITNES WEIGHT SS CENTER (C TTE HOLLAND, APP CANT; STEVE AND ME -LEE MUSIC , ROPERTY OWNER 11 NOTICED)PROJEC LANNER: CATHERINE B ER Reference st report April 12,2004, th attachments. Plr.Barb presented the report,r sewed criteria and staff mments. Six conditio were suggested for consid ation. There were no estions of staff. C it Bojues opened the lic hearing. Charlotte land, 141 Glasgow e, San Carlos, project pplicant was available answer questions. The Pl ing Commission had questions for the applicant. There were no co nts from the floor and the lic hearing was clos . Commission 'scussion: in the staff repo he applicant answere he many questions raised the study meeting, t ' this project is fine as pr osed. C. ighran moved to approve a application, by reso tion, with the following nditions: 1) that the ject shall be built as sho n on the plans subm' ed to the Planning Dep ment and date stamped ebruary 10, 2004, site pl and floor plan; 2)th the tenant space shall be ,578 SF used for a women's fitness and weight loss enter, including a rec tion area, office space, c d's area, circuit training space, cardio space, free w ght and stretching ar and locker room with sauna,and two massage rooms, any change to this co figuration or use of sp e shall be reviewed by t lanning Department,including adding class room s ce or designated are for group instruction, d may required additional review b the Planning mmission; 3) that t maximum number peo a on site at any one time shall be 35 ersons; 4)that signage shall requir a separate permit from t Planning and Building Departmen , 5)that the con ' ions of the Fire Mar al's, Chief Building O cial's and Recycling Specialist's F ruary 19, 2004 os shall be met; a 6)that any improveme s for the use shall meet all Califo ' Building and Fire /Codes, 2001 Editio s amended by the City Burlingame. The motion was sec ded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Bojues c ed for a voice vote on t motion to approve. The motion sed on a 6-0-1 (Cers.Vistica). Appeal pro dures v�ere advised. T *s item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 6. 1704 OLLINS ROAD, Z ED M-1 — APPLICATION R CONDITIONAL U PERMIT, P G VARIANCE LANDSCAPE VARIANCE F A COMMERCIAL RE ATION USE ATTING CAGES) (T Y WHITFIELD, APPLICAN ; PETER VALENTI, PR ERTY OWNER) 12 NOTICED PR CT PLANNER: RUBEN Reference staff port April 12,2004,with attac nts. CP Monroe present the report,reuse criteria and staff co ents. Eight conditions were uggested for considera 'on. Commissio asked if the bathrooms will be required to be ADA acce able. Staff noted that during the review of the building permit 9 .4r � CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 10b ITEM # st MTG. S/ 17/04 W. , DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB ;TTED BY DATE: May 5, 2004 APPR ED FROM: Director of Parks & Recreation (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLAYGROUND REHABILITATION AT WASHINGTON PARK — PROJECT #79300 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Playground construction at Washington Park performed by Community Playgrounds of Novato in the amount of $ 148,946. BACKGROUND: On January 21 , 2004 Community Playgrounds awarded the contract for this phase of the City' s playground rehabilitation program. The work was completed on schedule. The punch list has been completed. There were no change orders on the project. The work included demolition, grading, drainage improvement, installation of new playground equipment, and installation of new resilient surfacing. The construction document preparation and the playground equipment were provided by separate vendors. The facility is open for public use. The consulting architect and staff are satisfied with the work and are recommending approval by Council. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: This project was jointly funded with monies from Proposition 40 and from the City. Funds are available in the project account to complete this project. After receiving full reimbursement from the State, all funds remaining in the project account will be used to help fund the Pershing Park and Cuernavaca Park Playground Rehabilitation projects. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF WASHINGTON PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION CITY PROJECT NO. 79300 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE as follows: 1. The Parks & Recreation Director of said City has certified that the work done by COMMUNITY PLAYGROUNDS under the terms of its contract with the City of Burlingame dated July 22,2004, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by this Council therefor and to the satisfaction of the Parks &Recreation Director. 2. Said work is particularly described as #79300 WASHINGTON PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. 4. The city engineer is directed to execute and file for record with the County Recorder notice of the completion thereof as required by law. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17'day ofMay 2004,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT u ITEM# 10C MTG. 5/17/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: May 10, 2004 BY APPROVED / FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: NPDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - 2004-20 GENERAL PROGRAM BUDGET RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council endorse the 2004-2005 General Program Budget as adopted by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County(C/CAG)and use of the San Mateo County Flood Control District as the funding mechanism to support the General Program activities by adopting: • Resolution recommending that the District continue to impose basic and additional charges for funding the expanded program scope of work; BACKGROUND: The Environmental Protection Agency, under amendments to the 1987 Clean Water Act, imposed regulations that mandate local government to control and reduce the amount of storm water pollution runoff into receiving waters of the United States. Under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the State Water Resources Control Board has delegated authority to its regional boards to invoke permitting requirements. The permitting programs have been developed to deal with industrial, construction and municipal stormwater requirements. In July 1991, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board notified San Mateo County and all incorporated cities of the requirement to submit a Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit application and to implement a Stormwater Management Plan.Failure to implement such a plan poses significant penalties that can be levied against a jurisdiction by the Regional Board. Under the Water Code, the Regional Board may impose an administrative fine of up to $10,000 for each day a violation occurs. In addition, the Regional Board may request that the Attorney General seek judgment in superior court to impose civil liability not to exceed $25,000 for each day a violation occurs. DISCUSSION: The General Program encompasses those efforts undertaken for the benefit of all 21 agency co- permittees involved with the implementation of the Stormwater Management Plan and adherence to the conditions set forth under the Countywide NPDES Waste Discharge Permit. The General Program includes work tasks to be undertaken and completed during 2004-2005. The Program budget is $1,434,542 as outlined in the Summary of Costs included as Attachment 1. The funding mechanism uses parcel information currently available and creates land use categories for purposes of financing General Program activities. The size of a parcel clearly impacts the amount of stormwater run-off which flows through the storm drainage system and into the waterways.The recommended financing mechanism utilizes single family residence as the base rate and establishes a common rate assessed uniformly among all land use classes. Utilizing the total area of the parcels within differing land uses divided by the average single family parcel size provides an equivalent dwelling unit(EDU). The impact of this fee is a single base rate for all single family residences of$6.01/APN(Assessor' s Parcel Number).As a matter of equity,all other land uses are charged at the minimum of the base rate and their proportionate share of cost increases with the corresponding size of the parcel as calculated by its EDU. Condominiums,miscellaneous,vacant and agricultural land uses are charged at one-half the single family per parcel rate. Page 2... BUDGET IMPACT: These fees will cover Burlingame's portion of the Countywide program. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Attachment 1 �J Phil$ B. Mon ghan, P.E. Senior Civil FIngineer c: City Clerk, Finance SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\NPDES2004.SR.wpd RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING THAT THE SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT IMPOSE BASIC AND ADDITONAL CHARGES FOR FUNDING THE EXPANDED SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE 2004/05 COUNTYWIDE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL PROGRAM WHEREAS,The Environmental Protection Agency, under amendments to the 1987 Federal Clean Water Act, imposed regulations that mandate local governments to control and reduce the amount of stormwater pollutant runoff into receiving waters. WHEREAS, under the authority of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, the State Water Resources Control Board has delegated authority to its regional boards to invoke permitting requirements upon counties and cities. WHEREAS, in July 1991, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board notified San Mateo County of the requirement to submit an NPDES Permit Application by November 30, 1992. WHEREAS, in furtherance of the NPDES Permit Process, San Mateo County in conjunction with all incorporated cities in San Mateo County has prepared a San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan which has a General Program as a fundamental component of the Management Plan. WHEREAS, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan has been submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Management Plan has been approved by the Board and made part of the NPDES Waste Discharge Permit CA 0029921, issued September 13, 1993 and remaining in effect through June 30, 1998. WHEREAS,the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan and NPDES Waste Discharge Permit CA 0029921 required that San Mateo County submit a renewal application by March 31, 1998 which shall include a Stormwater Management Plan for 1998 through 2003. WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has accepted, adopted and committed to implement the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Management Plan for 1998-2003 and the renewal application and Plan was submitted to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board on March 18, 1998. WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, after Public Hearing, approved the Renewed NPDES Permit CAS0029921, effective July 21, 1999 and which expires July 20, 2004. WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board had imposed additional requirements on the NPDES General Program beyond and after those required in the Renewed NPDES Permit, dated July 21, 1999. WHEREAS,the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board opened the NPDES Permit CAS0029921 for the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program to Amend the Permit to add New and Redevelopment Language (Amendment of Order 99-059), and adopted the Amendment on February 19, 2003. WHEREAS,the San Mateo County Flood Control District Act, as amended by the State Legislature in 1992 (Assembly Bill 2635), authorized the San Mateo County Flood Control District to impose charges to fund storm drainage programs such as the NPDES County-wide General Program. WHEREAS, the Basic Annual Charges and Additional Annual Charges for fiscal year 2004/05, when adopted, would be necessary to fund a $1,434,542 Budget for fiscal year 2004/2005 are as follows: Basic Annual Charges; Single Family Residence: $3.44/APN Miscellaneous, Agriculture, Vacant and Condominium: $1.72/APN All Other Land Uses: $3.44/APN for the first 11,000 square feet plus $ 0.3127 per 1,000 square feet additional square feet of parcel area. Additional Annual Charge (Adjusted Annually by C.P.I.); Single Family Resident: $2.5725/APN Miscellaneous, Agriculture, Vacant and Condominium: $1.2863/APN All Other Land Uses: $2.5674/APN for the first 11,000 square feet plus $0.2320 per 1,000 additional square feet of parcel area. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City Council of the City of Burlingame that 1. The City of Burlingame approves the expanded Scope of Work imposed on the NPDES General Program and respectfully requests the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, acting as the governing board of the San Mateo County Flood Control District, to impose those basic and additional charges necessary to fund the County-wide NPDES General Program; and 2. The City of Burlingame requests that all properties within the territorial limits of said City be charged the basic and additional annual charges in accordance with said charges stated above; and 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, the San Mateo County Flood Control District and to the NPDES Coordinator of C/CAG. Mayor I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2004 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk S:AUTHOR/PEGGYADAM/NPDESSAMRESFeesCombined'03.doc 05/07/04 NPDES PROGRAMS FUND(07) FY 2004-05 PROGRAM BUDGET JULY 1,2004-JUNE 30,2005 BEGINNING BALANCE $144,475 $144,475 RESERVE BALANCE $100,903 $100,903 PROJECTED New Devel.& Public Info.& Comm.&Indus Municipal Watershed Permit Renewa Miscellaneous NPDES PROGRAMS REVENUES Site Control Participation Illicit Discharg Main.Activities Monitoring Participation FUND Interest Earnings $6,000 $6,000 Member Contribution $0 Cost Reimbursements $0 ISTEA Funding $0 Grants $0 SFIA Traffic Study $0 TFCA $0 N PDES $1,379,475 $1,379,475 AVA $0 Miscellaneous $0 Total Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,385,475 $1,385,475 TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $1,529,950 PROJECTED New Devel.& Public Info.& Comm.&Indus Municipal Watershed Permit Renewa Miscellaneous NPDES PROGRAMS EXPENDITURES Site Control Participation Illicit Discharg Main.Activities Monitoring Participation FUND 0.1905002 0.2337342 0.1649106 0.0701344 0.3407206 1.0000000 Administration Services $28,542 $35,019 $24,708 $10,508 $51,048 $0 $0 $149,825 Professional Services $39,338 $48,266 $34,054 $14,483 $70,359 $0 $0 $206,500 Consulting Services $177,969 $218,358 $154,062 $65,521 $318,307 $50,000 $0 $984,217 Supplies $286 $351 $247 $105 $511 $0 $0 $1,500 Prof.Dues&Memberships $4,953 $6,077 $4,288 $1,823 $8,859 $0 $0 $26,000 Conferences&Meetings $286 $351 $247 $105 $511 $0 $1,500 Publications $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 TFCA Distributions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NPDES Distributions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 AVA Distributions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous(Litigation) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 Total Expenditures $251,373 $323,422 $217,606 $92,545 $449,595 $50,000 $50,000 $1,434,542 $1,434,542 TRANSFERS Transfers In $0 Transfers Out $0 Total Transfers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 NET CHANGE ($251,373) ($323,422) ($217,606) ($92,545) ($449,595) ($50,000) $1,335,475 ($49,067) TRANSFER TO RESERVES $0 TOTAL USE OF FUNDS $1,434,542 ENDING FUND BALANCE $95,408 RESERVE FUND BALANCE $100,903 Note: Beginning/Ending Reserve Fund Balance is not included in Beginning/Ending Fund Balance AGENDA BUkffim RLINGAME SAROEW10h\ TAFF REPORT ITEM# lid MTG. 5/17/04 DAT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTEDA�V�- DATE: MAY 5, 2004 BY APPROVE FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM 1405-1407 EL CAMINO REAL, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 19, BLOCK 50, MAP OF EASTION ADDITION NO. 4, PM 00-05 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve this map subject to the following conditions: • The conditions,covenants and restrictions for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City codes. BACKGROUND: The tentative condominium map was approved by Council on January 17, 2001. Staff has reviewed the final condominium map and recommends approval of this map if the above condition is met. EXHIBITS: Staff Memorandum on 12/11/00; Staff Report on 1/17/01; Final Condominium Map Philip V Monag a , P. . Senior Civil Engi eer c: City Clerk, City Attorney, Applicant P.C. 12/11/2000 Item# MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DONALD T. CHANG, P.E., SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2000 RE: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FOUR(4)UNITS, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 19, BLOCK 50,MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 - 1405 AND 1407 EL CAMINO REAL, PM 00-05 I have reviewed the Tentative map together with the Condominium Permit Plans. This application is complete and maybe forwarded to Council for approval with the following conditions: 1. Show all building setbacks on site plan. 2. The CC&R's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. 3. A City clean-out shall be installed within the sewer easement area. Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer SAA Public Worcs Directory\Planning Dept.Correspond11405ECR.MMO.WP13 PC 12/11/2000 Item # MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: DONALD T. CHANG, P.E. DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2000 RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR FOUR (4) UNITS - RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 19, BLOCK 50, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 - 1405 AND 1407 EL CAMINO REAL, PM 00-05 I have the following comments which need to be addressed prior to any action. I GENERAL: 1. The Architectural plan shows the rear property line dimension to be 50' 1/16", the Tentative Map shows 49.981 . The subdivision Map shows the real property line to be 501 . Why are there discrepancies? 2. Since the site is below street, approval will be conditioned upon an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump system shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.) . Emergency generator shall be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement. Show locations of proposed dual pumps and generators. 3. State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) does not always approve pumping storm drainage back up into E1 Camino Real unless it already drains there. Confirm prior to issuance of any Building Permit that the proposed drainage system meets with their approval. 4. Provide driveway profile with 2°s from top of curb (6" high minimum) to back of the sidewalk and transition to a high point, on-site or at property line, at 12" above flow line of street. Transitions at top of driveway and at bottom required to the approval of the City Engineer. 5. All curb and gutters shall be replaced with new. An encroachment permit is required for sidewalk and gutter from Caltrans. 1 II SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS : 1 . Caltrans must review and approve all El Camino Real accesses . Start this process early with them . They have had major ques- tions in the past spacing between a new driveway and an adjacent property ' s driveway . 2 . All irrigation systems and planting shall follow City ' s water conservation guidelines . 3 . All fire system work shall conform to the City ' s current procedures for underground water systems . 4 . All on site catch basins and drainage inlets shall be stenciled . All catch basins shall be protected during construction so no debris will be dumped into them . The City will provide a stencil . III PARKING : 1 . Show parking slab elevations . Maximum slope in any parking space is 5% . Show drainage pattern . 2 . What is the clearance between the guest parking and the exterior wall of Unit A? Egress into street for all vehicles shall be in the forward direction . How does the guest parking exit onto El Camino Real? 3 . The garage exit pathways may not be through a parking space . How does vehicle at Unit A exit within 3 movements? IV ARCHITECTURAL PLANS : 1 . Individual unit climate controls as well as separate shutoffs for gas , electric and water are required . Donald Chang, PE Senior Civil Engin, er c : Owner , Architect F:\WP51\FILES\1405ecr.condo 2 BURYNGAME AGENDA STAFF REPORT ITEM# MTG. 1/17/01 TE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITT BY DATE: January 6, 2001 APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CONDOMINIUM, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 19, BLOCK 50, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 - 1405 & 1407 EL CAMINO REAL, PM 00-05 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve this map with the following conditions: • Show all building setbacks on the site plan. • The conditions, covenants and restrictions for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City codes. i • A City clean-out shall be installed within the sewer easement area. BACKGROUND: On January 8, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed the attached Staff Report. The Planning Commission found that all requirements were met and recommended that Council approve the map with the above conditions. EXHIBITS: Tentative Map, Staff Report Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\ptn0005.wpd Agenda Item �a Meeting Date 5i7 0 $2,826,376.63 Ck.No.94924-95413 Excludes Library Cks.94924-94962 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT / ��3.�9A✓O� Payroll for April 2004 $2,080,538.17 Ck.No.158097-158395 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS&ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS CITY OF BURLINGAME 05-07-2004 WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 8 FUND RECAP 03-04 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 75,332.50 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 9,229.49 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 219,313.81 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 719.36 WATER FUND 526 357.40 SEWER FUND 527 5,649.25 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 301 .71 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1 ,262.20 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 301601 .23 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 5,022.41 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 937. 16 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 175.00 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 403.66 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 780.64 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $350,085.82 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 8 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 95321 THROUGH 95413 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,085.82, 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 7 05/07/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95402 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 6,009.59 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 6,009.59 130 20014 95403 JOSH RUEMMELE 24858 112.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 112.00 101 68010 220 1787 95404 GERALD HORKAN 24870 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 101 36630 95405 DORIS MORTENSEN 24871 33.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.50 320 81030 120 95406 MAURISSA HEFFRAN 24872 1,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525 95407 PETER LIP 24873 1,850.00 MISCELLANEOUS 850.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525 95408 THOMAS NICHOL 24874 1,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525 95409 BEVERLY CHEN 24875 1,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525 95410 SHAMROCK ELECTRICAL SERVICES 24876 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 95411 LEONDARDO'S 24877 175.20 TRAINING EXPENSE 175.20 101 64420 260 95412 BARKLEY COURT REPORTERS 24878 473.95 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 473.95 618 64520 210 95413 SEAN STEFFEN 24879 53.96 SUPPLIES 53.96 620 15000 TOTAL $350,085.82 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 05/07/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT 4*' Denotes Hand Written Checks 95387 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 510.56 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 510.56 619 64460 210 5180 95388 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 2,591.00 RAT CONTROL PROGRAM 2,591.00 101 66210 218 95389 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 45.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 45.00 619 64460 220 5130 95390 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 322.00 COMMUNICATIONS 322.00 101 68020 160 2200 95391 FLORA ROSELET 24167 50.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 101 68010 220 1521 95392 ERIC GATTMAN 24169 617.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 617.60 101 68010 220 1521 95393 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 568.40 OFFICE EXPENSE 568.40 101 64250 110 95394 CITY OF BRISBANE 24387 835.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 835.00 101 65200 260 95395 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 24466 1,294.26 SMALL TOOLS 942.18 527 66520 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.60 619 64460 120 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 330.48 619 64460 210 95396 C.L.E.A. 24523 409.50 MISCELLANEOUS 409.50 130 20026 95397 AT&T WIRELESS 24607 382.46 COMMUNICATIONS 46.39 101 64250 160 COMMUNICATIONS 336.07 101 65200 160 95398 AT&T WIRELESS 24640 157.64 COMMUNICATIONS 157.64 101 66100 160 95399 TIM HEALY 24706 211.64 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 211.64 527 66520 250 95400 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 24714 601.60 MISCELLANEOUS 601.60 101 64420 030 95401 AETNA 24760 2,810.40 MISCELLANEOUS 217.04 130 20028 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,593.36 130 20022 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R.A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 05/07/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95374 TIM AURAN 21788 4,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,000.00 101 68010 210 1113 95375 PROVIDENCE PEST TERMITE 21947 452.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 79.00 619 64460. 210 5110 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 185.00 619 64460 210 5180 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 42.00 619 64460 210 5150 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 62.00 619 64460 210 5120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 42.00 619 64460 210 5170 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 42.00 619 64460 210 5160 95376 REED EQUIPMENT CO 21980 79.83 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 79.83 101 68020 200 2200 95377 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 269.18 SUPPLIES 269.18 620 15000 95378 ALLAN RIDLEY 22191 465.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 465.75 101 68010 220 1660 95379 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT 22529 216.72 MISC. SUPPLIES 216.72 101 68010 120 1890 95380 VERIZON WIRELESS 22593 38.73 COMMUNICATIONS 38.73 101 68010 160 1101 95381 MILLER DEVELOPMENT 22629 2,732.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,732.00 101 22546 95382 BAY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 22968 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546 95383 JIM BROWN 23260 340.14 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 340.14 527 66520 250 95384 GORDON GOTTSCHE 23625 230.28 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 230.28 527 66520 250 95385 THE MARLIN COMPANY 23712 887.85 TRAINING EXPENSE 221.97 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 221.96 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 221.96 527 66520 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 221.96 619 64460 260 95386 KELLY MOORE 23779 536.83 SMALL TOOLS 423.32 101 66210 130 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 113.51 101 66210 222 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 05/07/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT 1*0 Denotes Hand Written Checks 95359 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY SUPPLY 18991 33.02 TRAINING EXPENSE 33.02 526 69020 260 95360 AMC NEWSPAPERS 19083 155.76 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.80 101 64400 120 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 62.96 101 64200 150 95361 ARROW SIGN CO 19089 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 95362 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMS 19131 518.93 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 518.93 101 65200 200 95363 SURTON-S FIRE APPARATUS 19366 394.65 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. - 394.65 625 65213 203 95364 ALL FENCE COMPANY, INC. 19710 250.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 250.00 101 66210 120 95365 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 175.00 COMMUNICATIONS 175.00 621 64450 160 95366 FRANKLIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 20523 192.54 OFFICE EXPENSE 192.54 101 64420 110 95367 PHIL SCOTT 20550 415.71 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 415.71 527 66520 250 95368 SPORTS CHOICE 20845 1,311.99 MISC. SUPPLIES 259.53 101 68010 120 1890 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 259.53 101 68010 140 1892 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 792.93 101 68010 140 1893 95369 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 1,734.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 866.73 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 868.17 101 66210 219 95370 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 61.65 MISC. SUPPLIES 61.65 101 66100 120 95371 KURT STEIL 21550 5,172.00 MISCELLANEOUS 5,172.00 101 22546 95372 D.L. FALK CONSTRUCTION INC. 21647 217,490.73 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 217,490.73 320 80370 220- 95373 CINGULAR WIRELESS 21747 112.83 COMMUNICATIONS 112.83 101 65300 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 05/07/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95347 CHIEF BILL REILLY 11568 1 ,299.99 OFFICE EXPENSE 173.27 101 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 93.55 101 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 173.86 101 65200 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 280.64 101 65200 140 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 29.97 101 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 75.00 101 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 506.30 101 65200 260 TRAINING EXPENSE -32.60 101 65500 260 95348 THE MAGIC PRESS CORP. 13759 1 ,262.20 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,262.20 530 65400 120 95349 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHINES 14252 156.73 OFFICE EXPENSE 156.73 101 68010 110 1101 95350 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 168.87 MISC. SUPPLIES 168.87 101 66240 120 95351 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 11721 .05 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,721 .05 101 65100 220 95352 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 125.85 SMALL TOOLS 125.85 620 66700 130 95353 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 995.94 MISC. SUPPLIES 276.58 320 80832 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 719.36 327 81010 120 95354 AHR ENTERPRISES 18416 1 ,513.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11513.00 320 76010 220 95355 PENINSULA PUMP & 18450 773.00 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 773.00 527 66520 230 95356 TONY 'S UPHOLSTERY 18473 304. 12 SUPPLIES 304. 12 620 15000 95357 NATURCLEAN 18830 2,008.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,008.50 527 66520 120 95358 BAY ALARM 18854 2,563.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 154.50 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,872.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 348.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 189.00 619 64460 220 5190 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 05/07/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95335 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 7,175.02 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,175.02 101 68020 220 2300 95336 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 278.31 MISC. SUPPLIES 156.96 101 68020 120 2200 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 121.35 101 66210 219 95337 SAFETY KLEEN CORP. 09168 238.64 RENTS 8 LEASES 238.64 101 68020 180 2200 95338 RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS 09213 23.85 OFFICE EXPENSE 23.85 527 66520 110 95339 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 30,127.28 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 17,149.34 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 12,977.94 618 64520 601 95340 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 782.75 MISC. SUPPLIES 54.77 101 66210 120 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 242.41 101 68020 200 2200 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 429.16 101 65200 203 SMALL TOOLS 56.41 526 69020 130 95341 LEONA MORIARTY 09979 4,200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,200.00 101 68010 220 1644 95342 CAL-STEAM 10557 785.52 SMALL TOOLS 82.83 101 65200 130 MISCELLANEOUS 83.18 101 68020 192 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 276.04 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 46.01 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 138.95 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 149.50 619 64460 120 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 9.01 625 65213 203 95343 DOROTHY O'GRADY 11020 281.45 MISC. SUPPLIES 281.45 527 66520 120 95344 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 519.39 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 519.39 101 64350 210 95345 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 1,082.91 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,082.91 101 65200 203 95346 LC ACTION POLICE SUPPLY 11532 1,753.65 POLICE--SUPPLIES 1,753.65 101 65100 126 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 05/07/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95321 GRAY 'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 26.98 MISC. SUPPLIES 26.98 619 64460 120 5120 95322 ALPINE AWARDS, INC. 01052 188.36 MISC. SUPPLIES 188.36 101 68010 120 1781 95323 BAUER COMPRESSORS 01309 1 ,951 .29 GAS, OIL & GREASE 397.10 101 65200 201 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 773.55 101 65200 203 MISCELLANEOUS 780.64 731 22582 95324 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,301 .63 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,301 .63 101 64560 220 95325 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 01676 72.59 MISC. SUPPLIES 72.59 101 68020 120 2200 95326 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 390.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 390.00 101 68010 240 1100 95327 FEDEX 02160 25.85 MISC. SUPPLIES 25.85 101 64400 120 95328 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 880.88 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 880.88 101 66210 226 95329 K & W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 756.77 MISC. SUPPLIES 61 .59 527 66520 120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 695. 18 619 64460 210 95330 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 270.37 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 118.06 101 68020 190 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 146.66 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.65 619 64460 120 5130 95331 MOTOROLA INC. 02944 31 . 18 SUPPLIES 31 .18 620 15000 95332 NATIONWIDE WIRE & BRUSH MFG. 03002 301 .71 MISC. SUPPLIES 301 .71 528 66600 120 95333 P. G. & E. 03054 16,859.54 GAS & ELECTRIC 16,859.54 101 66240 170 95334 SNAP ON TOOLS 03587 152.87 SMALL TOOLS 152.87 620 66700 130 CITY OF BURLINGAME 04-29-2004 WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 10 FUND RECAP 03-04 NAMEFUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 98,471.21 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 10,239.43 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 78,918.05 WATER FUND 526 216,027.31 SEWER FUND 527 241,802.34 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 5,503.78 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 4,263.57 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 1,393.83 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 497.97 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,063.06 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 5,963.48 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 747.78 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 165,258.74 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 53,960.67 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $884,111.22 / <20-1(,. > l CJ Clc. Zo33S' l 3��3� 9��03�. 2. 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 95204 THROUGH 95320 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $884,111.22, 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, I............................ .../.../... 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 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95313 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 24862 467.64 MISCELLANEOUS 467.64 731 22550 95314 SUBURBAN PROPANE 24863 366.42 TRAINING EXPENSE 366.42 101 65200 260 95315 VERTEX STANDARD 24864 960.80 RADIO MAINT. 960.80 101 65200 205 95316 MAUSSER ELECTRIC CO 24865 70.00 MISCELLANEOUS 65.00 101 31510 MISCELLANEOUS 5.00 731 22518 95317 FRED FIRESTONE 24866 204.73 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 204.73 101 68010 220 1331 95318 BOGDANOFF CONSTRUCTION INC 24867 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 95319 RYAN KLARICH 24868 426.47 TRAINING EXPENSE 426.47 101 65200 260 95320 KIEFER AND ASSOCIATES 24869 317.27 MISCELLANEOUS -25.45 101 23611 MISC. SUPPLIES 342.72 101 68010 120 1892 TOTAL $884,111.22 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95299 MARKELL INC 24492 20.24 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 20.24 101 65200 203 95300 BURLINGAME FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 4,085.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,085.00 130 20016 95301 BURLINGAME FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 48.00 UNION DUES 48.00 130 21080 95302 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 130 20024 95303 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 620.00 MISCELLANEOUS 620.00 130 20024 95304 TEAMSTERS#856 24526 455.00 UNION DUES 455.00 130 21091 95305 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 6.96 130 21015 MISCELLANEOUS 313.64 130 21092 95306 WATER SOLUTIONS 24532 4,200.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 4,200.00 526 69020 260 95307 AT&T WIRELESS 24607 860.86 COMMUNICATIONS 218.65 101 65100 160 UTILITY EXPENSE 642.21 896 20281 95308 AT&T WIRELESS 24640 112.73 COMMUNICATIONS -42.87 101 65100 160 COMMUNICATIONS 69.86 526 69020 160 95309 CENTER HARDWARE 24656 215.73 MISC. SUPPLIES 110.08 619 64460 120 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 105.65 619 64460 210 5110 95310 DIAMOND COMMUNICATIONS INC 24659 270.00 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 270.00 619 64460 210 5130 95311 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB 24700 462.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 462.00 101 65100 220 95312 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY.ACCOUNTS 24796 4,510.83 MISCELLANEOUS 906.80 130 20025 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,604.03 130 20021 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95283 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 805.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 805.00 101 68010 220 1331 95284 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 4,392.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,392.50 528 66600 210 95285 SBC/MCI 23728 5,293.08 UTILITY EXPENSE 51293.08 896 20281 95286 MELISSA GINSBERG 23877 156.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 156.00 101 68010 220 1646 95287 MERRITT SMITH CONSULTING 23903 449.04 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 449.04 526 69020 210 95288 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 250.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292 95289 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 577.54 MISC. SUPPLIES 222.23 101 68010 120 1112 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 355.31 619 64460 2205110 95290 QUILL 24090 224.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 224.08 621 64450 110 95291 ELISE MILANO 24098 216.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 216.00 101 68010 220 1645 95292 SPANGLE ASSOCIATES 24113 4,523.40 DEPOSIT REFUND 41523.40 101 22590 95293 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 910. 16 OFFICE EXPENSE 910.16 101 64250 110 95294 MARY SANTANA 24282 500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 101 68010 220 1781 95295 JERRY FRAYNE 24283 400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 101 68010 220 1781 95296 ROBIN MAY 24285 1 ,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11400.00 101 68010 220 1781 95297 COHEN & JACOBSON 24416 266.20 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 266.20 101 64350 210 95298 RANGER PIPELINES INC 24433 78,424.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 78,424.50 327 80681 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E PAGE 6 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95269 JONES AND MAYER 22818 421.05 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 421.05 101 64350 210 95270 CARL DEQUANT 22842 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 95271 PENINSULA UNIFORM&EQUIPMENT 22899 433.49 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT' 433.49 101 65100 140 95272 IMAGISTIC$ INTERNATIONAL 22924 379.04 OFFICE EXPENSE 70.04 101 65100 110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 309.00 101 65100 220 95273 DENIZ SALON 22973 864.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 864.00 101 22520 95274 NANCY OBEDIN 23039 500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 101 68010 220 1781 95275 TARA PRATT 23040 500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 101 68010 220 1781 95276 BONDLOGISTIX 23088 500.00 OTHER DEBT EXPENSES 250.00 526 69020 764 OTHER DEBT EXPENSES 250.00 527 66520 764 95277 PITNEY BOWES 23128 1,060.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 512.00 101 65100 220 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 548.00 621 64450 200 95278 THE MOBILE STORAGE GROUP 23138 190.00 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 190.00 526 69020 210 95279 OFFICE DEPOT 23153 425.94 OFFICE EXPENSE 425.94 101 68010 110 1101 95280 OFFICE TEAM 23256 1,332.80 MISCELLANEOUS 1,332.80 101 22515 95281 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CO 23306 620.29 OFFICE EXPENSE 232.99 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 54.94 101 65200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 196.82 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 135.54 101 64400 110 95282 ANCHOR DETAILING 23368 283.50 VEHICLE MAINT. 283.50 101 65200 202 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hard Written Checks 95254 SPRINT PCS 20724 90,88 COMMUNICATIONS 51.86 101 64150 160 COMMUNICATIONS 39.02 101 64420 160 95255 ANN MUSSO 21178 - 155.58 OFFICE EXPENSE 155.58 101 64200 110 95256 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 21209 18.14 COMMUNICATIONS 18.14 101 65200 160 95257 BOB BOSCH 21708 300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 68010 220 1781 95258 AT&T 22138 22.16 COMMUNICATIONS 22.16 101 65100 160 95259 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 65.89 SUPPLIES 65.89 620 15000 95260 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN 22216 490.99 OFFICE EXPENSE 490.99 101 65100 110 95261 MIKE TANG 22261 500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 101 68010 220 1781 95262 DAVID WEDEKING 22262 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 95263 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 204.99 MISC. SUPPLIES 204.99 . 620 66700 120 95264 LESCO INC. 22540 517.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 517.78 101 68020 120 2200 95265 CSUS FOUNDATION INC. 22615 120.43 MISCELLANEOUS •6.64 526 23611 TRAINING EXPENSE 127.07 526 69020 260 95266 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 22620 13,309.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13,309.00 101 65200 220 95267 NICK'S DELI AND FINE FOODS 22721 104.86 TRAINING EXPENSE 104.86 101 64420 260 95268 JIM NANTELL 22762 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 64150 031 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95239 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 244.64 OFFICE EXPENSE 244.64 101 64250 110 95240 STEWART AND STEVENSON 17983 5,867.21 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 5,867.21 625 65213 203 95241 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT 18011 211 .09 OFFICE EXPENSE 211 .09 101 64250 110 95242 PARAMOUNT'S GREAT AMERICA 18078 2,712.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 840.00 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,872.00 101 68010 120 1212 95243 LYNNE FIRESTONE 18746 320.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 320.00 101 68010 220 1331 95244 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 117.23 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 117.23 101 64420 240 95245 GOETZ BROTHERS 19045 207.84 MISC. SUPPLIES 77.94 101 68010 120 1785 MISC. SUPPLIES 129.90 101 68010 120 1787 95246 BPS REPROGRAPHIC SERVICES 19047 493.55 MISC. SUPPLIES 493.55 327 81010 120 95247 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 2,497.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,497.50 101 64420 210 95248 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 46.49 MISC. SUPPLIES 46.49 620 66700 120 95249 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 1 , 111 .28 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1 , 111 .28 528 66600 210 95250 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 7,720.00 RENTS & LEASES 3,860.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 3,860.00 527 66520 180 95251 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 290.98 COMMUNICATIONS 290.98 621 64450 160 95252 FRANKLIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 20523 112. 18 OFFICE EXPENSE 112. 18 101 64420 110 95253 LARRY ANDERSON 20716 697.85 MISCELLANEOUS 697.85 101 64350 031 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95227 LIFE ASSIST 09392 255.26 MISCELLANEOUS -2.38 101 23611 SUPPLIES 257.64 101 65200 112 95228 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 4,090.15 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,090.15 618 64520 210 95229 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 1,981.95 MISC. SUPPLIES 170.24 101 68020 120 2200 SMALL TOOLS 122.94 101 68020 130 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 410.42 101 68020 190 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 14.91 101 65200 190 MISC. SUPPLIES 421.66 526 69020 120 SMALL TOOLS 464.74 526 69020 130 TRAINING EXPENSE 11.43 526 69020 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 124.86 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 57.35 619 64460 120 5170 MISC. SUPPLIES 11.34 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 107.17 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 64.89 619 64460 120 5120 95230 PIP PRINTING 10620 2,398.82 MISCELLANEOUS 2,398.82 101 64400 115 95231 NORTH VALLEY OIL 13815 110.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 110.00 620 66700 110 95232 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHINES 14252 2,320.77 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 395.00 101 68010 220 1101 MISCELLANEOUS 1,925.77 101 68010 400 1101 95233 DHL EXPRESS 14958 38.73 OFFICE EXPENSE 38.73 101 65100 110 95234 IZMIRIAN ROOFING 15573 173.42 MISCELLANEOUS 173.42 618 64520 604 95235 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 1,700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,700.00 101 68010 220 1787 95236 CUMMINS WEST, INC. 16414 16.12 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 16.12 619 64460 210 5160 95237 HD INDUSTRIES 17106 9,000.00 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 9,000.00 101 68010 800 1100 95238 MICHAEL COLLOPY 17362 378.88 MISC. SUPPLIES 378.88 101 64100 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95219 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 1,835.84 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,835.84 101 65150 220 95220 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION& 03431 164,786.10 MISCELLANEOUS 164,786.10 731 22587 95221 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 03483 38,422.25 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 38,422.25 527 66530 270 95222 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 14,370.08 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 14,370.08 101 68020 220 2300 95223 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 64250 114 95224 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 4,513.66 MISC. SUPPLIES 493.73 101 68010 120 1422 MISC. SUPPLIES 99.40 101 68010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 487.00 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 366.00 101 68010 120 1891 MISC. SUPPLIES 320.28 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 63.66 101 68010 120 1520 MISC. SUPPLIES 144.00 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES 80.15 101 68020 120 2300 - UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 31.65 101 68020 140 2200 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 138.01 101 68020 140 2300 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 101 68010 220 1641 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00 101 68010 220 1349 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 113.00 101 68010 220 1331_ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 258.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 260.00 101 68010 220 1521 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00 101 68010 220 1645 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 156.00 101 68010 220 1660 DUES&SUBSCRIPTIONS 215.00 101 68010 240 1100 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 55.00 101 68020 250 2200 TRAINING EXPENSE 105.00 101 68020 260 2100 MISC. SUPPLIES 51.00 730 69533 120. . MISC. SUPPLIES 167.78 730 69544 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 34.00 730 69583 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 495.00 730 69533 220 95225 LINDSTROM CO. 09059 3,640.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,640.00 101 68020 220 2200 95226 FASTSIGNS 09136 1,291.47 MISCELLANEOUS 1,291.47 101 68010 400 1100 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 04/29/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95204 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 96.27 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 96.27 625 65213 203 95205 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 130.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 130.00 101 68010 240 1101 95206 VEOLIA WATER 02110 1991135.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199, 135.00 527 66530 220 95207 GENE EVANS 02149 300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 68010 220 1644 95208 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 585 .90 MISCELLANEOUS 585.90 101 68020 192 2200 95209 BRADLEY D. FLOYD 02171 1 ,240.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1 ,240.00 101 65100 260 95210 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 2,290.66 MISCELLANEOUS 2,290.66 896 20282 95211 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 1 ,442. 19 MISC. SUPPLIES 713.92 101 68020 120 2200 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 432.35 526 69020 230 MISC. SUPPLIES 295.92 619 64460 120 95212 CHARLES J . HAPP 02360 700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 95213 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 70.60 SMALL TOOLS 70.60 620 66700 130 95214 P. G. & E. 03054 45,744.95 GAS &ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170 UTILITY EXPENSE 45,734.72 896 20280 95215 SBC 03080 101 .88 COMMUNICATIONS 101 .88 101 65100 160 95216 DOROTHY RADYK 03235 700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00 101 68010 220 1644 95217 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 205,557.80 WATER PURCHASES 205,557.80 526 69020 171 95218 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 6,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,000.00 101 65200 220 1 � 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME 04-23-2004 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP - 03-04 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 112,584.85 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 1,330.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 166,831.68 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 203,699.45 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 612,010.80 WATER FUND 526 7,008.85 SEWER FUND 527 2,440.39 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 27.60 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 29,169.41 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 7,945.32 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,269.71 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 152.50 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 335.64 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 500.00 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 668.24 BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 14,814.10 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 3,278.43 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,164,066.97 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 95080 THROUGH 95203 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF$1,164,066.97, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... ... .................... . .. FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE - APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95196 EXCEL FITNESS SOLUTIONS 24854 475.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 475.00 101 65200 200 95197 SETON IDENTIFICATION PRODUCTS 24855 189.32 MISCELLANEOUS -14.42 619 23611 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 203.74 619 64460 230 95198 STEVE ALMS 24856 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 95199 EBBA IRON SALES, INC. 24857 2,900.00 SMALL TOOLS 2,900.00 326 80320 130 95200 JOSH RUEMMELE 24858 224.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 224.00 101 68010 220 1787 95201 LAURA FIRESTONE 24859 480.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 101 68010 220 1331 95202 ELIZABETH WHITTEMORE 24860 1 ,044.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1 ,044.00 130 20015 95203 VICKY GOLDBERG 24861 965.23 MISCELLANEOUS 111 .37 101 36600 MISCELLANEOUS 185.62 101 36310 MISCELLANEOUS 668.24 731 22515 TOTAL $1 , 164,066.97 i \ 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95183 RUTAN&TUCKER LLP 24678 7,869.76 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 7,869.76 618 64520 210 95184 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 409.64 SMALL TOOLS 409.64 526 69020 130 95185 I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 3,495.56 OFFICE EXPENSE 497.83 101 67500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 58.41 101 65100 120 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 243.09 101 67500 129 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 270.15 101 65100 140 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,426.08 101 65100 800 95186 W.R. FORDE ASSOCIATES 24759 31,784.31 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 31,784.31 327 77040 220 95187 COMMUNITY PLAYGROUNDS 24777 125,442.90 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 125,442.90 320 80970 220 95188 T MOBILE 24846 67.33 COMMUNICATIONS 67.33 101 65100 160 95189 DANIEL LONERGAN 24847 150.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 150.00 101 22520 95190 VICTOR GRAM 24848 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 95191 MAC O'MALLEY 24849 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 95192 TADGH CANNIFFE 24850 1,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525 95193 KATHRYN KARP 24851 1,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525 95194 VICTOR AENLLE 24852 1,200.00 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 1,200.00 618 64520 601 95195 SPORTS HER WAY 24853 346.45 MISCELLANEOUS -27.23 101 23611 MISC. SUPPLIES 373.68 101 68010 120 1781 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95167 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 11127.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1 , 127.00 101 23620 95168 DUNBAR ARMORED 23925 1 ,915.77 BANKING SERVICE FEES 1 ,915.77 101 64250 120 95169 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 383.07 MISC. SUPPLIES 383.07 101 68010 120 1111 95170 MUSIC SYSTEMS 23956 500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 730 69533 220 95171 SANDRO MASCARENHAS 24051 258.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 258.75 101 68010 220 1762 95172 SPANGLE ASSOCIATES 24113 2,886.00 DEPOSIT REFUND 2,886.00 101 22590 95173 CWS UTILITY SERVICES 24249 1 ,440.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,440.00 526 69020 233 95174 THE BERKELEY CHESS SCHOOL 24287 1 ,023.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11023.00 101 68010 220 1349 95175 JC WHITLAM MANUFACTURING 24369 909.05 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 909.05 101 68010 190 1787 95176 C.W. ROEN CO. 24474 458,230.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 458,230.50 327 79480 220 95177 TOLL ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHICS 24476 177.75 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 177.75 619 64460 210 5190 95178 NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION 24485 29,853.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29,853.00 320 79380 220 95179 BAY AREA BANK 24490 8,967.35 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,967.35 326 80770 220 95180 SWRCB FEES 24588 830.00 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 830.00 527 66530 270 95181 MIKE TORRISE 24596 224.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 224.00 101 68010 220 1788 95182 BANK OF WALNUT CREEK 24613 111 ,041 .04 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 111 ,041 .04 327 79480 220 l CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R EG I S T E R PAGE 6 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95152 VB GOLF LLC 21948 693.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 693.00 101 68010 220 1784 95153 THE FLOWER BOUTIQUE 22150 64.95 MISC. SUPPLIES 64.95 101 65100 120 95154 HACH COMPANY 22332 200.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 200.00 526 69020 260 95155 NORTH AMERICAN SPORTS MANAGEMENT 22382 930.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 930.00 101 68010 220 1785 95156 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 13,177.72 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13,177.72 736.64571 220 95157 SYBARI SOFTWARE,INC. 22519 489.43 MISCELLANEOUS 489.43 320 80420 400 95158 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 520.00 UTILITY EXPENSE 520.00 896 20281 95159 PENINSULA UNIFORM&EQUIPMENT 22899 208.60 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 208.60 101 65100 140 95160 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 11,050.00 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 3,094.00 320 79400 210 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 4,309.50 326 79400 210 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 3,646.50 327 79400 210 95161 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CO 23306 268.03 OFFICE EXPENSE 24.89 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 243.14 101 68010 110 1101 95162 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER 23366 1,922.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,922.00 101 68010.115 1101 95163 EMIL GERMANOV 23542 975.00 MISCELLANEOUS .975.00 101 22546 95164 MIKE KORDNER 23613 286.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 286.00 130 20060 95165 GBA MASTER SERIES INC. 23693 4,871.25 MISCELLANEOUS 4,871.25 619 64460 400 95166 THE MARLIN COMPANY 23712 40.60 TRAINING EXPENSE 40.60 526 69020 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95138 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 1,100.00 - PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 1,100.00 326 75170 210 95139 DAN COFFEY 20513 56.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 56.00 101 68010 220 1788 95140 EIP ASSOCIATES 20526 12,673.49 DEPOSIT REFUND 12,673.49 101 22590 95141 ARLETTE PETERSON 20547 496.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 496.25 101 68010 220 1349 95142 SASE COMPANY, INC. 20639 3,253.42 MISCELLANEOUS 3,253.42 101 66210 400 95143 NICHOLS DIAMOND TOOL, INC. 21018 576.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 576.00 101 66210 120 95144 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 2.1140 722.72 MISC. SUPPLIES 722.72 527 66520 120 95145 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 210.82 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.82. 619 64460 220 5130 95146 MARINERS POINT GOLF COURSE 21431 1,100.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,100.00 101 68010 120 1781 95147 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 512.54 OFFICE EXPENSE 59.56 101 65300 110 MISCELLANEOUS 452.98 619 64460 400 95148 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES, INC. 21634 1,313.29 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 17.25 -101 66240 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 330.08 101 66210 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 415.20 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 330.26 527 66520 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 27.60 528 66600 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 109.75 619 64460 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 83.15 620 66700 140 95149 CINGULAR WIRELESS 21747 176.24 COMMUNICATIONS 176.24 101 66100 160 95150 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 10,113.63 MISCELLANEOUS 10,113.63 101 37010 95151 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLERS OFF 21897 21,509.50 MISCELLANEOUS 21,509.50 101 37010 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95124 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 45.02 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 45.02 101 64400 210 95125 IMAGEMAX, INC. 19145 160.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 160.00 101 65300 200 95126 BURTON'S FIRE APPARATUS 19366 268.55 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. -67.09 101 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 335.64 625 65213 203 95127 ROBERT MORTON-JONES 19479 2,163.38 MISCELLANEOUS 2,163.38 526 36730 95128 CANTERBURY INTERNATIONAL 19721 1,207.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,207.50 101 66210 120 95129 CIUCCI CONSULTING GROUP INC 19791 112.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 112.50 101 65300 220 95130 CHI HUA HUNG 19912 1,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525 95131 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 7,396.38 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,760.00 320 79300 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,636.38 736 64570 220 95132 GE CAPITAL 20216 498.67 OFFICE EXPENSE 99.73 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 398.94 101 68010 220 1101 95133 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 152.50 COMMUNICATIONS 152.50 621 64450 160 95134 DESILVA GATES CONSTRUCTION 20299 580.00 MISCELLANEOUS 580.00 526 22502 95135 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 20315 1,875.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,875.00 619 64460 210 5120 95136 CONTROL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 20421 25,465.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,113.60 320 79400 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 16,042.95 326 79400 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,308.45 327 79400 210 95137 LONGS DRUGS 20453 - 19.56 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 19.56 101 65100 292 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95108 DON E. GIOVANNETTI 15229 168.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 168.00 101 68010 220 1788 95109 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,455.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,455.40 101 65100 220 95110 TIM GLENO 15629 336.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 336.00 101 68010 220 1788 95111 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 850.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 850.00 101 68010 220 1787 95112 LINDA HOECK 16390 1,760.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,760.00 101 68010 220 1349 95113 HAROLD FIELDS 16438 224.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 224.00 101 68010 220 1788 95114 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16919 1,186.56 SUPPLIES 1,186.56 620 15000 95115 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 336.89 OFFICE EXPENSE 336.89 101 64250 110 95116 SHAW PIPELINE INC 17959 170,379.65 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 170,379.65 326 80770 220 95117 MICHAEL ADAM 18275 336.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 336.00 101 68010 220 1788 95118 LYNNE FIRESTONE 18746 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1331 95119 ACCESS UNIFORMS 8 EMBROIDERY 18990 208.63 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 208.63 526 69020 140 95120 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY SUPPLY 18991 230.36 TRAINING EXPENSE 230.36 526 69020 260 95121 CHIEF OF PERMITS BCDC 19007 50.00 MISC.. SUPPLIES 50.00 320 80900 120 95122 PREFERRED ALLIANCE 19025 246.40 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 246.40 101 64420 121 95123 JUDY ROSE 19067 445.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 445.50 101 68010 220 1331 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95095 POM INC. 09248 28.75 MISCELLANEOUS 28.75 320 80480 400 95096 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY 09490 708.26 OFFICE EXPENSE 79.46 101 67500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 18.60 101 67500 120 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 493.32 101 67500 129 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 27.66 101 67500 190 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 52.22 101 67500 250 STAFF & MEETINGS 37.00 101 67500 252 95097 OCE'-SRUNING, INC. 09493 857.35 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 857.35 101 66100 210 95098 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 19,298.10 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 13,097.00 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 6,201.10 618 64520 601 95099 CRAIG W. REED 09881 140.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 140.00 101 68010 220 1787 95100 LEE STAMBOLIS 11361 392.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 392.00 101 68010 220 1788 95101 STATE BOARD OFEQUALIZATION11707 424.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 181.00 -101 67500 120 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 243.00 101 67500 129 95102 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 11749 50.47 OFFICE EXPENSE 40.74 101 65100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.73 527 66520 120 95103 THE MAGIC PRESS CORP. 13759 290.11 OFFICE EXPENSE 290.11 101 65100 110 ' 95104 A T & T 13940 882.98 UTILITY EXPENSE 882.98 896 20281 95105 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 524.41 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 524.41 527 66520 230 95106 SENSUS METERING SYSTEMS 14144 1,321.04 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,321.04 526 69020 801 95107 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 88.06 MISC. SUPPLIES 88.06 101 66240 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 04/23/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 95080 ALPINE AWARDS, INC. 01052 23.27 MISC. SUPPLIES 23.27 527 66520 120 95081 BURLINGAME RECREATION DEPT. . 01663 313.00 RECREATION EXPENSES 313.00 101 10700 95082 WACEK DENNAOUI 02044 1,200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,200.00 101 68010 220 1641 95083 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 48.79 MISCELLANEOUS 48.79 101 68020 192 2200 95084 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 58.45 SMALL TOOLS 58.45 619 64460 130 95085 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 1,355.86 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 62.32 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 1,293.54 101 66210 226 95086 P. G. & E. 03054 801.55 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 801.55 618 64520 601 95087 SBC 03080 1,875.45 UTILITY EXPENSE 1,875.45 896 20281 95088 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 528.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 528.00 101 68010 220 1372 95089 DON PLAGMANN 03172 224.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 224.00 101 68010 220 1788 95090 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 20,374.32 MISC. SUPPLIES 14,329.16 101 66240 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,045.16 101 66240 220 95091 RANDY SCHWARTZ 03518 301.04 MISCELLANEOUS 301.04 101 68010 031 95092 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 300.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 300.00 101 65100 120 95093 ROBERT GOODMAN 09048 80.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00 101 68010 220 1660 95094 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1660 CITY OF BURLINGAME 04-15-2004 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP 03-04 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 103,525.42 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 111 ,996.27 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 47,032.68 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 579.08 WATER FUND 526 12,076.59 SEWER FUND 527 6,836.35 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 4,839.75 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1 ,490.91 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 65,477.61 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 22,558.76 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 15, 107.80 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 27,229.96 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 1 ,002.73 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 264.95 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 2,461 .79 FEDERAL GRANTS FUND 737 5,248.95 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 2,570.00 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $430,299.60 vn < 110.00 i D Gig 93 5 L 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 94963 THROUGH 95079 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $430,299.60, 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, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . . 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 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95067 HONEYWELL 24546 6,819.75 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,819.75 320 80790 210 95068 PRESERVATION PAINTING 24552 2,500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,500.00 619 64460 210 5120 95069 GOODIN,MACBRIDE,SQUERI,RITCHIE & 24638 13,886.54 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 13,886.54 101 64350 210 95070 FEDEX FREIGHT WEST,INC. 24748 92.70 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.70 619 64460 120 95071 WALTER LEVISON 24774 2,025.00 DEPOSIT REFUND 2,025.00 101 22590 95072 AD CLUB 24809 656.65 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 656.65 101 64420 150 95073 FRANKLIN COVEY 24839 49.68 TRAINING EXPENSE 49.68 527 66520 260 95074 THE LIGHTHOUSE 24840 17.32 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 8.66 101 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 8.66 625 65213 203 95075 FIX AIR 24841 88.53 MISC. SUPPLIES 88.53 619 64460 120 5120 95076 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING GROUP 24842 1,281.25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,281.25 101 64150 210 95077 NETMOTION WIRELESS INC. 24843 5,248.95 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,248.95 737 65180 800 95078 PETER CHIANG 24844 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546 95079 RITA SINCLAIR 24845 900.00 MISCELLANEOUS 900.00 101 22546 TOTAL $430,299.60 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95054 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 399.62 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 399.62 619 64460 210 5240 95055 ATLAS TOWING 23684 95.00 SUPPLIES 95.00 620 15000 95056 DRYCO CONSTRUCTION 23725 12,756.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,756.00 320 78490 220 95057 SBC/MCI 23728 178.60 COMMUNICATIONS 178.60 101 65150 160 95058 CREATE FOUNDATION 23806 1,691.16 MISCELLANEOUS 1,691.16 731 22543 95059 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 347.60 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 347.60 619 64460 210 5190 95060 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 13,219.68 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,856.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 31386.00 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 42.68 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11967.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 896.00 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 355.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,885.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 732.00 619 64460 220 5210 95061 CITICORP VENDOR FINANCE 24030 66.71 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 66.71 101 65200 200 95062 CATHY GLAZE 24053 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546 95063 QUILL 24090 226.01 OFFICE EXPENSE 226.01 621 64450 110 95064 CHRISTINE REED 24153 539.37 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 539.37 101 65200 250 95065 FLAGS ETC. 24426 32.40 OFFICE EXPENSE 32.40 526 69020 110 95066 OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS 24445 1,926.98 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,926.98 326 80910 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95040 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 23156 175.00 MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 101 64420 031 95041 AT&T WIRELESS 23169 49.00 COMMUNICATIONS 49.00 101 65200 160 95042 OFFICE TEAM 23256 1,880.20 MISCELLANEOUS 1,880.20 101 22515 95043 SIERRA OFFICE SUPPLIES 23301 147.60 OFFICE EXPENSE 147.60 101 65300 110 95044 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CO 23306 260.05 OFFICE EXPENSE 119.12 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 51.10 101 65200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 89.83 621 64450 110 95045 SCAPES, INC. 23326 307.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 307.50 101 68010 120 1101 95046 RECALL- TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT 23411 101.00 MISCELLANEOUS 101.00 101 22518 95047 IBM CORPORATION 23425 251.49 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 251.49 101 65300 200 95048 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. 23436 1,573.15 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,573.15 621 64450 200 95049 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRI 23471 87.00 GAS & ELECTRIC 87.00 101 68010 170 1286 95050 COAST CRANE 23524 1,866.02 MISC. SUPPLIES 933.01 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 933.01 527 66520 120 95051 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 45,105.70 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 44,849.23 326 80722 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 256.47 326 80931 210 95052 BANK OF NEW YORK 23553 2,962.00 BANK TRUSTEE SERVICES 2,962.00 527 66530 763 95053 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 3,011.33 SMALL TOOLS 1,309.44 619 64460 130 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 1,701.89 619 64460 230 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks - 95026 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 3,396.25 TRAINING EXPENSE1,018.88 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,018.85 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,018.88 527 66520 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 339.61 619 64460 260 95027 GREG SCOPAZZI 21618 840.00 - MISCELLANEOUS 840.00 101 22546 95028 STAR COFFEE INC. 21623 244.78 BLDG. &GROUNDS MAINT. 244.78 621 64450 190 95029 D.L. FALK CONSTRUCTION INC. 21647 90,910.03 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90,910.03 320 80370 220 95030 CHRISSY HOLMES 21723 142.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 142.50 101 68010 220 1644 95031 F. FERRANDO 21861 680.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 680.00 101 22520 95032 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 1,212.07 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,212.07 526 69020 120 95033 HACH COMPANY 22332 298.91 MISCELLANEOUS 298.91 526 69020 233 95034 MIKE BLONDINO 22384 635.25 MISCELLANEOUS 635.25 101 68010 400 1100 95035 CAWC WATERPROOFING AND RESTORATI 22708 1,875.00 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,875.00 619 64460 210 5120 95036 JIM NANTELL 22762 232.65 OFFICE EXPENSE 25.85 101 64150 110 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 206.80 101 64150 250 95037 JENKINS/ATHENS INS 22851 9,184.00 CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 9,184.00 618 64520 225 95038 IMAGISTICS INTERNATIONAL 22924 515.50 OFFICE EXPENSE 206.50 101 65100 110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 309.00 101 65100 220 95039 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC 23066 102.50 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 102.50 619 64460 210 5160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 95011 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 295.27 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 295.27 101 65200 220 95012 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 231 .32 MISC. SUPPLIES 55.20 101 64400 120 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 176. 12 101 64200 150 95013 PRIORITY 1 19239 658. 15 SUPPLIES 658. 15 620 15000 95014 BURTON 'S FIRE APPARATUS 19366 133.74 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 133.74 625 65213 203 95015 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 857.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 857.36 320 80970 220 95016 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 4,036.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 41036.00 528 66600 210 95017 WESTERN STAR NURSERIES 19865 770.63 MISCELLANEOUS 770.63 731 22560 95018 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 192.50 COMMUNICATIONS 192.50 621 64450 160 95019 RACQUET SMITH 20339 11284.80 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,284.80 101 68010 220 1782 95020 NOLTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20376 579.08 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 579.08 327 77040 210 95021 DAPPER TIRE CO. , INC. 20464 120.39 SUPPLIES 120.39 620 15000 95022 FRANKLIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 20523 85.37 OFFICE EXPENSE 85.37 101 64420 110 95023 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 521 . 18 MISC. SUPPLIES 521 . 18 527 66520 120 95024 ON CAMERA PRODUCTIONS 21177 2,570.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,570.00 738 64580 220 95025 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 62.54 OFFICE EXPENSE 62.54 621 64450 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 94997 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 12,357.20 SUPPLIES 12,357.20 620 15000 94998 TEAM CLEAN 15827 287.56 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 287.56 101 65200 220 94999 LINHART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOC. 16599 26,237.67 MISCELLANEOUS 26,237.67 101 22515 95000 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 266.35 MISC. SUPPLIES 199.87 527 66520 120 SUPPLIES 66.48 620 15000 95001 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 726.13 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 726.13 101 68020 140 2200 95002 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 680.06 OFFICE EXPENSE 680.06 101 64250 110 95003 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 501.87 MISC. SUPPLIES 501.87 320 80831 120 95004 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE 17546 425.54 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 4.39 101 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT, 421.15 625 65213 203 95005 KELLEHER&ASSOCIATES 18239 1,602.50 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,602.50 618 64520 210 95006 DEESIGNS 18388. 2,281.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 367.90 101 65300 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,914.00 526 69020 120 95007 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING.SERVI 18763 76.88 COMMUNICATIONS 25.63 101 66210 160 COMMUNICATIONS 25.62 526 69020 160 COMMUNICATIONS 25.63 527 66520 160 95008 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 2,569.55 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,569.55 526 69020 260 95009 WESTERN RIGGING PRODUCTS INC 18976 1,353.12 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,353.12 526 69020 210 95010 JJR CONSTRUCTION 18979 3,600.00 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,600.00 526 69020 801 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 94987 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 734.80 MISCELLANEOUS 734.80 101 66210 400 94988 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 7,331 . 14 OFFICE EXPENSE 11100.04 101 65100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 54. 13 101 65150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,270.37 101 65100 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 51 .61 101 65100 140 COMMUNICATIONS 248.51 101 65100 160 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 317.11 101 65150 200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 414.23 101 65100 200 GAS, OIL & GREASE 93.85 101 65100 201 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 730.59 101 65150 220 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 56.00 101 65100 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 142.96 101 65100 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 1 ,509.17 101 65100 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 194.00 101 65150 260 PRISONER EXPENSE 158.91 101 65100 291 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 294.74 101 65100 292 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 65100 703 MISCELLANEOUS 151 .26 320 80480 400 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 228.71 530 65400 200 MISC. SUPPLIES 264.95 730 69574 120 94989 THE MAGIC PRESS CORP. 13759 1 ,262.20 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,262.20 530 65400 120 94990 A T & T 13940 24.63 COMMUNICATIONS 24.63 621 64450 160 94991 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 519.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 519.00 619 64460 210 5160 94992 ADAMSON INDUSTRIES 14414 1 ,424.04 POLICE--SUPPLIES 11424.04 101 65100 126 94993 RECHARGE'EM 14523 135.31 OFFICE EXPENSE 135.31 101 65200 110 94994 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 14692 35.72 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 35 .72 101 68020 190 2200 94995 DHL EXPRESS 14958 54.38 OFFICE EXPENSE 54.38 101 65100 110 94996 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,455.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,455 .40 101 65100 220 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 94975 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 1,348.64 MISC. SUPPLIES 62.09 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 82.88 101 65200 120 BLDG. &GROUNDS MAINT. 58.04 101 68020 190 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,076.96 101 68020 220 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 4.18 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 52.04 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.18 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.27 619 64460 120 5240 94976 P. G. &E. 03054 1.,417.62 GAS&ELECTRIC 331.58 101 66240 170 GAS&ELECTRIC 1,086.04 527 66520 170 94977 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 03483 42.98 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 42.98 101 64200 250 94978 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 651.07 MISC. SUPPLIES 307.85 101 64350 120 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 343.22 101 64350 210 94979 RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS 09213 33.88 OFFICE EXPENSE 33.88 527 66520 110 94980 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 20,906.82 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,754.00 101 65200 220 94981 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 53,246.11 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 4,341.24 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 48,904.87- 618 64520 601 94982 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 174.17 MISC. SUPPLIES 122.61 101 65100 120 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 51.56 101 65200 203 94983 ANA FITZGERALD 09975 240.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00 101 68010 220 1646 94984 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 547.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 547.25 101 65200 111 94985 PIP PRINTING 10620 286.86 OFFICE EXPENSE 286.86 101 65300 110 94966 IDEAL RESTORATIVE DRYING, INC. 11352 1,445.00 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 1,445.00 618 64520 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 04/15/04 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 94963 * EDD 22523 1 ,041 .64 BANKING SERVICE FEES 11041 .64 101 64250 120 94964 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 247.36 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 247.36 625 65213 203 94965 LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDER 01312 326.54 MISC. SUPPLIES 326.54 101 64350 120 94966 HARBOR SAND & GRAVEL 01313 248.51 MISC. SUPPLIES 248.51 101 66210 120 94967 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 2,221 .79 GAS, OIL & GREASE 93.42 101 65200 201 VEHICLE MAINT. 125.02 101 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 104.27 101 65200 203 SMALL TOOLS 56.92 619 64460 130 SUPPLIES 1 ,589.15 620 15000 MISC. SUPPLIES 8.64 620 66700 120 SMALL TOOLS 3. 19 620 66700 130 TRAINING EXPENSE 49.36 620 66700 260 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 191 .82 625 65213 203 94968 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 23,852.08 COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 23,552.08 621 64450 220 94969 COMPUTER TECHNICIANS, INC. , 01987 964.44 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 964.44 621 64450 200 94970 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 222.87 MISCELLANEOUS 222.87 101 68020 192 2200 94971 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 44.93 SUPPLIES 44.93 620 15000 94972 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 436.72 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 436.72 101 66210 226 94973 MACTEC ENGINEERING 02365 803.75 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 803.75 528 66600 210 94974 PENINSULA BATTERIES 02625 115.31 SUPPLIES 115.31 620 15000 l CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA lof ITEM# -" MTG. HcDq 'D0 DATE 5/17/04 DAATED JUNE 6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED sr'` BY DATE: May 12, 2004 APPROVED FROM: Ann Musso, City Clerk By 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: Budget Study Meeting Date, Time and Location RECOMMENDATION: To hold the budget study meeting on June 1st at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Community Room of the Burlingame Library. EXHIBITS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None BURL' AGENDA STAFF REPORT ITEM# 10g MAG. 5/17/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: May 13, 2004 BY APPRO FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT:RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EASTON CREEK STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOX CULVERTS AT NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE AND ROLLINS ROAD, TO NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION CITY PROJECT NO. 80590 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve the attached resolution accepting $310,155 in improvements to the Easton Creek Storm Drain at North Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road by Northwest Construction. BACKGROUND: On August 4,2003 Council authorized a$268,030 contract with Northwest Construction for the Easton Creek Storm Drain Improvements.All construction has been completed satisfactorily and in a timely manner. The project's final net cost is 11% above the contact award which is within the contingency for the project. There were additional costs for water and storm drain repairs, existing culvert cleaning, and utilities coordination. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Final Quantities BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in CIP 80590 for this contract. e Gomery Associate Engineer/Landscape Architect Tel. 650-558-7230 c:City Clerk, City Attorney,Director of Finance,Financial Services Manager,Public Works Director,Northwest Construction U:\FILES\Staff Reports and council presentations\Box Culverts Final Acceptance 5-17-04.SR.wpd RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS EASTON CREEK STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOX CULVERTS AT NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE AND ROLLINS ROAD CITY PROJECT NO. 80590 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The City Engineer of said City has certified the work done by NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION under the terms of its contract with the City dated AUGUST 4,2003, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 80590. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION EASTON CREEK STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 533 AIRPORT BLVD. SUITE#400 BOX CULVERTS AT N.CAROLAN RD.&ROLLINS RD. DATE:May 07,2004 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME FINAL PAYMENT TELEPHONE (650)401-2294 FINAL PAYMENT P.O.No.013263 CITY PROJECT NO.320-80590-220 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT BID BID QTY THIS QTY TO %AGE AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT PRICE SIZE QTY TOTAL PERIOD DATE TO DATE TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD V51 Mobilization 10%of total $25,000.00 LS 1 $25,000.00 0.1 1.0 100% $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 Clearingand Grubbing $11,000.00 LS 1 $11,000.00 0.5 1.0 100% $11,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 3 UtilityCoordination $5,000.00 LS 1 $5,000.00 0.8 1.0 100% $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 4 Pothole ExistingUtilities $750.00 EA 10 $7,500.00 0.0 12.0 120% $9,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Repair of Existing Slope Protection $10.00 SF 300 $3,000.00 0.0 287.0 96% $2,870.00 $0.00 $0.00 Remove existing and Replace with 10 DIP 6 Water Main&Fittings. $450.00 LF 27 $12,150.00 0.0 SEE ATTACHED $0.00 $0.00 Remove existing and Replace with 8"DIP 7 Water Main&Fittings. $425.00 LF 18 $7,650.00 0.0 FINAL PAYMENT -WATERLINE $0.00 $0.00 8'x 5'Precast Reinforced Concrete Box 8 Culvert(134-Linear Feet) $360.00 LF 134 $48,240.00 52.0 134.0 100% $48,240.00 $0.00 $0.00 Asphalt Concrete Pavement including 9 synthetic reinforcement $175.00 Tons 26 $4,550.00 126.0 126.0 485% $22,050.00 $0.00 $0.00 r12 Structural Excavation $70.00 CY 855 $59,850.00 120.0 820.0 96% $57,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 Structural Backfill $150.00 CY 90 $13,500.00 6.0 90.0 100% $13,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Class 2 A re ate Base $55.00 CY 50 $2,750.00 118.0 146.0 292% $8,030.00 $0.00 $0.00 Structural Concrete,Wing walls Walls and Para et-walls $500.00 CY 65 $32,500.00 2.0 62.0 95% $31,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Concrete Curb,Gutter and Sidewalks $65.00 LF 56 $3,640.00 17.0 109.0 195% $7,085.00 $0.00 $0.00 15 Pipe Handrail $35.00 LF 120 $4,200.00 159.0 159.0 133% $5,565.00 $0.00 $0.00 16 lConcreteApron and Sloe Protection $8.00 SF 3,000 $24,000.00 43.0 2043.0 68% $16,344.00 $0.00 $0.00 17 1 Drainage Flap Gates $3,500.00 LS 1 $3,500.00 1.0 1.0 100./.r $3,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL CONTRACT $268,030.00 $265,584.00 $0.00 $0.00 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS CREDITI j1400 Marsten Rd repairs-private property ($905.00) L.S. 1 $905.00 1 1 100.00% $905.00 $0.00 CREDIT United Concrete Pumping-stop notice $1,743.58 L.S. 1 $1,743.58 1 1 100.00% $1,743.58 $0.00 ADD Release of payment to United Concrete $1,743.58 L.S. 1 $1,743.58 1 1 100.00% $1,743.58 $1,743.58 ADD C.C.O.#1:Utility work $17,931.43 L.S. 1 $17,931.43 1 1 100.00% $17,931.43 $0.00 ADD C.C.O.#2:Miscellaneous additions $27,544.32 L.S. 1 $27,544.32 1 1 100.00% $27,544.32 $0.00 $44,570.75 $1,743.58 $0.00 PREPARED BY: 1,4 A Y 2 SUBTOTAL ************ $310,154.75 $1,743.58 $0.00 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES(DEDUCTION) `*"""'*** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CHECKED BY: LESS TEN PERCENT RETENTION(DEDUCTION) ******** ($31,015.48) ($174.36) $0.00 (� SUBTOTAL WITH DEDUCTIONS """'***** $279,139.27 $1,569.22 $0.00 CONTRACTOR:�� " �� �� ADD FIVE PERCENT RETENTION(ADDITION) $15,507.74 NORTHWEST CON. TOTAL THIS PERIOD-REMAINING FIVE PERCENT RETENTION $15,507.74 APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER: U:\FILES\Box Culverts-Rollins Rd and N Carolan Avenue-80590 and 80600\Construction Administration\Progress Payments\Final Payment 3-15-04.xls 5/6/20041'.31 PM CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 12a ITEM# MTG. SCD p04A CD JUNE 6"10 DATE 5/17/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BYIr1✓� l LCL DATE: May 12, 2004 APPROVED FROM: Ann Musso, City Clerk By 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: Request direction on whether to cancel the Regular Council Meeting scheduled for July 19 and August 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATION: Request that Council direct staff on whether to cancel the July 19"' and August 16, 2004 Council meetings. In the past, due to summer vacations, these meetings have been cancelled. EXHIBITS: None BUDGET IMPACT: None BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes March 16, 2004 I. Call to Order President Catherine McCormack called the meeting to order at 4:30pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Cecile Coar, Mary Herman, Catherine McCormack, Carol Rossi Trustee Absent: Dave Carr Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the warrants. M/S/C (Herman/Coar) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the February 17, 2004 meeting. M/S/C (Rossi/Coar) V. Correspondence and Attachments A. Evans and Brown' Mural - Eliminating the bulletin boards in the children's room and replacing them with a mural is under consideration. Evans and Brown, who designed the murals at the Tiburon Library and are designing the donor book spines for Easton, have given an initial estimate of$10,000 for the children's mural. The Trustees requested this matter be agendized for the April meeting and that,Evans and Brown be asked to prepare a proposal. B. Outreach Program - An obituary on Gertrude Cummings, who read over 500 books through the outreach program, prompted discussion among the Trustees as to the possibility of increasing the scope of the program. Trustee Rossi volunteered to help coordinate the Outreach program with other service agencies and noted that she had contacts who would deliver books. Trustee Rossi suggested that "Outreach" activity be included in the monthly statistic report. _ VI. From the Floor 48o Primrose Road•Burlingame•CA 94010-4083 Phone (650) 558-7474'Fax(650) 342-6295 VII. Reports A. City Librarians Report - Highlights of Report 1. Easton Renovation - The Trustees viewed the tiles for the period tile mural which will be mounted on a board, framed and placed above the entrance to the children's area. 2. Easton Donors - The City Librarian sent a letter and photo to major Easton donors apprising them of current construction happenings. 3. Change of Hours for Main - Library will close Friday at 5:00pm but will remain open from 1:00-5:00pm Sunday. Monday through Thursday hours will remain the same. 4. Easton Hours - Easton will be open five additional hours during the week. The schedule is as follows: Monday through Thursday 2:00 - 8:00pm, Friday and Saturday 2:00 - 5:00pm, closed on Sunday. Evening story time will be held one night during the week. 5. Baker & Taylor - The Library has contracted with Baker and Taylor to catalogue adult fiction; books will be "shelf ready" when shipped. Members of the Foundation executive board have expressed an interest in funding the Opening Day collection for Easton. B. Foundation Report - The next board meeting is scheduled for April 8th. The Nominating Committee has proposed three nominees to serve on the board. Ballots will be sent to each member. C. Budget Review - The City Librarian reviewed the following budget matters. 1. Budget Reductions - At their February 28th study session, the City Council accepted the Library Trustee's request to keep Sunday openings by using the one time insurance flood money for the book budget and using the Library's share of the general fund to keep Sunday openings for the current fiscal year. The City Librarian has submitted this proposal in his budget. 2. Transit Occupancy Tax - This tax which is received from the hotels has increased 1.1% over the same month last year. 3. Golden Handshakes - Employees in the categories of Librarians I, II, III and Library Assistants I, I1, II1 who are eligible for the golden handshake will have until April 26th to accept the City's offer. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 March 16,2004 D. CALTAC Grassroots Library Politics Seminar-Rossi The CALTAC seminar provided the attendees with ideas and suggestions of possible ways for libraries to continue services and raise funds during difficult fiscal times. Trustee Rossi gave the Trustees a summary of the suggestions that Burlingame Library might find useful. E. Workshop for Library Supporters-Trustee McCormack will attend the Literacy Through Music Event breakfast March 24th. F. Peninsula Community Foundation Investment Meeting The City Librarian discussed the 3 funds that the Foundation provides for its clients investment: Endowment Pool,Advised Funds and Charitable Remainder Trusts. The Roger and Jean Hunt Duncan Fund is 100%invested in the Endowment Pool and the investment return is presently 10%. VIII. Unfinished Business A. Main Library Schedule-The Trustees unanimously approved the new library hours,as presented, for the fiscal year July 1, 2004 to June 30,2005 with the understanding that when the economic situation has improved,the Friday night hours will be reinstated. M/S/C(Coar/Herman) IX. New Business A. Easton Branch Schedule-The Trustees unanimously approved the new library hours for the Easton Branch with the expectation that Sunday openings will be instituted in the future when the City's economic situation improves. M/S/C(Herman/Coar) X. Announcements A. Question and Answer Brochure Annual Report-The Trustees were pleased with the format our staff artist, Maryam Refahi created for the brochure. Trustee Rossi suggested that a brochure in a different color scheme and using the same format should be designed for Easton. B. Legislative Day-Trustee Rossi will attend this event to be held in Sacramento on April 21st;Trustee McCormack will attend, if her schedule permits. C. Change of Meeting Date-The Trustees requested that the next Trustees'meeting be changed from April 20th to April 27th. A formal notice of the meeting change will be prepared for posting. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 March 16,2004 XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:00pm. The next meeting of the Library Trustees will be held April 27, 2004 at 4:30pm in the Library Conference Room. M/ S/C Rossi/McCormack Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 4 March 16, 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 10, 2004 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojues called the May 10, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners Auran,Bojues,Brownrigg,Keighran,Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney,Larry Anderson; Senior Engineers,Phil Monaghan and Doug Bell III. ROTATION OF OFFICERS Chair Bojues thanked the Commission and staff for their support over the last year and passed the gavel to C. Osterling who will serve as the Chair for the coming year. C.Osterling introduced the other officers for the year C.Auran as vice-chair and C. Bronwrigg as secretary. IV. MINUTES The minutes of the April 26, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended:page 2 add to the second bullet at the top ofthe page"part of that would be to revise paring and back-up space at the rear and east edge of the site";page 4 add to fifth bullet at bottom"connect grade lines between houses";page 7 paragraph 3 add to end, "property owners of creek lots pay taxes on the entire lot area,are required to maintain the creek which is privately owned as well as to comply with regulations of the Army Corps of Engineer and Department of Fish and Game, some lots presently developed would not be allowed to be developed with these regulations because construction has to bridge the creek in order to have sufficient area to build on";page 8,regarding emerging lots add to commission discussion"did not evaluate all situations, some lots below the grade of others or one side of the street would be treated differently than lots on the other side for example three existing lots become independently available for development on one side of the street and one lot emerges into three on the other side". A motion was made to approve the minutes as amended by C.Vistica. The motion was seconded by C.Keighran. C.Brownrigg noted that he would abstain since he did not attend the last commission meeting. The motion passed on a 6-0-1-1 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, C. Keele absent)voice vote. The action on the minutes of the April 24,2004,Joint City Council/Planning Commission was continued so that C. Brownrigg could make some amendments. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. VI. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VIL STUDY ITEMS 1. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JOHN F. BRITTON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RONALD A. PERNER,ARCHITECT)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Provide reason why former garage can't be used; • Converting the existing garage to storage won't make the variance go away,may not be viable,but should explore; and • Can you divide garage door into two and add a column in between 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 7:20 p.m. 2. 415 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-1/R-3 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD A COLUMBARIUM TO AN EXISTING CHURCH(ST.PAUL'S EPISCOPAL -� CHURCH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Is it a common use to have a columbarium in a church, do other churches have these; • Will more units be added at a later date, is this just the first phase; • Will this use generate a lot of visitors; • What will the visiting hours be; • Are there other requirements for a burial site,public health, city, etc.; and • Why is there not additional parking required. 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 7:25 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 1249 BERNAL AVENUE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND—, SIDE AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (LINDA FRYE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;MARK ROBERTSON,DESIGNER)(57 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 311. 318 CHANNING ROAD,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(BARRY RAFTER,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;GEORGE RYAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3C. 1148 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(BRIAN AND GINA FORNESI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner did not wish to pull item 3c. 1148 Oxford Road off the agenda but wanted to add a condition of approval to require that all windows shown on the plans be true divided light windows. There were no requests from the floor to remove any times. C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution, with the added condition to item 3c. 1148 Oxford, requiring that the windows shown and installed be true divided light windows. The motion was seconded by C.Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL �,. PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BURAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE,TRG ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT)(60 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 10,2004,with attachments. C.Keighran recused herself from this item because she resides within 500 feet of the subject property. She left the Council Chambers. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Randy Grange,TRG Architects,205 Park Road,was available to answer questions. He suggested discussing this project in three parts 1)house above grade;2)basement;3) two car garage, since it becomes confusing to discuss the entire project together. This was a challenging project,wanted to please the neighbors,but also design a buildable house. The house is only one and a half stories, bungalow style, which is a historical style that is found throughout Burlingame. Design is neighborhood friendly,there is an additional 1 foot setback on the side, 5 feet instead of 4 feet, dormer on the side that faces the neighbor only has small windows and they are for a stairwell and a closet. Because the design is one and half stories it does have unusable attic spaces over 5 feet in height that are counted toward the total floor area ratio. The Commission mentioned a 5 to 10 percent reduction in the total floor area at one of the past meetings, however it never got in as a bullet point in the minutes. The Commission also talked about taking some of the square footage off of the top and putting it in the basement, however the code prohibits locating bedrooms in the basement. Looked at reducing floor area,but can't reduce to less than four bedrooms, so took out one bathroom and pushed back from the street. If you take out a large dormer it only amounts to 60SF reduction based on the attic calculations. The property owners hired a civil engineer to analyze the storm drain system in the area and the basement. There are no drainage problems `— that are not typical and can not be addressed. The basement is the result of the guidelines passed a few years back,if this basement isn't acceptable then the rules need to be revised. Only need one car garage,but have 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10,2004 provided two spaces since that is what is there now and there is a parking problem in the area. Decided to leave both the basement and garage as originally proposed. Commission noted that the chimney on the right----, side is taller and asked if the windows will be true divided light windows. Architect noted that by code the chimney has to be 2 feet above the roof for a wood burning fireplace and that the windows will be true divided light windows. Bob Gilson, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, Gina O'Neal, 1516 Drake Avenue, and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue representing the Garcias, the Ochses, and the Bears who could not be present, had the following comments; noted that this project has been before the Planning Commission three times, the design harmonizes the neighborhood and is within the allowable floor area ratio and urge the Commission to approve the project;owner made good effort to address Commission concerns and removed deck and moved windows,included neighbors in the process,concerned with shingle siding,this would be the only shingle house on the block,would like to see lighter color treatment of the shingles and roofing materials,noted that houses in the neighborhood have lighter colors and appear less large, in support of a two car garage, necessary; appreciate efforts of the owners, but was only reduced by 184 SF, the design is neighborhood friendly, looked at other shingle houses in the neighborhood and notice that the older ones have turned darker over time, newer ones are lighter in color, would like to see more mature landscaping added to the landscape plan, thanks for addressing basement and drainage. Randy Grange responded that the they were intending to use a 40 year Elk roof shingle to add texture and it is not real dark, and that they were also planning on using an opaque light stain, not yet selected. Commission noted that lighter color may make the structure look larger and that a darker color may help visually to reduce the size. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: windows should be true divided light windows,add as a condition;good example of effort from both the neighbors and the applicant;two car garage is fine,think in this area that it is needed; great project, mass and bulk were substantially reduced by design,took advantage of the basement;porch makes this a community friendly house; on the landscape plan there is a Noble Laurel on the driveway side where the neighbor was referring too this will be an evergreen tree with a multi-trunk dark green and believe that it will provide adequate screening; commend architect on this job; color is not really within Commission's purview, however a light color seems appropriate but not a bright light color. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 21, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5 and L1.0;with a 434 SF(20'-8"W x 2P-0"D)detached garage and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; with all windows to be true divided light;2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s)and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer;4)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury•— certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Plannint 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; 6)that 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8)that the conditions of the City Arborist's January 29, 2004 memo, and the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and Recycling Specialist's December 22, 2003, memos shall be met;9)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues . Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstained and C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dias. 5. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 1 AND LOT 2 ZONED R-1- (DEREK CHUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL JUNG, ABR ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER a. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOTS b. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 1 - application for design review, hillside area construction permit, and special permit for an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling �-- c. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE, LOT 2 - application for design review, hillside area construction permit and special permit for an attached garage for a new two-story single family dwelling Reference staff report May 10,2004,with attachments. Plr.Barber presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-three conditions were suggested for consideration for lot 1 and twenty-six conditions were suggested for consideration for lot 2. Noted that conditions of approval for both lots refer to April 14, 2004,plans but should read April 28, 2004,plans. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Derek Chung,property owner, 1504 Alturas Drive and Michael Jung,architect,4075 Papazuan Way,Fremont,were available to answer questions. Mr.Chung noted that he tried to address the Planning Commission's concerns, which were mostly on lot #2 regarding the 15% driveway verses the 12%driveway. They decided to keep the 12%driveway. With the original plans they had a 15% driveway proposed , then during the design review process with Jerry Winges he suggested reducing the slope and thought it would be a better solution. Provided a cross section in the revised plans that shows both a 12%and 15%to show the difference between the two. Decided that the 12%slope was a better alternative for the following reasons: 1)safety for a better approach;2)appears cleaner from the street without a big drop down; 3)practicality,don't want cars to scrape when entering and exiting the driveway. Lot#2 has three retaining walls,the north wall steps down, is a terraced wall, 3'6"at the lowest point and 10' at the highest point. Planning on planting vine plants to cover the wall,blue star creeper and rosemary, he submitted a picture. The wall will also have a stone veneer to soften the appearance. The neighbors at 1500 Alturas originally had a concerns with the ash trees proposed, however have changed the ash to flowering cherry and now the neighbor is happy. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10,2004 Commission stated they would like to see all the windows be true divided light windows. Stated that do not like shutters that don't fit the size and shape of the window they are hung next to, would like to this as a �. condition of approval. Commission noted that due to the driveway slope on lot#2 there are places where tht. retaining wall will be 12' tall, can anything be done to reduce the height of the walls. Owner shouldn't expect a flat driveway on a hillside property. Retaining wall on north side is a problem, need to reduce height and appearance. Will be better and safer construction and will reduce difficulty with drainage problems if you bring driveway lower. Don't build a 12' retaining wall if you don't have to. Mr. Jung responded that after final construction when the footing is burred and the site is graded it won't appear to be 12 feet,the terrace was created to reduce the vertical appearance of the retaining walls. The 15%slope for a driveway run that is this short makes for an uncomfortable transition to a flat garage slab. Commission noted that up to a 20% driveway slope is allowed with a conditional use permit. The driveway has a 35' length, should sink house down like the house on either side, reduce plate heights to 9 feet and increase driveway slope. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to see condition added that requires handing digging for base and arborist supervision during the construction of the concrete walkway near the Redwood tree, and that this walkway should be changed to pavers;big improvement on this project with design review,visual impact has been addressed, would like to add a condition that true divided light windows be installed, overall support project. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions as amended during Commission discussion. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for re emerging lots,and the design review,hillside area construction permit and special permit for attached garage for both lots 1 and 2. The motion failed on a 2-4-1 (Cmrs. Boju6s, Brownrigg, Osterling and Vistica dissenting and C. Keele absent)roll call vote. Discussion on the motion: can not support the project,it is fundamentally flawed;o.k.with the house on the right, but there are a lot of unresolved issues with the house on the left, are going to need to push it back. Commission consulted with CA Anderson and asked if the project can be divided,can Commission just vote to approve lot 1 and continued lot 2. CA Anderson stated that yes the project can be divided,but in order to approved lot 1 Commission must also take action to approve conditional use permit for approval of the re- emerging lots. Commission gave the following direction to the applicant for lot 2: • Need to lower driveway by increasing the slope to 15%and reduce the plates on the first and second floors to 9 feet; and • May need to push the house back,that might cause trouble with the two protected trees on the lot,but this is a large house and applicant may be forced to reduce to the size of the house to address this issue. C.Vistica made a motion to continue the action on lot 2 until the applicant has revised the plans and moved to approve the application for the conditional use permit for re-emerging lots and approve the application for lot #1 only for design review, hillside area construction permit and special permit for a an attached garage by resolution,with the following conditions as amended during Commission discussion: 1) that thk project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 14, 2004, sheets A1.0 through A5.0, topo, C-2 and L1.0, site plan, floor plans, roof plan,building elevations, 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 grading and drainage plan, and landscape plan;2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;3)that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's,Fire Marshal's,and the City Engineer's November 17,2004 memos shall be met and the City Arborist's December 11, 2003 memo shall be met along with the approved arborist's report date stamped January 6,2004;4) that the 24"Weeping Willow tree located in the front of Lot #1 is approved for removal by the City Arborist as per Code Section 11.06.060(c); 5) that the 43" Coastal Live Oak located on Lot#2,immediately adjacent to Lot#1,shall not be removed and the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures , prior to any grading or demolition on the site. The tree protection measures,as defined in the applicant's arborist report by the Green Jeannie (date stamped January 6, 2004) which has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, shall be maintained on site until after the final inspection and the City Arborist authorizes their removal;the contractor shall call for the City Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a grading permit shall be issued, and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the certified arborist's report; failure to continually provide the tree protection and implementation of any of those requirements in the arborist's report shall result in the property owner paying for an independent inspection of the site by an arborist selected by the City;6) that a certified arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, and that a certified arborist shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met;inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and that a certified arborist shall be given written authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection,conservation and maintenance of trees on the site,and the City Arborist �-- may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 7) that prior to demolition or construction the 43" Coastal Live Oak located on right side of Lot#2,immediately adjacent to Lot#1,shall be trimmed,raising the fringe only six feet over the existing roof line,this shall be done under the direct supervision of a certified arborist at a time during the project determined by the City Arborist; 8) that prior to demolition or construction 6"of mulch shall be placed 10' around the trunk of the 43" Coastal Live Oak located on the right side of Lot #2, immediately adjacent to Lot#1,but shall not be placed directly against the trunk; 9)that prior to demolition of the rear deck temporary barrier fencing shall be placed at 8' on the southwest side of the 43"Coastal Live Oak,and 28'on the northeast side of the trunk; 10)that after the demolition of the rear deck,but prior to the construction of the new homes,protective barrier fencing shall be placed as close to the drip line of the 43" Coast Live Oak as possible and shall remain in place throughout the construction of both houses on Lot#1 and Lot#2; 11) that the protective barrier fencing shall be a minimum of 4 feet high,and shall be made of pig wire, snow fence, or cyclone fence, with steel stakes or pipes as posts; there shall be no storage of materials or equipment,unnecessary trenching,grading or compaction within the protective barrier fencing; encroachment into these areas is forbidden; 12) Tree Maintenance: The developer shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the 43" Coastal Live Oak, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the January 6, 2004 Green Jeannie report as well as such additional recommendations as the developer shall receive from a certified arborist; 13) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 14) 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; 15) that demolition of the existing 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 16) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,set the building envelope; 17) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 18) 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; 19) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 20) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 21) 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; 22) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 23) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 24)that the shutters shall be consistent with the size and shape of the windows; and 25)that all windows shall be true divided light windows. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue action on lot 2 pending plan revisions and approve the conditional use permit for re-emerging lots and the design review, hillside area construction permit and special permit for attached garage for lot 1. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Keele absent)vote. .Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 6. 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 10, 2004,with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration.Commissioner asked if the story poles as installed had been surveyed.Staff noted yes. The commissioners all noted that they had made a site visit. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer; Denise Balestrieri, property owner and Sonya Son, property owner; Aneglo Arsella, 2731 Summet; Greg Kosko, 6 Hillview Court; spoke. The applicant noted that two of the three chimneys were removed because they were not needed change type and the third,wood burning with spark arrestor in the family room is only 2 feet taller than the lower ridge of the master bedroom area,and will not be visible.Commissioner asked if the roof could be designed with a 5:12 --� slope. Designer noted that it could be but would affect the volume inside the 9 foot plate, this building is one story and would like to keep the roof pitch, can't see the structure from the street, did study 5:12 and 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 8:12, thought 6:12 looked the best; removed the chimneys because the neighbors did not want them; Commissioner noted concern about the plantings in the southeastern corner of the lot,to protect views need something not straight up,need a medium scaled tree-like-shrub whose height is easy to maintain and keeps a nice form; Commissioner asked if the windows are true divided lights; applicant noted that they were; Commissioner asked about the spark arrester on the remaining chimney, looks like it is 3 feet wide rising over the ridge. Neighbors commented: live in property to the right, was out of town, returned last night, looked out of window and this proposed project blocks a good portion of view of East Bay; story poles did not include area of chimney retained so do not know if it blocks view;strong concern about plantings along fence if over 6 feet(higher than fence)will block his view to the southeast and east,shrubs should be kept to a maximum 6 feet. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: design is nice, the structure is single story, it is 1000 SF under FAR, the plate height is 9 feet which is typical for first floors in the city,roof pitch is OK; field visit indicated that distant views from Kosko and Payne houses are not blocked,recognize problem with landscaping and would like a condition added that the landscaping along the fenced property line not exceed a certain height. Landscaping should be kept to the height of the fence. Concerned about the views from the house at 2731,could not view story poles from there since no one was home,uncomfortable acting until have made a site visit there;this lot calls for a one story house with interior court yard; nice house design, visited neighbors, no view blockage, can continue item for additional site visit; fence could have small shrubs in front or be softened with a vine planted on the inside and kept to a certain height,vines would grow through the fence and soften both sides. �.. C. Vistica noted uncomfortable acting without seeing the view form the uphill neighbor so would move to continue this item to the next meeting so that the commissioners could view the story poles from the uphill property would also like to see a pole added to the story poles to indicate the height of the one chimney retained. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: the applicant could also return with a landscaping suggestion for the areas of concern along the fence. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue for additional site inspection,revision to the landscape plan to address plantings along the fence lines,and installing a pole to demarcate the location and maximum height of the one remaining chimney with spark arrester. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent)voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 7. 836 NEWHALL ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT ALFARO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 10,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Robert and Germaine Alfaro, 840 Newhall Road, property owners were present to answer any questions. Commission noted that plans did not call out window type, 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 asked if windows were going to be true divided light windows. Mrs.Alfaro asked for clarification on what the Commission meant by"true divided light"windows. Commission clarified did not want thin,stick on mullions on plate glass window, suggested adding a condition of approval requiring true divided light windows with small panes and wood between. Commission noted that plans do call out stucco mold for the window trim, the Alfaros confirmed that the window trim will be stucco mold. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this is a big house,but it is on a big lot and is well designed. C.Visitica 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 April 28,2004,sheets 1 through 6,site plan,floor plans,roofplan,building elevations and landscape plan;2) that all windows shall be trued divided light windows and the windows will be trimmed with stucco mold; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's, Chief Building Official's,Fire Marshal's,and the City Engineer's March 29,2004 memos shall be met;5) 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)that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 8)that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;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; 10)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 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; 12) 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; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 14) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:58 p.m. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 8. 1132 DOUGLAS AVENUE, ZONED R-4—APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (99 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER a. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report May 10,2004,with attachments. C.Vistica recused himself from this item because he owns property within 500 feet of this site, and he left Council Chambers. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer,project architect,851 Burlway Road,was available, he explained that he revised the drawings to include a delivery space and added articulation along the west elevation,the trees along the left side were also revised. There has been an arborist report prepared for the oak tree next to the property on the left side. Commission thanked the project architect for coming up with a solution for the delivery space,preferred the changes made to the landscape plan, and asked the applicant what type of pavers would be used for the delivery space. The project architect noted that they were exploring two different pavers,one is a concrete block with spaces where grass can grow in between and the other one is plastic, interlocking pavers that are set a little lower to allow grass to cover them completely. Commission noted that on the front elevation the scale of the third floor bay seems to dominate the front entry, has the architect looked at that Mr. Meyer explained that he looked at that element and examined some options with the Spanish style that is being used. Tried to use the element to add more style,looked at �.. making the window narrower,but that would accentuate the height of the building. Commission thanked the applicant for addressing the previous comments and removing the variance and acknowledged that it is a good project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C.Auran 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 28, 2004, sheets P 1 through P6,site plan,floor plans,roof plan,building elevations and sections,sheet C-),boundary and topographic survey,sheet T-1,tentative parcel map,and sheet L-1,landscape plan;2)that the property owner and/or contractor shall call for the City Arborist to inspect the protection measures and pruning of the 19.9 inch diameter Coast Live Oak prior to issuance of the demolition permit; 3) that the tree protection measures,as defined in the applicant's arborist report by the Mayne Tree Expert Company,Inc.(dated April 19,2004)which has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist,shall be maintained on site until after the final inspection and the City Arborist authorizes their removal; failure to continually provide the tree protection and implementation of any of those requirements in the arborist's report shall result in the property owner paying for an independent inspection of the site by an arborist selected by the City; 4)that a licensed/qualified tree trimmer/arborist shall perform the tree trimming as indicated in Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. report dated April 19, 2004; 5) that protective chain link fencing shall be installed at 10' away from the Coast Live Oak,and there shall be no construction activity within this area,including storage of materials and/or equipment;6)that a certified arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones,and that a certified arborist shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met;inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately;and that a certified arborist shall be given written authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on the 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10,2004 site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection,conservation and maintenance of the Coast Live Oak adjacent to the site,and the City Arborist may also stop work for any-1 violation of the conditions related to the protection,conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 71 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; 8)that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's December 29,2004 memos,the Fire Marshal's January 4,2004 memo,and the City Engineer's January 20,2004 memo shall be met; 9)that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 59.49'as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Douglas Avenue(24.49)for a maximum height of 35',and that the turret on the right side of the building which houses the mechanical equipment for the third(upper unit shall have a maximum elevation of 61',or 36.51' from average top of curb,and that the turret shall not exceed 5%of the rooftop area;10)that the finished grading of the garage floor,the finished slab of the garage floor,the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the construction and framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor shall be elevation 14.9%first floor finished floor shall be elevation 24.9% second floor finished floor shall be elevation 34.9%third floor finished floor shall be elevation 44.9%and the top of ridge elevation shall be 59.49'. 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; 11)that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property comers,set the building envelope; 12)that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 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;14)that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 15)that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department;complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time ofbuilding permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 16) that an irrigation plan consistent with the City's water conservation guidelines shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit;17)that the underground parking garage shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee,solely for the condominium owners,and that no portion of any parking area and/or egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities, there shall be no storage of automobiles,boats or recreational vehicles within assigned or guest parking stalls;and that the none of the parking spaces shall be rented,leased or sold; 18)that the guest parking shall not be assigned to any unit and shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association for the use of all visitors to the site;and that'guest parking stall'shall be marked on the guest parking space and shall be located in a code compliant parking stall; 19)that parking assignments to each dwelling unit shall be left to the developer and tenant association however at least one space shall be assigned to each unit;20)that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs)for the condominium project shall require that the guest parking stall shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents;21)that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit;22)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 ofthe property, including but not limited to the roof,painting,common area carpets,drapes and furniture;23)that the trash receptacles,furnaces,and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 24)that 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; 25) that the design of the new building shall incorporate the seismic standards of the California Building Code, 2001 edition; 26) that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame for structural stability; 27) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) standards; 28)that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices)to be used to prevent soil,dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed,locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas;areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures;watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project;and designated construction access routes,staging areas and washout areas; 29)that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; 30)that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats,and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 31)that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way,clean off- site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 32)that if construction is done during the wet season(October 15 through April 15),that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoffby inspecting,maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding,mulching matting,or tarping;rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; coveringhWing stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 33)that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off,promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers,herbicides and pesticides; 34)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, 35)that drainage from paved surfaces,including parking lots,driveways and roofs,shall be routed through buffer strips where possible and shall be filtered through fossil filters or other petroleum absorbent system inserted into stormwater inlets prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all filters on at least a biannual basis as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season(October 15—April l)or as required by the City upon inspection; 36)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; 37)that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to complywith all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 38) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 39)that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 40)that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA; 41) that all new utility connections to serve the site,and which are affected by the development,shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; 42) that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site;43) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 standards as required by the development; 44) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 45) that all drainage (including water from the below grade parking garage) on site shall be required to be collected and pumped to Douglas Avenue; 46) 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; 47)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; and 48) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Vistica abstaining and C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:11 p.m. C. Vistica returned to the dias. 9. 299 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A LIMITED FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT (ALLAN D'AMBRA, APPLICANT; SALMA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 10, 2004, with attachments. Plr Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the previous business on this site had been limited food service, staff noted it was. CA Anderson noted the -� previous applicant could have operated a deli as a limited food service, he would ask the Commission to adc a condition that there be no sales of alcoholic beverages from this site because of its proximity to active bars in the immediate area. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Allen D'Ambra, applicant, represented the project. He noted that the bread would be baked elsewhere, they would add toppings and heat on site. Originally thought that they would use a conveyer oven, but wiring in the building is not sufficient so will use one or two table top ovens about 23" wide by 18" tall and 26" deep. Commissioner asked if outdoor seating would be provided; previous business had two foot square tables with a chair on each side along the sidewalk, would like to do, these are metal tables and will be brought inside at night; Commissioner expressed concern about trash, think that with this use will need to pick up more than once a day. Applicant noted that there will be a trash can inside which will be emptied as needed. CP noted that the conditions require the applicant to install a streetscape approved trashcan on the sidewalk and to maintain (empty) that as necessary. Applicant noted that their emphasis will be on quality. When asked about hours of operation, applicant noted that they indicated the latest hours they would consider, realizing that they could always close earlier but that they would have to return to the commission to extend the hours. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: don't see any negative effect from this change, only increasing the hours, am willing to make a motion but do not know what to do about the sale of alcoholic beverages, applicant did not respond to attorney's comment. Chair Osterling reopened the public hearing. Allen D'Ambra, applicant, spoke regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages, noting that the current tenant has a license to sell alcohol at retail in the bottle and they would like to do the same, no intention of selling alcohol to be consumed on the premise. CA noted that 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 concern was selling take out alcohol which would be taken across the street to the bars,would be OK if not sold after 5 p.m. Applicant noted that they were planning to remove the bottles from the window displays at night,would like to be able to sell pizza and a bottle of wine for dinner,could stop selling alcohol at 7 p.m. CA thought stopping at 7:00 p.m. would work. There were no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. C.Bojues referring to his and other Commissioners comments,made a motion to approve by resolution with the following amendments to the conditions to stop the sale of any kind of alcohol from this site at 7 p.m. daily; that the on-street and on-site trash receptacles shall be emptied by employees of this business regularly daily as needed and more frequently as required by the city;that the applicant shall pick up trash on the sidewalk and in the gutter for 50 feet in each direction on each side of this business at least once a day and more frequently if required by the city and with the conditions in the staff report: 1)that this business location shall be occupied by a limited food service use, with no on-site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment; 2)that up to 250 SF of on-site seating maybe added inside to the limited food service establishment only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3)that the business shall provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city and consistent with the streetscape improvements and these cans shall be emptied daily or more often as required by the City; 4)the business shall provide daily litter control along sidewalks and gutters on all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 5) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise;6)that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 7) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use,a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 8)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 15,2004,floor plan and building elevation;9) that the shop may be open Sunday through Wednesday 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Thursday through Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and shall provide no tables and customer seating inside, and shall have a maximum of four employees at any one time; 10)that if and when the off-site trash/garbage/recycling area is removed this conditional use permit shall be reviewed and may be revoked if facilities acceptable to the City Engineer,Fire Marshal and County Health Department cannot be provided; 11)that the limited food service establishment shall provide,maintain and regularly empty trash receptacles as needed at the door and on the corners of California and Burlingame Avenue,or at locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 12)that alcohol shall be sold from this site only in the bottle and shall not be sold at all after 7:00 p.m. daily; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building and Uniform Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit with no alcohol sales after 7:00 p.m. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent) Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 2505 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIKE AND SHARON CALAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10,2004 Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Dale Meyer, 851 Burlway Road, project architect, was available to answer questions. Noted that this is a straight forward project,property slopes down on the side where the trees will be removed. Even with tree removal the tree canopy is solid in the yards of adjacent properties. Commission asked if the property owners had spoken with the neighbors across the street. Sharon Calahan,2505 Hayward Drive,property owner,stated that she took the plans for the proposal over to the neighbors and they had no objections. Commission noted that this is a modest proposal,but that there could be a view problem across the street. Although the code acknowledges this 18' wide garage as a two car garage, does not seem like it would actually fit two cars. Owner should consider reducing the new storage area and increasing the width of the garage to allowed for easier access for the two parking spaces. Project architect responded that the code allows the existing condition and that it would require some additional engineering work to widen the parking area, owners were hoping to maximize storage space. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comment on motion: modest project,well done;concerned about view blockage for house across the street, would like to see story poles, they do not have to be surveyed; always safe to install story poles in the hillside area, not need to survey,just to make sure they are thorough. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the story poles have been installed and the Commission and neighbors have seen them. This motion was seconded by C. Boju6s . Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the story poles have been installed as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 3, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 3, 2004. She noted that the City Council upheld the Planning Commission in two appeals,2711 Martinez and 1537 Drake,development of Lot 11 and amendment of conditions for Lots 9 and 10 for additional tree mitigation measures, proposals for these two lots will return to the Commission for further review. - Review of the April 24, 2004 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Commissioners reviewed the four work program items identified for this year. Chair Osterling suggested that each Commissioner review their committee assignments, although retaining current assignments might be most workable. He noted that commissioners wishing to change subcommittee assignments might contact the City Planner before the next meeting and assignments could be finalized at the next meeting. CP noted the need to begin work on the Bicycle Plan immediately,and the zoning conformance for the Bayfront Plan should also be initiated right away. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan is on track for adoption in July,so zoning revisions would begin after that. C.Auran noted that some work should be done right away to look at the design guidelines and identify ways to revise the regulations to encourage the kinds of design features we want, such as front porches. This would be the assignment of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Staff will look into organizing a meeting of this group. --� 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 10, 2004 - FYI Memo From the Fire Marshal RE: Burlingame Fire Sprinkler Regulations for Single Family Houses Commission discussed briefly the contents of the memo provided to them,at their request,from the Fire Marshal. They noted that this is a significant requirement with potential for substantial accidental damage e.g. inadvertent leakage,to single family residential homeowners. The commission would like to see a comparison of these regulations to those of other cities. They also would like to have the Fire Marshal come and discuss the regulations with them as they evolve. CP noted that education is very important regarding this issue of fire suppression. She would ask the Fire Marshal to come to discuss the background of these regulations with commission. However,amendments to the Fire Code are the responsibility of the City Council and do not fall under the Commission's zoning responsibility. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Reception for outgoing and incoming Commission officers followed in the Rotunda. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary 05.10.04unapproved 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTION MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY APRIL, 2004 F.Y. 2003 F.Y. 2002 SAME MONTH THIS YEAR LAST YEAR THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF TO DATE TO DATE DIFF Permit type # Valuation # Valuation % # Valuation # Valuation % New Single Family 5 $2, 009, 262 2 $1, 000, 000 100 . 9 13 $5, 375, 822 16 $6, 374 , 535 15 . 7- New Multi-Family 1 $1, 800, 000 0 $0 . 0 1 $1, 800, 000 1 $850, 000 111 . 8 New Commercial 1 $3 , 275, 000 0 $0 . 0 3 $5, 775, 000 1 $1, 100, 000 425 . 0 Alterations-Res 26 $834 , 056 33 $1, 071, 061 22 . 1- 275 $13 , 379, 357 259 $10 , 816, 922 23 .7 Alterations-NonRes 6 $289, 800 7 $265, 000 9 .4 68 $7, 932 , 550 73 $10, 501, 281 24 . 5- Demolition 14 $24 , 500 11 $0 . 0 65 $145 , 300 70 $131, 475 10 . 5 Swimming Pool 0 $0 1 $26, 000 100 . 0- 3 $80 , 000 4 $94 , 475 15 .3- Sign Permits 1 $3 , 874 2 $33 , 900 88 . 6- 25 $101, 739 28 $190 , 451 46 . 6- Fences 0 $0 0 $0 . 0 2 $9, 500 4 $13 , 700 30 . 7- Reroofing 28 $531, 333 22 $373 , 536 42 .2 261 $3 , 084, 207 226 $2, 732, 528 12 . 9 Repairs 7 $62, 300 4 $48, 800 27 . 7 37 $400, 950 28 $407, 160 1 .5- Window Repl 11 $91, 679 11 $85 , 372 7 .4 80 $770, 207 64 $508, 787 51 . 4 Miscellaneous 4 $41, 500 2 $22, 500 84 .4 26 $371, 001 54 $542, 497 31 . 6- TOTALS. . . . . . 104 $8 , 963 , 304 95 $2, 926, 169 206 .3 859 $39, 225, 633 828 $34, 263 , 811 14 .5 5/03 /04 12 : 41 : 31 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary April 30, 2004 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF & County Pool 25,824,022.87 25,824,022 87 25,824,022.87 81.15 1 1 2.286 2.318 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 6,000,000.00 6,002,000.00 6,000,000.00 18.85 974 872 2.745 2.783 Investments 31,824,022.87 31,826,022.87 31,824,022.87 100.00% 184 165 2.373 2.405 Total Earnings April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 64,444.38 608,119.26 Average Daily Balance 30,614,374,93 27,285,566.88 Effective Rate of Return 2.56% 2.67% 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 availability of some of these funds is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). J US A FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale: 05/12/2004-09:14 PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept V6.21 Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments April 30, 2004 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. 4,258,902.61 4,258,902.61 4,258,902.61 1.445 1.445 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 21,565,120.26 21,565,120.26 21,565,120.26 2.490 2.490 1 Subtotal and Average 25,481,041.60 25,824,022.87 25,824,022.87 25,824,022.87 2.318 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3128X1605 513 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 11/17/2003 2,000,000.00 2,005,000.00 2,000,000.00 2.300 2.300 565 11/17/2005 3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP, 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 3.000 1,004 01/30/2007 3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 997,000.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 3.100 1,091 04/27/2007 Subtotal and Average 5,133,333.33 6,000,000.00 6,002,000.00 6,000,000.00 2.783 872 Total and Average 30,614,374.93 31,824,022.87 31,826,022.87 31,824,022.87 2.405 165 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:05/12/2004-09:14 PM(PRF_PM2)SyrnRept V6.21 ort Ver.5.00 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Activity By Type April 1, 2004 through April 30, 2004 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 AGENCY INV.FD. 1.445 12,199.37 800,000.00 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 2.490 2,032,383.38 0.00 Subtotal 24,579,440.12 2,044,582.75 800,000.00 25,824,022.87 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 3.100 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 5,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 6,000,000.00 Total 29,579,440.12 3,044,582.75 800,000.00 31,824,022.87 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:05/12/2004.09:14 PM(PRF_PM3)SyrnRepl V6.21 Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity Summary April 2003 through April 2004 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 2003 5 28,790,353.07 2.861 2.900 2.837 0 0 109 83 May 2003 5 29,305,724.20 2.827 2.866 2.801 0 0 107 79 June 2003 4 27,121,153.01 2.783 2.821 2.799 0 1 82 62 July 2003 4 27,157,885.07 2.671 2.709 2.677 0 0 82 60 August 2003 4 27,176,303.04 2.697 2.734 2.705 0 0 82 58 September 2003 3 25,384,046.40 2.799 2.838 2.831 0 1 44 31 October 2003 3 26,475,202.01 2.711 2.749 2.739 0 0 42 29 November 2003 3 26,087,655.91 2.614 2.651 2.680 1 1 57 56 December 2003 3 28,680,215.64 2.617 2.654 2.680 0 0 52 49 January 2004 4 27,400,432.25 2.663 2.700 2.696 1 0 174 168 February 2004 4 27,499,689.16 2.557 2.592 2.564 0 0 174 163 March 2004 4 29,579,440.12 2.512 2.547 2.512 0 0 161 146 April 2004 5 31,824,022.87 2.373 2.405 2.318 1 0 184 165 Average 4 27,883,240.21 2.668% 2.705% 2.680 0 0 104 88 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale:05/12/2004-nq:14 /// PM(PRF PM4)SyrnRept V6.21 Report Ver.5.00 t• CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Distribution of Investments By Type April 2003 through April 2004 April May June July August September October November December January February March April Average Security Type 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 by Period LAIF&County Pool 89.6 89.8 92.6 92.6 92.6 96.1 96.2 92.3 93.0 81.8 81.8 83.1 81.2 89.4% 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 10.4 10.2 7.4 7.4 7.4 3.9 3.8 7.7 7.0 18.3 18.2 16.9 18.9 10.6% _. 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:05/12/2004-09:14 PM(PRF_PM5)SymRept V6.21 Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Interest Earnings Summary April 30, 2004 April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 0.00 31,000.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 44,050.00 44,050.00 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 32,372.22) ( 13,816.67) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 11,677.78 61,233.33 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 11,677.78 61,233.33 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 153,424.08 671,853.81 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 282,696.99 282,696.99 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 383,354.47) ( 407,664.87) Interest Earned during Period 52,766.60 546,885.93 Total Interest Earned during Period 64,444.38 608,119.26 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Periost 64,444.38 608,119.26 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:05/12/2004-09:14 PM(PRF_PM6)SyrnRept V6.21 Report Ver.5.00 01 BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary April 30, 2004 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. No Active Investments 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.000 0.000 Investments 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00% 0 0 0.000 0.000 Total Earnings April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 0.00 11,995.77 Average Daily Balance 0.00 Effective Rate of Return 0.00% 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 some of these funds is restricte by law(e.g. Gas Tax,Trust&Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds). i Je s Nava, ance Dir./Treasurer Portfolio 01 BD CP Run Date:05/12/2004-09:24 PM(PRF_PM1)SymRept V6.21 Report Ver.5.00 01 BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments April 30, 2004 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYS83 83 Local Agency Inv.Fd 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.445 1.425 1.445 1 Subtotal and Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0 Total and Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0 Portfolio 01 BD CP Run Date:05/12/2004-09:24 PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept V6.21 �� t Ver.5.00 03BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary April 30, 2004 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 768,976.05 768,976 05 768,976.05 100.00 1 1 1.425 1.445 Investments 768,976.05 768,976.05 768,976.05 100.00% 1 1 1.425 1.445 Total Earnings April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 962.34 49,691.11 Average Daily Balance 794,844.24 3,744,654.80 Effective Rate of Return 1.47% 1.59% 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 some of these funds is restricted law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust&Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds). Jes ance Director/Treasurer Portfolio 03BD CP Run Date:05/12/2004-09:25 PM(PRF PM1)SymRept V6.21 Report Ver.5.00 03BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments April 30, 2004 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYS82 82 Local Agency Investment Fund 768,976.05 768,976.05 768,976.05 1.445 1.425 1.445 1 Subtotal and Average 794,844.24 768,976.05 768,976.05 768,976.05 1.425 1.445 1 Total and Average 794,844.24 768,976.05 768,976.05 768,976.05 1.425 1.445 1 Portfolio 03BD CP Run Date:05/12/2004-09:25 PM(PRF PM2)SymRept V6.21 rt Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary April 30, 2004 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 19,074,021.06 19,074,021 06 19,074,021.06 100.00 1 1 1.425 1.445 Investments 19,074,021.06 19,074,021.06 19,074,021.06 100.00% 1 1 1.425 1.445 Total Earnings April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 23,451.46 39,472.52 Average Daily Balance 19,369,777.90 Effective Rate of Return 1.47% J us Nave, inance Dir./Treasurer Portfolio 04BD CP Run Date:05/12/2004-09:25 PM(PRF PM1)SynnRepl V6.21 Report Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments April 30, 2004 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYS85 85 Local Agency Investment Fund 03/12/2004 19,074,021.06 19,074,021.06 19,074,021.06 1.445 1.445 1 Subtotal and Average 19,369,777.90 19,074,021.06 19,074,021.06 19,074,021.06 1.445 1 Total and Average 19,369,777.90 19,074,021.06 19,074,021.06 19,074,021.06 1.445 1 Portfolio 04BD CP Run Dale:05/12/2004-09:25 ( PM(PRF PM(2)SymRept V6.21 \ rt Ver.5.00