No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2004.10.18BT'RLINGAME CITY COT'NCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, October 18, ?.004 Page 1 of2 CLOSED SESSION: Meeting with City Negotiators, Jim Nantell & Bob Bell to discuss negotiations with Department Head and unrepresented classifi cations (Microphone check) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of October 4,2004 4. PRESENTATION a. Defibrillator Presentation 5. PUBLIC HEARTNGS rhe moyor may rimit speaken to rhree minutes each. a. Public Hearing and action on an Ordinance to establish interim zoning in the North Burlingame subarea for initial implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan b. Public Hearing on adoption of the bicycle transportation plan and amendment of the plan to the circulation element of the general plan c. Public Hearing to approve expenditure of COPS. Fund d. Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a design review for a new two-story, single family dwelling and detached garage at 1553 Drake Avenue, Zoned R-l 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. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Community Recognition Policy adoption b. Committee to explore Safeway store design options 8. CONSENT CALENDAR City of Burlingame a. CITY HALL. 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O {650t 558-7200 6:30 p.m. Conference Room A 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Approve Presentation HearingiAction Hearing/Action Hearing/Action Hearing/Action Discuss/Approve Discuss Approve 6. BTJRLINGAME CITY COT.INCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, October 18, 2004 Page2 of2 a.Adopt Resolution fixing the employers contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act for AFSCME Local2190, AFSCME Local 829, BAMM, Department Head and Umepresented, Police Administrators and the IAFF Adopt a Resolution fixing the employers contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act for the Police Officers Association (POA) Adopt a Resolution fixing the employers contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act for the Fire Administrators d. Accept reports from Executive Director of City of Burlingame Redevelopment Agency and Executive Director of Financing Authority of the City of Burlingame that conflict of interest codes to not require an amendment e. Resolution authorizing staffto issue a contract change order in the amount of $982,900 to add work to the Marsten Pump Station Upgrade and Outfall Pipeline Project and approving transfer of funds to Marsten Pump Station Upgrade and Outfall Pipeline Project f. Warrants and Pay,roll 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, August 17,2004; Planning, October 12,2004 b. Department Reports: Building, September, 2004; Finance, September,2004 c. Letter from Comcast concerning programming adjustments 13. 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. CW of Burlingame CITY HALL. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O (6s0) 558-7200 b. c. NEXT MEETING - Tuesday October 2004 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of October 4,2004 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 OFALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Bruce Carlton. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT : COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT : Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony None Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 30,2004 Joint City Council/ Planning Commission Study meeting; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 20,2004 Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. CLOSED SESSION CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Threatened litigation (Government Code g 54956.9(bX1),(3XC)) Claim of Purdom b. Pending litigation (Government Code g 54956.9(a)(1),(3)(C)) Claim of Bier 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN CODE FOR THE C.4 ZONING DISTRICT (WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL) FOR MAXTMUM SrGN SrZE ABOVE 24 FEET CP Monroe requested Council hold a public hearing on the amendment to the Sign Code for the C-4 Zoning district for maximum sign size above 24 feet. Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes 1 October 4,2004 4. MINUTES Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 1744 amending Section 22.20.070 to increase maximum allowable single sign square footage to 300 square feet for signs above 24 feet in height on properties currently zoned C-4; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5- 0. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following citizens spoke on the platform reconfiguration at the Burlingame Train Station: Gary Doss, 214 California Drive, spoke against platform reconfiguration on south side. Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue, representing Burlingame Improvement Committee, spoke in favor of the creation of a public plaza in front of the station. Charles Y oltz, 7 25 Y emon Way, spoke in favor of a pedestrian access across the tracks. Mike Harvey, owner of 200 ard 222 California Drive, spoke in favor of relocating both station platforms north of the existing station. John Root, 1407 Montero Avenue, spoke in favor of a pedestrian access through the station. Bruce Balshone spoke regarding the interim zoning to add multiple family zoning in the C-3 zone. He noted that it was unclear in the staff report if the R-4 uses were to be permitted or conditional. He would prefer that they be permitted uses in the "overlay" area. There were no further comments from the floor. STAFF REPORTS RESOLUTION NO.87.2004 AUTHORIZING THE BURLINGAME 7. a. BUSINESS IMPRO DISTRICT ADMINIS TRATIVE AGREEMENT, F'I/ 2004-05 FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 87-2004 authorizing the Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District (BID) Administrative Agreement for FY 2004-05. CA Anderson explained the requirements for establishing the Advisory Board for the Downtown Burlingame BID. Sam Malouf presented and discussed with Council the Downtown Burlingame BID plans and goals for FY 2004-2005. Council urged a partnership between the BID, Chamber of Commerce and the City of Burlingame. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve Resolution No. 87-2004 authorizing agreement between the City of Burlingame and Downtown Burlingame BID, Inc. for performance of services and activities of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony asked Council members if items in Sections 8, 10 and 11 could be acted on before Item 7.b. since Council was waiting for equipment being set up for this item; Council agreed. Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes 2 October 4,2004 Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. 8. a. CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 88.2004 AUTHORIZIN A YEAR.END TRANSFER OF $5OO.OOO TO FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No.88-200 4 atthorizing a year-end transfer of funds to the Risk Management Reserve Fund. b. RESOLUTION NO. 89-2004 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH BKF ENGINEERS FOR DESIGN.C RELATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 89-2004 approving a professional services contract with BKI'Engineers for design, public relations and construction management services for Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Program. APPROVAL OF SECOND AMENDME TO THE RCN CABLE FRANCHISE THE RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND AGREEMENT FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 90-2004 approving the second amendment to the Cable System Franchise Agreement with RCN Telecom Services, Inc. d. APPROVAL TO S A STUDY SESSION ON FACILITIES MASTER PLAN AND STORM DRAINAGE CC Mortensen requested Council approve scheduling the Facilities Master Plan and Storm Drainage Study Session on October 26,2004, at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room A at City Hall. e. SPECIAL EVENT STRE ET CLOSURE (PRIMROSE ROAD) -HALLOWEEN SAFE STREET CM Secretary Shinday requested Council approve the closure of Primrose Road between Burlingame Avenue and Donnelly Avenue as the site for the community Halloween Safe Street program on Sunday, October 37,2004, from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. f. BEAUTIFICATI COMMISSION APPLICATION PE EXTENSION CM Secretary Shinday requested Council approve extending the application period for the Beautification Commission to October 29,2004. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10.OLD BT]SINESS Councilwoman Baylock requested staff to add an item on the next Council agenda to discuss the potential formation of a Safeway Committee. Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes J October 4,2004 PROGRAM c. 11. NEW BUSINESS a.SCHEDULE AN APPEAL HEARING FOR OCTOBER 18. 2004. FOR THE PLANNING 7. b. COMMISSION'S DECISION AT 1553 DRAKE AVENUE Council set the appeal hearing for October 18,2004, as recommended by CP Monroe. b. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS There was a brief discussion on what should be included in Council's committee reports during regular Council meetings. Mayor O'Mahony stated that Council should report on those committees Council attends between regular Council meetings. Vice Mayor Galligan stated that Council should also report on those duties Council performs, e.g., attending the re-opening of Easton Library and other important events. STAFF REPORTS (continued) JOINT POWERS BOARD/CALTRAIN BROADWAY AND BURLINGAME AVENUE TRAIN STATION IMPROVEMENTS DPW Bagdon introduced Al Fung of San Mateo County Transportation Authority who gaye apresentation on Caltrain's Burlingame Avenue and Broadway train station platform relocation project. Regarding the Burlingame Avenue station, Mr. Fung stated that discussions have been held with Mike Harvey on what his needs are for lease space and agreed to provide Mr. Harvey with the exact square footage and same configuration as the existing lease for West Lane. Also, an area on East Lane will be consolidated to provide Mr. Harvey with a 25-foot wide area giving him the same square footage of the existing lease in a slightly different configuration. A middle station pedestrian crossing would decrease safety, and the construction of a new sidewalk along North Lane was emphasized as a safer option. Mr. Fung stated that moving the platform north of North Lane is not a good idea for several reasons: there is a set-out track there; the grade is incorrect and would need to be regraded; there are wetland areas that would need mitigation; and a flood control ditch is in the area. After some discussion, Council directed staff to participate in further discussions with Caltrain to explore all possibilities in providing adequate parking for auto row businesses, the West Lane businesses and Caltrain, and directed Caltrain staff to return in one month with the results. Council requested that Caltrain not consider moving the platforms north of North Lane. Vice Mayor Galligan stated that since the plans include eliminating the South Lane crossing, he requested Caltrain add a crossing between Broadway and Millbrae City Limits. Also, he would like the Broadway station plans to go forward which would reduce gate downtime a total of about 60 minutes. c.INTRODUCTION OF TWO AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH INTERIM ZONING R THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NO RTH BURLINGAME/ ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: (a) ORDINANCE REGARDING MULTIPLE FAMILY usES oN MARCO PpLO WAY. TROUSDALE. OGDEN. MURCHISON. AND MAGNOLIA DRIVES AREA. AND AUTO USE ON ADRIAN ROAD Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes 4 October 4,2004 (a) CP Monroe requested Council introduce an ordinance regarding Multiple Family Uses on Marco Polo, Trousdale, Ogden, Murchison, and Magnolia Drives area, and Auto Row Use on Adrian Road for implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Council discussed the issue of multiple family uses being permitted uses in the overlay area with staff and directed that the ordinance be clarified to have the R-4 zoning implemented in the same way it would be if it were the only zone in this area. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed ordinance amending the Zoning Code to establish intermediate zonrngto implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan of the General Plan. Vice Mayor Galligan waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance with revised wording changing conditional use to permitted use; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5- 0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. ft) INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE REG ING HEALTH USES ON THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL BLOCK (b) CP Monroe requested Council introduce an ordinance regarding health uses on the Peninsula Hospital block for implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed ordinance amending the Zoning Code to establish office zoningto implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan of the General Plan. Councilman Coffey waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, 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 Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. d. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Councilman Coffey made a motion to appoint Karen Dittman, Ed Larios and Carol Muller to fill three vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes 5 October 4,2004 a. 12, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, September 9,2004; Parks & Recreation, September | 6, 2004; Planning, September 27, 2004 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. in memory of Dr. Peter Bove, a local pediatrician. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes 6 October 4,2004 TO: STAFF RE,PORT AGENDA SaITEM # MTG. DATE 10.18.04 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BY DATE: OCTOBER 8"2004 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINAN TO ESTABLISH INTERIM ZONING IN THE NORTH BURLINGAME SUBAREA FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the ordinance to establish interim zoning to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Action alternatives are to: a. Adopt the interim zoning regulations to allow multiple family uses in the North Burlingame area and auto sales and service businesses in the Adrian Road area; or b. Decide not to adopt the interim zoningregulations and retum them to the Planning Commission for further consideration and redrafting. The second ordinance which Council introduced on October 4,2004, amending the C-1 district regulations and changing the zoning designation at the front of the hospital site will be brought forward for action with the hospital replacement project in November. CEQA Compliance The change in zoning to add multiple family uses and auto dealer, sales and service uses in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area were included in Negative Declaration ND-533 P which was circulated and approved with the Specific Plan on September 20,2004. Plannin g Commission Action In their review of the implementation section of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the Planning Commission acknowledged that interim zoningwould need to be put into place until the staff and Commission could revise the zoning requirements for the entire planning area. Commission was also aware that, inorder to comply with state law, staff would bring interim zofiirlg changes, based on existing zofing districts, directly to the City Council for action. BY PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH INTERIM ZONING IN THE NORTH BURLINGAME SUBAREA FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. October 18,2004 BACKGROUND: City Council reviewed this implementation proposal for interim or intermediate zoning in specific subareas of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan at the meeting on October 4,2004. The only comment at the meeting was that the ordinance was not clear about how the R-4 (multiple family) zoning would be applied. The request was that the R-4 zoning district regulations be applied as they would be if R-4 were the only zoning on these parcels. Council directed staff to clarify the wording of the ordinance so that it is clear that multiple family uses are permitted uses in the areas to which they are being added (the Marco Polo Drive frontage and the area bounded by Trousdale-Ogden-Murchison-Magnolia) and that the permitted and conditional uses of the R-4 zone would apply along with all the development regulations of the zone. The attached annotation of the zoning code change indicates how the language was changed to address this concem. History On September 20,2004, the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and amended it to the City's General Plan. In the Specific Plan there were a number of land use changes which added new uses to some of the land areas affected. California planning law requires that there be consistency between the General Plan and zoning. Most simply this means is that a plan cannot promise a use that the zoning denies. For this reason, and to implement city policies to encourage these new land uses in these subareas, it is necessary to add zoning to these areas which allows the uses proposed in the Specific Plan. In the long term (next 12 to 18 months) the Planning Commission will develop new zoning districts and regulations to fully implement the Specific Plan. However, in the interim to encourage developers to undertake projects supported by the policies in the plan, we are suggesting "overlay" zoning using the closest existing zoning district. Summary of the Zoning Designation and Text Changes North of Trousdale Subarea (84) Currently zoned C-3 which prohibits residential uses. Proposed change: place an additional zoning district on the area. which would permit R-4 Multiple family residential development on the block bounded by Trousdale-Ogden-Murchison-Magnolia. This zoning would act as if the area were zoned R-4, should a developer wish to build multiple family uses. The permitted and conditional uses of the R-4 zoning district would apply, as would the development standards, e.g. setbacks, height, lot coverage, condominium regulations, inclusionary zoning, etc. Mills-Peninsula Block Subarea (83) Marco Polo frontage is currently zoned C-3 which prohibits residential uses. Proposed change: to place an additional zoning district, R-4 multiple family residential, on the frontage execpt t the parcel on the corner of Marco Polo and Trousdale. The purpose of the change is to encourage multiple family uses on the east side of Marco Polo so that development would match that across the street. For this reason the corner of Trousdale/ Marco Polo will not be included in the residential overlay, because this parcel is a part of the continuous office/ medical office uses along the Trousdale frontage and is intended in the plan to remain in PUBLIC HEAKING AND ACTION ON AN OKDINANCE TO ESTABLISH INTERIM ZONING IN THE NORTH BURLINGAME SUBAREA FORINITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME4ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. October 18,2004 office use consistent with the C-3 zorrrng on the property. The R-4 zoning would allow the properties fronting Marco Polo to be developed with all the permitted and conditional uses of the R-4 zone; and all the development standards and obligations of the R-4 would also apply. Adrian Road Auto Row District Subarea (A-4) The entire Adrian Road Auto Row District is currently zoned M-l Light Industrial. Auto sales are allowed in the M-1 zone but only if wholly contained, including the auto display, within a structure. That is not the concept of an auto row, with outdoor vehicle display which is being promoted in the proposed Rollins Road auto row area. For that reason the zoning for the Adrian Road Auto Row District needs to be amended to allow outdoor display of cars for sale and other activities and requirements common to an auto row. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending the Zoning Code to Establish Intermediate Zoning to lmplement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan of the General Plan Annotated Intermediate Zoning Changes to Implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Adopted September 20,2004, dated October 7, 2004. Bruce Balshone, letter October 4,2004, to Mayor and City Council Notice of Public Hearing, mailed October 8,2004 U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR2004\ActionlnterimZngNoBgmSP I 0. 1 8.04.doc I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 t4 l5 t6 t7 r8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 \- I 0/s/2004 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH INTERMEDIATE ZONING TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE GENERAL PLAN The CITY COUNCIL ofthe CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. In September 2004, the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan as an amendment to the City General PIan. The Specific Plan establishes new locations for possible use for multiple family developments and for auto row uses as conditional uses. This ordinance is important to begin the implementation of the goals and policies of the Specific Plan. Section 2. Section 25.40.035 is added to read as follows: 25.40.035 Additional permitted and conditional uses in certain areas. In addition to the conditional uses set forth in Section 25.40.A25, the following areas shall have additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described: (a) Trousdale, Ogden, Murchison, and Magnolia Drives. In the area bounded by Trousdale, Ogden, Murchison, and Magnolia Drives: (l) Multiple family residential uses permitted under section 25.34.020 and developed in accordance with chapter 25.34 are permitted uses. (2) The conditional uses set forth in section 25.34.030 are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. (b) Marco Polo. On any parcel with frontage on Marco Polo Drive except the parcels located on the corner of Marco Polo and Trousdale Drive: (l) Multiple family residential uses permitted under section 25.34.020 and developed in accordance with chapter 25.34 are permitted uses. (2) The conditional uses set forth in section 25.34.$A are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. I 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 t3 t4 l5 t6 t7 18 l9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 3. A new Section 25.44.035 is added to read as follows: 25.44-035 Additional conditional uses in certain areas. In addition to the conditional uses set forth in Section 25.44.030, the following areas shall have additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described: (a) Adrian Court, Adrian Road, and Edwards Court.. On any parcel with frontage on Adrian Court, Adrian Road, orEdwards Court, uses related to automobile sales and service, and automobile storage directly related to automobile sales. Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4'h day of October ,2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of by the following vote: AYES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COLINCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COLTNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk I 0/5/2004 -z- October 7,2004 Annotated Intermediate Zanrng Changes to Implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Adopted September 2A,2004 At the time of the public hearing, staff noted to the City Council that because this plan adds land uses in some subareas of the Planning Area which are currently prohibited, it would be necessary to follow up approval action with the imposition of intermediate zoning. This zoningwould be a place holder until the Planning Commission can develop new zoning requirements to implement the Specific Plan in these subareas. Revisions rn italics reflect changes suggested by the City Council at the time of introduction on Septemb er 28, 2004. Below are the proposed changes to the zoning code. Each annotation explains what the change will accomplish. Chapter 25.40 C-3 District Regulations Add Code Section 25.40.035 25.40.35 Additional permitted and conditional uses in certain areas ln addition to the conditional uses set fort in Section 25.40.025, the following areas shall have additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described: a) Trousdale-Ogden-Murchison-Magnolia. In the area bounded by Trousdale, Ogden, Murchison and Magnolia Drives: 1) multiple family residential :uses permitted under section 25.34.020 and developed in accordance with chapter 25.34 are permitted uses. 2) the conditional uses set forth rn section 24.34.030 are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. b) Marco Polo. On any parcel with street frontage on Marco Polo Drive except the parcels located at the corner of Marco Polo Drive and Trousdale Drive: 1) Multiple family residential uses permitted wder section 25.34.020 and developed in accordance with chapter 25.34 are permitted uses. 2) the conditional tses setforth in sectron24.34-030 are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. Annotation: This change would al1ow multiple family residential development to occur on the properties in the B4 North of Trousdale Subarea and on the properties which front on Marco Pol-o as shown in the Mifls Peninsula Bl-ock Subarea (83) which are presently zoned C-3 and on which housing is currently prohibited. This change, dS proposed,\- Intermediate Zoning Cltanges to Implement lhe North BurlingamdRollins Road Specific Plon Adopted October 7, 2004 would al-low these properties all the benefits of R-4 zoning including setbacks, height l-imitations (review line at 35 feet, maximum height 75 feet) etc. and allowance of other uses r ds conditionaL uses, determj-ned to be consistent with R-4 zoning e.g. convalescent homes, schooTs, apartment and resi-dential hotels, churches as well as less dense residential development. At introduction the City CounciL directed a cl-arification of the wording of section 25.4A.035 to make it cl-ear that multipTe faniTy residentiaL uses set out as permitted in the R-4 zone wouLd be permitted as a matter of right in the overTay area. And to clarify, in the same spirit, that conditional- uses in the R-4 zone would al-so be conditional- uses in the overTay area where the R-4 zone appTies. Staff anticipates that this overlay zoning wil-l- be in place about a year to 18 months. By that time the Planning Commission wil-l- be proposing new regulations more specifically tailored to the development policy for each subarea of the specific p1an. fn the interim, aI1 projects wil-I be reviewed and presented in the context of the adopted plan, and consistency with the directives of the Specific Pl-an may be taken into consideration in granting any required variances or other code exceptions for plan compliance. Zoning Changes to Implement Auto Row in the Light Industrial Zone (M-1) Add a new code section CS 25.44.035 25.44.035 Additional conditional uses in certain areas. In addition to the conditional uses set fort in Section 25.44.A30, the following areas shall have additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described: a) Adrian Court, Adrian Road and Edwards Court. On any parcel with frontage on Adrian Court, Adrian Road, or Edwards Court, uses related to automobiles sales and service, and automobile storage directly related to automobile sales. Annotation: One of the objectives of the North Burlingame/RolIins Road Specific Pl-an was to provide a place for auto sal-es and service busj-nesses to expand. The Adrian Road Auto Row District Subarea (A 4) was created in the pJ-an to accomplish this goal, it is shown on Fig. 4-t attached. In time the Planning Commission will develop standards for this area which reflect the design and other criteria of the Specific P1an. However, in the interim, to encourage those auto sales businesses which may be interested immediately, it seems appropriate to change the M-1 zoning to allow auto sal-es, service and storage uses in thj-s area as a conditional use. Presently these uses require a conditional use and all display and storage of vehicl-es must be inside of a building. This indoor storage 2 \-. Intermediate Zoning Cltonges to Implemenl the Norlh Burlingame/Rollins Road SpeciJic PIan Adopted October 7, 2004 requirement would not meet the display needs of current auto dealers. Draft: September 28,2004 October 7 ,2004 U:Voninglssues\|troBgmRolsRd Zoning\CCActionAnnotafion lnleimZng 10. 1 8.04.doc J \- PACIFIC RESOURCES ENIGiNEERING & PLANNING'" October 4,2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Burlingame Mayor and Cify Council c/o City Clerk 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re lnterim Residential Zoning for the North of Trousdale Subarea to Implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Dear Mayor O'Mahony, Vice Mayor Galligan, and Councilmembers: On behalf of Burlingame Hills Manor LLC, we submit the following comments with regard to the proposed interim residential zoning for the North of Trousdale Subarea of the North BurlingamelRollins Road Specific Plan, which would add a new section 25.40.035 to the Burlingame Municipal Code. Burlingame Hills Manor agrees that the City should use the R-4 residential district as an interim overlay zoning for the North of Trousdale Subarea ("B4 Subarea"). However, the proposed section 25.4A.85 is slightly unclear and possibly inconsistent with the Council's and the Planning Staff s intentions. In particular, it is unclear whether the Council intends to require a conditional use permit for all multi-family residential projects in the 84 Subarea, even if the project would not need a conditional use permit under the regular R-4 zoning provisions. On one hand, the proposed section 25.40.035 suggests that a conditional use permit would be required for all multi-family residential projects in the 84 Subarea, regardless of size. On the other hand, the explanatory annotation following the proposed section 25.40.035 indicates that the City intends to require a conditional use permit only for projects that would require a conditional use permit under the regular R-4 provisions (e.g., for projects without affordable housing that exceed the 35-foot review line). We encourage the Council to revise the proposed section 25.40.035 to require a conditional use permit for multi-family residential projects only where a conditional use permit would be required under the regular R-4 zoning provisions and the inclusionary housing zoning provisions. We believe that this is consistent with the Council's intent in implementing the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. If the City were instead to require a conditional use permit for all multi-family residential projects in the 84 Subarea, the City would inadvertently eliminate one of the incentives for affordable housing offered under section 25.63.030 of the Municipal Code. Moreover, given the specific development standards established by the City in the Specific Plan and the R-4 zoning provisions, we see no need for additional review beyond what is ordinarily required in the R-4 district. soo ornPdd?ffl8?tUfr, , oo, BURLINGAME, cA 940r0-1980 . (650) 343-2s2s FAX (650) 343-8998 . e-moit: pocificresources@pocifcresources.org www, pocificresources.org RECEIVED ocT 0 4 7A04 Page 2 We recommend that the Council revise the proposed section 25.40.035 to read as follows: 25.40.035 Additional Uses in Certain Areas. In addition to the uses set forth in Sections 25.40.020 and25.40.025,the following uses in the following areas are permitted or conditional uses: Trous dal e-o gden-Murchis on-Magno lia. ln the area bounded by Trousdale Drive, ogden Drive, Murchison Drive and Magnolia Drive, multiple family residential uses permitted under section 25.34.020 and developed in accordance with Chapter 25.34 are permitted uses, and the conditional uses set forth in Section 25.34.030 are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. b. Marco Polo. On any parcel with street frontage on Marco Polo Drive except the parcels located at the corner of Marco Polo Orive and Trousdale Drive, multiple family residential uses permitted under section 25.34.020 and developed in accordance with chapter 25.34 are permitted uses, and the conditional uses set forth in Section 25.34.030 are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. We would be happy to discuss our recommendation with the Council and the Planning a staff. Sincerely,13.- Bruce Balshone Pacific Resources cc Meg Monroe, Burlingame City Planner Larry Anderson, Burlingame City Attorney Alex Novell, Burlingame Manor Thomas B. Ruby, Morrison and Foerster John Hickey, Morrison and Foerster ,.f""R.HR 6ta*& ( CTTY OF BURUNGAUE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PBIMROSE BOAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 5sB-7250 . FAX: (650) 696_3790www.burlingame-org NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ADD MI.'LTI-FAMILY ZONING Th:.9iY of Burtingame City Councit witt hotd apublic_hearing on Monday, October !g,2OO4at 7:0O p.M.. in the City Hail CouncitCframbers loggled at 5O1 primrose Road, Burlingame, toadd R4 Muttipte famity residentiat ioiing tothe properties frontingon Marco polo Way, anOin the area bounded by Ogden, Murchison, Magnolia and Trousdate. Mailed: October g,2OO4 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE be reviewed prior Road, be limited to hearing, to the city informing , please call (Please refer to other side) A copy of the If you raising only described in at or Property their (650) 5s8_ Margaret City planner PU E Ar{}n !II (Please refer to other side) I I I I l i I ; I I I I I i STAFF REPORT AGEI\DA ITEM # 5b MTG. DArE 10.18.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AI\D CITY COUNCIL DArE: OCTOBER 4.2004 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action to approve the Bicycle Transportation Plan should include findings. Action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. City Council has two action alternatives: a. to approve the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated September,2004 and amend it to the Circulation Element of the General Plan; or b. to recommend changes to the Bicycle Transportation Plan and refer it back to staff and/or the Planning Commission to make the requested changes prior to Council adoption action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At its regular meeting on September 27,2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted, by a 7-0 vote, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated September, 2004, and to recommend that the Council amend the General Plan to include the Bicycle Plan (see attached PC Minutes 9127104). C/CAG ACTION RJGARDING CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN: C/CAG staff has determined that the amendment to the General Plan to adopt the Bicycle Transportation Plan would not require review by the Airport Land Use Commission because there are no zoning or land use changes proposed. The major improvements proposed by the plan involve striping, signage and signal modifications within existing public rights-of-way. The plan includes the pedestrian/bicycle overpass on U.S. 101 at Broadway which will be reviewed by the ALUC as a part of the auxiliary lane project. BACKGROUND: At the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting held in March of 2004, Planning Department staff, in conjunction with the newly appointed Bicycle Subcommittee, was directed to begin work on a Bicycle Transportation Plan for the City. The Plan was prepared by the Bicycle Subcommittee, consisting of two Traffic, Safety and Parking (TSP) Commissioners, Russ Cohen and Gene Condon, and Michael Brownrigg representing the Planning Commission, in collaboration with the Planning Department. SUBMITTED BY BY PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND AMENDMENT OF THE PLAN TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCALATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN October 18,2004 CEQA STATUS: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(c), existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, except where the activity will involve the removal of a scenic resource; and Section 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land, Class 4(h), creation of bicycle lanes on existing public right-of-way. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The purpose of the Bicycle Transportation Plan is to promote the use of bicycles as an alternative form of transportation, to identify key local and regional routes within the Burlingame community, and to provide a framework for making improvements to the system which will make the bicycle routes safer and more accessible for residents and people employed in the community alike. The highlights of the plan are as follows: o Goals and Policies expressing the community's commitment to providing safe routes for bicycles (Page C-9). tr A Local and Regional Bicycle Route Map (Figure 3) depicting the existing and proposed routes through Burlingame (Page C-12). o List of Priority Projects which will improve bicycle access within Burlingame and to connect to adjoining communities (Pages C-14 through C-16). Implementation: Chapter V of the Bicycle Transportation Plan contains a list of nine priority projects for improving bicycle access within the community. These have been identified and prioritized based on those which will give the most benefit to bicycle commuters and recreational riders and will provide for a safe, connected network. The Public Works Department will be selecting projects to submit in the next funding cycle for Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding through the City/County Association of Governments. The deadline for submitting applications for the 2005-2006 funding cycle is December 10,2004. As a part of the Caltrans auxiliary lane project now underway, Caltrans will be constructing a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over U.S. 101 south of the existing Broadway interchange. The western landing for the bicycle bridge would be across from the intersection of Rollins Road and Cadillac Way. The top priority project identified in the plan would provide for safe connections between the bicycle/pedestrian bridge and the Rollins Road/Cadillac Way intersection. Amendment to the General Plan: Since the Bicycle Transportation Plan describes a portion of the transportation network for the City of Burlingame, it is proposed that it be amended to the Circulation Element of the Burlingame General Plan. The Circulation Element also includes a description of the streets and highways within Burlingame, and the hansit system, including the rail line and bus system. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments Planning Commission Minutes, September 27, 2004 Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission Minutes dated September 9,2004 Bicycle Transportation Plan dated September, 2004 Notice of Public Hearing published in the San Mateo County Times lolS/04 City Council Resolution ., City of Burlingame Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to Adopt the Bicycle Transportation Plun PLAI\MNG COMMISSION ACTION: The Plaruring Commission should review the Final Draft Bicycle TransportationPlan, hold apublic hearing and take actionto recommendthe amendmenttothe General Plan Circulation Element to adopt the Bicycle Transportation Plan. The reasons for the Commission's action on the Bicycle Transportation Plan should be clearly stated for the record. CEQA STATUS: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(c), existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, except where the activity will involve the removal of a scenic resource; and Section 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land Class 4(h), creation of bicycle lanes on existing public right-of-way. BACKGROUITID: Based on direction from the Planning Commission and the City Council, in March of 2A04, the City of Burlingame embarked on the preparation of a Bicycle Transportation Plan. It was prepared by the Bicycle Subcommittee, consisting of two Traffic, Safety and Parking (TSP) Commissioners and Michael Brownrigg representing the Planning Commission in collaboration with the Planning Department. The Bicycle Subcommittee and the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission have reviewed the document, and their comments have been incorporated into this final draft document. The comments made at the TSP Commission meeting are discussed below. The next step in the adoption process is to hold public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Final action, to adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Circulation Element to include the Bicycle Transportation Plan is taken by the City Council. Once the City Council approves the document, it is forwarded to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Caltrans for certification. With a certified bicycle plan, the City becomes eligible for certain State and Federal funding. Highlights of the plan include the following: D Goals and Policies expressing the community's commitment to providing safe routes for bicycles (Page C-9). o A Local and Regional Bicycle Route Map (Figure 3) depicting the existing and proposed routes through Burlingame @age C-12). tr List of Priority Projects which will improve bicycle access within Burlingame and to connect to adjoining communities (Pages C-14 through C-16). Per the recommendation ofthe Bicycle Subcommittee, in addition to the required newspaper notice for these hearings, notices have been posted on Burlingame Avenue and Broadway, in thelocal bicycle shop, at the train stations and in local grocery stores. The City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) has issued Calls for projects for Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funding and Surface Transportation program (STp) funding, and the deadline for the City to submit applications for these funds is December t O, ZOO+. tt is .-iItem No. 5 Action cai6ilail \-, , required that the Bicycle Transportation Plan be adopted by the Council and certified by Calftans and MTC by that date in order to qualifr for funding Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Public Hearing on the Bicycle Transportation PIan: On September 9,2004, the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission held a public hearing to listen to public comments and make a recommendation to the City Council. The following public comments were made on the plan and have been addressed as follows: Great document, would like to see dedicated bicycle lanes like you see in Europe, would like to see something other than white lines because they are largely ignored, could we use a different color to have better visibility, and drivers will be more careful. a a a tr The design ofbicycle lanes must complywith Calhans Standards HigtrwayDesign Manual. The standards specifr lane width and striping color. Education - need to educate so that people feel safe using our roads, need to educate both drivers and cyclists so that everyone understands the rules of the road, once the plan is established, would like to see a bicycle day with people riding an entire route through Burlingame. Need to make people aware that bicycling is a viable form of hansportation. tr Language of the plan has been amended to include a recorlmendation to hold a "bicycle day" to educate the public about available bicycle routes and about bicycle safety. Thank everyone involved in this project, we need a safe way to cross U.S. 101, neither Peninsula Avenue or Broadway are safe, need a safe alternative. tr Safe crossings ofU.S. 101 are a priority in the plan. As a part ofthe auxiliary lane project now underwaybetween Third Avenue in San Mateo and Millbrae Avenue in Millbrae, Caltrans is building a separated bicyclelpedestrian bridge just south of the Broadway interchange. The proj ect in the bicycle plan with the highest priority would improve the intersections near the new bridge to make it safe for bicyclists and pedestrians to gain access to the new bridge. Would like to see more crosswalks similar to the one on Califomia Drive across from Stacks Restaurant, seems to be working, want to make it safer. o There are several locations recommended for "zebra crossings" in the plan, along both California Drive and El Camino Real. Education is a two-way street, not onlyneed to inform drivers on how to react, but need a program to train cyclists on the rules of the road, the League of American Bicyclists has a program which provides training for cyclist. _ . ct Reference to League of American Bicyclist's training program has been added as a resource in the plan. Need to change perception ofbicycle as a toy, recognize that it is a viable method oftransportation; like the idea ofputting something along the Caltrain tracks that goes all the wayto BART. a I a o The plan contains a recorlmendation that the possibility ofplacing bicycle/pedestrian path along the Caltrain tracks be explored. Attachments: Final Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan Traffic Safety and Parking Commission minutes9l09l04 Public Flyer Public Notice S:Wicycle PlanWC TSP & CC ReportsVC Report 9.27.04.doc I \-. \-, TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, September 9, 20O4 customers who must carry weighty paintings from his gallery but are unable to park nearby. Scott Parsons stated that event parking is the biggest problem. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/Condon) to make this an Action Item immediately. It was then moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/Condon) to approve this request for a green zone for four parking spaces. Both motions unanimously approved by the Commission- 4.2.3 Evaluate limited-time parking at 818-826 Mahler Road From the floor, Al Lovotti stated that since last month's meeting, three trucks have been stored on the street- He requests No Overnight Parking signs be installed to alleviate this continuing problem on Mahler Road. Mr. Chou stated that the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) has been working with some of the limo service businesses, and notices were sent to all businesses on this street. Chair Cohen suggested holding this item until the CEO has responded on the status. Vice Chair Warden suggested the petitioner call the police to report offenders and stated that business license applications should include off-street parking requirements. Senior Planner Brooks stated that the ZoningCode already includes the requirement for off-street parking, but enforcement is a problem unless incidents are reported to the police. Mr. Chou advised that this will be a Discussion Item next month, and he will invite the CEO to the meeting. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. None. 6. FROM THE FLOOR. 6.1 Pat Giorni requested placing the next meeting date at the end of the agenda. She also requested overnight parking requirements be enforced to encourage parking in the driveways. Jerurifer Pfaff spoke on rules not being enforced regarding SLJV's, RV's, boats, etc., which are being parked on the street overnight in her neighborhood. I 7.1 Bicycle Safety lssues in Burlingame 7.1.1 Bicycle Transportation Plan Chair Cohen advised that no action will be taken tonight and opened the prblic hearing. From the floor, Jennifer Pfaff suggested adding haffic lights for bike traffic on existing traffic light poles and painting the bike lanes in a color other than white to be more conspicuous for driver awareness. She also suggested educating the public with a Bike Day and close some streets to car traffic that day to introduce the new plan: Bill Sharer suggested a safe place to cross 101. Pat Giorni stated education is important and the League ofAmerican Cyclists piovides bike safety lessons- She checked cameras on El Camino Real which seem to work but the lights don't give ]. The Crty ot Budingane Page 3 7. INFORMATION ITEMS. TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, September 9, 2AO4 Chair Cohen stated that the plan will include installing gignage that Burlingame is a bicycle friendly community. 7.2 From Staff to Commission 7.2.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 7.2.1.1 Trousdale Drive widening due to Mills/Peninsula Hospital construction Mr. ChouprovidedadrawingofMills/PeninsulaHospital'sreconstructionofthemainenhance opposite Magnolia Avenue at the traffic signal on Trousdale Drive. The new driveway will include left furn lanes for staff and ambulance accesses causing some on-street parking on the south side of Trousdale to be eliminated along with some of the existing buildings. From the floor, Pat Giorni said the ambulance entrance should be on El Camino Real and suggested polling the arnbulance drivers on this item. Chair Cohen will refer this suggestion to the traffic consultants. 7 -2.2 "traffrc Sergeant's Report 7.3 From Commission to Staff 7.3.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Mr. Chou stated that the parking signs on Occidental Avenue have been removed. He also advised that Engineering and Police staffs will be meeting with Our Lady of Angels school next week. Also, he has received calls from the day care school about the plan. The curb painting wiltr be done soon and expects improvement of the situation next week. 7.3.2 Comments and Communication Chair Cohen asked about grants from the Office ofTraffic Safety. Officer WiU will check on grant availabilitybutcautionedthatsometimes therules require the costofmanyman-hours bytheCity- Vice Chair Warden spoke to the BID president to contact il Fornaio and Ecco regarding valet parking- Mr. Chou stated he will contact Il Fornaio about their perception of how the valet parking evolved at this site- . Chair Cohen congratulated the secretary to the Commission for her appointment as the new City Clerk. 7.3.3 ExpectedabsencesofCommissionersattheThursday,October 14,2004meeting-None. 8. INACTryE ITEMS. None The City of Budingame Page 4 enough time to cross. Also, the state's vehicle manual should add bike safety rules. B.,.lingarRe Cr.rr."il 501 7'00 a \-, [Ulateo GountyTimes Newspapers Amphlett Blvd. c494402 (\-/ 595-9595 opt.4 i':' i,, ;'; i CITY OF BURLINGAME i' j:''501 PRIMROSE RD,ATTN: KRIS KROW, BURLINGAME CA 94OIO r'.'il.,,,1 ,.",.}j if Pr00r 0r FILE NO. , lnrthe matter of City of Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan r.b iill, lottt*aersigned deposes that he/she is the Public Notice , ,.$tlyertising Clerk of the SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES, a ,ir#Ewspaper of general circulation as defined by povernment Code Section 6000, adjudicated as such by the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (Order Nos. 55795 on September 2l,l95l), which is published and circulated in said county and state daily (Sunday excepted). The PUBLICNOTICE \.:.s published in every issue of the SAN MATEO COUNTY ';,,iITIMES on the followint U"r;!?irOO I l'r i.:.,.r i i:i' il. ::r':' ill.i)i ., iti ffi,0"+" osafil 1"x,, i*&.' &#,r'*dap \+that the ;. ; Public Notice Advertising Clerk under the penalty of perjury true and conect. I certify (or Lesal No. 0000404008 Publlc lb.dnc clry ol BufllngarneEk?cb Transportatlon Plan Come shar€ rour ileas abod lh€ Bicvcb outes and taciti[ies in Burlingamel For niore intomalbn, pleas€ ca! the PlannirE Depan- mont at (650) 55&7250. Copios ol the Drall Bieycle Plan ars avail* ble at the Planning Deparlrnem, Cily Hall,501 Primose Foad, Thg plan b also avaihble on the City's website at www.burlingame.oq. Follow $e lir$( b Bbycb Transport'atbn Phn. TrdfE Salety & ParkirE Commissbn Tlursday, Seilember 9, 2004 7:00 gn Burfmame Citv Hail Courc-l Chan*irrs 501 Primrcse Boad, Burlingame Planning Commission lr/bnday, Septembet 27, m4 7:00 p.m. Burf,flgEme Cily Hall Counc'il Charltiers 501 Primrose Road, BurlirEame San llateo Gounty TlmB, #4O4O08August3l,2nxr4 I i $ffi1 \1ai '-,:'llilvl 'I tr.t TRAFFIG, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSTON Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, September 9, 2004 customers who carryweighty from his are unable to Scott Parsons event parking is biggest problem. Itwas andseconded to makethis an immediately. It then moved and (Comms.to approve request for a green for four parking Both motions approved Commission. 4.2.3 Evaluate parking at 8 MahlerRoad From the Lovotti stated srnce last month's three trucks stored on the requests No Parking signs installed to continuing problem Mahler Road. Mr-stated that the Enforcernent (CEO) has been with some of the servlce notices were to all businesses on street. Chair Cohen Vice Chair Wardenholdingitem until the CEO responded on the suggested'the call the police report offenders that business license applications include off-street requirements.Planner Brooks stated that the ZoningCode includesthe foroff-street but enforcementis a unless are reported to Mr. the advised that this a Discussion Item month, and he will invite to 5 WLEDGMENT ITEMS. None. THE FLOOR. 6.1 Pat Giorni placing the date at the end of the She also requested overnight requirements be to encourage parking in driveways. Jennifer Pfaff spoke on being enforced SLfV's, RV's, boats,which arebeing parked on the street in her 7. INFORMATION ITEMS 7.1 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame 7. 1.1 Bicycle Transportation Plan I 'I E, Chair Cohen advised that no action will be taken tonight and opened-&" f,rff. hearing. From the floor, Jennifer Pfaff suggested adding tralfic lights for bike kaffrc on existing traffic light poles and painting the bike lanes in a color other than white to be more conspicrious for driverawareness. She also suggested educating the public with a Bike Day and close some skeets to car traffic that day to introduce the new plan. Bill Sharer suggested a safe place to cross l0l. Pat Giorni stated education is important and the League ofAmerican Cyclists piovides bike safety lessons- She checked cameras on El Camino Real which seem to work but the lights don't givl \- The Cily of Budingame Page 3 TR/N:FIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMTSSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, Septemb er g, 2A04 .. enough time to cross. Also, the state's vehicle manual should add bike safety rules. Chair Cohen stated that the plan will include installing signage that Burlingame is a bicycle friendlycommunity 7.2 From Staffto Commission 7.2.1 Traffrc Report a * 7.2.r.1 Mr. Chou 7.2.2 Drive adrawing Avenue traffic signal left turn lanes for side of Trousdale eliminated the floor, Pat said the suggested polling ambulance Chair Cohen refer this Drive.new driveway will ambulance causing parking onthe some of the buildings. entrance be on El Camino,Real this item. to the traffic or srgns OccidentalAvenue removed. He also advised Hospital ts mainentrance of Angels school next plan. The curb painting will to aa 7.3 From to staff 7.3.of citizen . Chou stated that that Engineering Also,hehas soon and 7.3.2 Chair asked 8. INACTryE Chair W spoke to the of Traffic Safety. Offrcer W checkongrant require the cost ofmany bytheCity. to contact Il Fomaio Ecco regarding valet of how the valet parking :F- and s Report staffs from grants fromthe thatsometimes be meeting with care school about the situation next but Mr.statedhewill Il Fornaio abouttheir evolved at site. Chair congratulated secretary to the Commission her appointment as the new City .3 ExBected , October l4,2OO4 meeting - None. The City of Burlingane None of Commissioners af the Page 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes REGULAR ACTION ITEM J. September 27, 2004 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLA}[ - PUBLIC }IEARING AND ACTION ON FINAL DRAFT BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT, FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL OTEWSPAPER NOTICE) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report September 27, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report summarizing the plan, noting that the action was to approve the plan and to recommend to City Council that the Plan be amended to the circulation element of the General Plan. Commission asked: looking at route map there seem to be a couple of destinations missed, RayPark, Roosevelt School, McKinley school; was there a reason the subcommittee did not include these destinations? C. Brownrigg, Bicycle Subcommittee member noted that there was a lot of discussion about the various routes to include, could not stripe every street, made an effort to balance recreational and commuter usage, felt that the Ray Park residents were pretty careful; also noted that this plan is a beginning not an end, will evaluate how people use the routes in the future and can add lanes/routes as needed. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue; commented that she had attended the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission meetings on the plan and had a couple of ideas: currently there is not enough time at the bicycle actuated signal at ECR to walk bicycles across the street, mayte this actuation could be coordinated with the "walking man" ; the regional plan does not reflect bicycle routes through Hillsborough, perhaps that could be added to the final regional map; the TrafIic, Safety and Parking commission did incorporate the intersection near Ray Park, the school and Ray Drive. There were no further questions from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: this is a document which will grow, it will be the basis for the city's permanent plan. C. Vistica noted that this is a great piece of work which is long overdue and moved to recommend the plan by resolution to the City Council for amendment to the Circulation Element ofthe General Plan. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the plan and recommend to City Council that it be amended to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Staffwas directed to place this item on the City Council agenda for action. The item concluded at7:20p.m. 2. 1783 EL REAL,ZONED,FOR ENVIR IMPACT A COND PERMIT,PARCEL ZONING AMENDMENT CHANGE IN R-3 TO AND TOC-l FOR ANDRELATED FORAPROJECT I. T[m PENINSULA TO FryE. A WTTIANEWSD( BUILDING FOR GARAGE AND A TORY BUILDING,A SUPPORTSP AND MEDICAL (239 NOTTCED)PLANNERS: Chair by explaining the for public comments Monroe presented on the process and actions since the applicant bepresentingthe She \-report, required applications and 3 to date;the Commissioners memo at PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City of Burlingame City Council will hold a public hearing on the Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan at a regular Council meeting on Monday, October 18,2404, at 7:00 p.m. in the Burlingame City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road. For more information, please call the Planning Deparhnent at 650-558-7250. Copies of the Draft Bicycle Plan are available at the Planning Deparhnent at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, and at the Burlingame Library, 480 Primrose Road. The plan is also available on the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Follow the link to Burlingame Bicycle Transportation Plan. \-, a Xil, 6.2004 i:09AM |'l0.2506 P, 4 1 t PUBUC HEARING NOTICE The City of Burlingarne City Council will hold a public hearing. on the Burtinr;ame Bicttck Transportation Plan at a n:gular Counci meeting on Monday, Octoberr 18, 2004, e 7:00 p.m. in the Burlingame Gft'r Hall Counci Clrambars, 501 Primrose Road. For mors information, please ca' the Ptanni: r Deoartment at 65G558- 7250. Cooiss 5f the braft Biorcle Phn are arrailable at ihe rlanning Depahment d Burlin,;ame City l-l ll, 501 Primrose Roa4 and at the Builing me Library, 480 Primrose Road. The plan is ilso arailable on the CiVs wetnite at irww.l urlingame.org. Follow the litk to Burling une BfutTcle Transportatbn Plan $ m Mateo County Times, #421A9A Oclober 8,2004 a t ::: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLTNICIL OF THE CITY OF'BURLINGAME ADOPTING THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AIYD AMENDING THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN RESOLVED, by the City Council ofthe City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame have initiated the preparation of a Bicycle Transportation Plan to be amended to the Circulation Element of the Burlingame General Plan; and WHEREAS, a Subcommittee of the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission, including a Plaruring Commissioner, worked with Planning Staff to develop a Bicycle Transportation Plan for the City; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2004,the Trafftc, Safety and Parking Commison reviewed and endorsed the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, on September27,2004,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended to the City Council adoption of the BicycleTransportation Plan as an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Burlingame General Plan; and WHEREAS, on October 18, 2004, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which the Council received and considered all comments and testimony by any interested person who appeared or who submitted written materials regarding the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the definition of a system of bicycle routes and trails within and connecting to adjacent regional trail systems will improve the quality of life and public safety of the residents and those employed in the City of Burlingame; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan is consistent with and will advance the goals of the Circulation Element, the other Elements of the City's General PIan, and the Specific Plans of the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: l. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the Bicycle Transportation Plan and General Plan Amendment will have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and are categorically exempt from the California I. I , \- Environmental QualityActperArticle 19, Sections 15301 and 15304; and 2. Based on the recorlmendations of the Bicycle Subcommittee, Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission, public testimony and review by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the Bicycle Transportation Plan will benefit the residents and employees in the City of Burlingame and, because it is consistent with established city policy, it is appropriate to amend to the Burlingame General Plan Circulation Element. 3. The Bicycle Transportation Plan is hereby adopted as an urmendment to the Burlingame General Plan Circulation Element. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day oL,2004,andwasadoptedthereafterbythefollowingvote: AYES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COI.]NCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS City Clerk a ! 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME Draft Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN \-. September, 2004 Prepared by City of Burlingame Planning Department i,'I \-. a Draft Amendment to the Circulation Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..... II. BACKGROUND AND SETTING....... .......... C1.3 A. Burlingame Community........... A. Purpose of the Plan B. Public Participation...... B. Existing and Expected Bicycle Commuters...... C. Existing and Planned Land Uses D. Existing Bicycle Routes...... A. Priority Projects . B. Design Standards ..............cr-7 III. GOALS AIID POLICIES ..........cI-9 rv.BrCYCLE NETWORTL FACTLITTES AND PROGRAMS........... ................Cr-I0 A. Local and Regional Routes B. Bicycle Storage and Shower Facilities C. Coordination and Consistency with other Plans D. Bike Transport on Transit E. Bicycle Safety and Education............ V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CI-10 CI-10 CI-IO CI-12 CI-12 ...cr-13 CI-l5 :! CI-13 C. Project Costs CI-16 D. Funding Sources.. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Transportation Hubs, Schools, Parks and Shopping Districts.............. Figure 2 -1972 Bikeways Map......... .CI-6 .CI-8 Figure 3 - Local and Regional Bicycle Routes..... ................CI-11 \- City of Burlingame cl-1 General Plan a Draft Amendment to the Circulation Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Introduction I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Plan Since Burlingame's inception, the center of community activity has been around its two commercial areas which grew up adjacent to the Burlingame and Broadway train stations with surrounding nearby multiple family residential development fanning out to single family homes. The promotion of bicycling as an alternative transportation source is a natural progression from this transit-oriented communitybase. Since Burlingame is an older community, many of the streets are narrow and most of its properties are built out. New development generally occurs on sites which have had a previous use. The purpose of this plan is to: o Identify the regional and local bicycle routes through Burlingame for commuters, recreational riders and local shopping trips; o Explore how the bicycle routes can be made more safe and accessible; o Provide a framework for making physical improvements to the bicycle route system. B. Public Participation In order to take leadership in promoting bicycle safety in the community and participation in the preparation of this plan, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSP) and the Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee consisting of two TSP members and one Planning Commissioner. This committee has also contacted members of the local bicycle community to ask their advice on the best and safest routes through Burlingame as well as the areas which need improvement. Once the plan has been drafted, public hearings before the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission and the Planning Commission will be held to offer an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the plan. Notices of these hearings will be published in local newspapers, posted on the City's website, and posted on streets in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas, as well as at the train stations and at the local bicycle shop. Following the public hearings, the City Council will hold a public hearing and take action on the plan by amending it to the City's General Plan. This bicycle plan also builds on the regional routes developed in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, adopted in 2000, which was developed after a series of public workshops held throughout San Mateo County. It is also consistent with the routes shown in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's adopted 2001 Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Are4 which shows the Bay Trail and the California/Carolan north-south route through Burlingame.. \. City of Burlingame ct-2 General Plan I II Draft Amendment to the Circulation Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Background and Setting BACKGROUND AND SETTING a C. Burlingame Community Burlingame was incorporated in 1908 around the Burlingame train station. The communitybegan developing out from its original core, and soon the Broadway train station to the north and the growing commercial and residential area around it was annexed to Burlingame. [n Burlingame, there has always been higher density residential development immediately surrounding the two retail cores fanning out to single family homes both between U.S. l0l and El Camino Real, and west of El Camino extending west to Skyline Boulevard. Burlingame's industrial base is located north of Broadway, along both Rollins Road and Bayshore Highway, and serves many airport- related businesses, as well as business which rely on access to U.S. 101. East of U.S. 101, in Burlingame's Bayshore area adjacent to San Francisco Bay, there is a mix of hotels, restaurants and office buildings as well as many recreational opportunities for community residents, area employees and hotel guests. Peninsula Hospital annexed to Btrlingame in the 1950's is located at the north end of Burlingame on El Camino Real. The terrain in Burlingame is similar to other Peninsula communities, with a relatively flat area east of El Camino Real, and hillier areas to the west of El Camino Real towards Skyline Boulevard and Highway 280. The north/south bicycle routes are generally flat, with gently rolling hills on the route just west of El Camino Real. However, the road connections between lower Burlingame through the hillside areas to Skyline Boulevard are fairly steep. There are routes in nearby Hillsborough to reach the west end of Burlingame which are not quite as steep but are more circuitous. Because most of Burlingame was subdivided before 1940 and the city was almost fully developed by the 1970's, with little population growth in the ensuing years, the street pattern is fixed and many of the older residential streets are narrow designed to pre-World War II standards. El Camino Real as it passes through Burlingame is a substandard fourlane highway lined by a historic grove of Eucall,ptus trees. Burlingame has always been a city of trees, and even in the early days, efforts to widen El Camino were fought by residents wanting to preserve the Eucalyptus and Elm trees which line it. There are a few local streets through the established residential neighborhoods which were originally designed as "boulevards" and have adequate width to accommodate bicycle kavel. These routes are now used informally by bicyclists. The proposed local and regional network of bicycle routes was developed using these streets as a base, to connect to the local routes in San Mateo, Hillsborough and Millbrae. The inter-city routes pass through Burlingame's neighborhoods as close as possible to existing local parks and schools. \-. City of Burlingame cl-3 General Plan In addition, Burlingame has about two and one-half linear miles of frontage onos'an Francisco Bay. The Bayfront land area was primarily created from fill in the 1950's and 1960's. As development occurred after the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) was established in 1972, sections of the Bay Trail were built adjacent to the bay's edge. Since there are still a few parcels which have not been developed, or reused since BCDC was established by the State legislature, a few gaps in this trail system on private property still remain . ln 1999, the City\-. \- Draft fo the Circuletion Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Background and Setting completed construction of the portions of the Bay Trail located on City-owned parcels with frontage on San Francisco Bay. D. Existing and Expected Bicycle Commuters Based on data collected in the 2000 Census, there are 3105 residents who live and also work in Burlingame. Of those,60 (1.9%) commute by bicycle and 315 (10.1%) walk to work. Of the 16,395 people who commute in Burlingame to work, there are 160 people (0.97%) who commute to work by bicycle and 433 people (2.6%) who walk to work, mostly from San Mateo and Millbrae. Of the 11,695 people living in Burlingame who commute to work, 104 (0.8%) commute to work by bicycle. County-wide, the 2000 Census shows that out of the 354,186 commuters,2,986 (l%) bicycle to work, and7,609 (2%) walkto work. In comparison, Burlingame has more people who walk to work and fewerpeople who bike to work than in the County as a whole. The following tables, based on data from Census 2000 and the 1990 Census, compares Burlingame commuters to commuters in the region and State. Number of Bicycle and Walking Trips, Workers 16 Years Old and Older 1990 and 2000 Census Total Number of Commuters 1990 2000 Burlingame 14,818 15,242 San Mateo Co.346,559 354,096 Bay Area 3,200,933 3,306,051 California 13,940,250 14,525,322 The data indicates that Burlingame is on par with the County and State-wide in the number of commuter trips by bicycle and walking. However, Burlingame lags behind the Bay Area as a whole. It also indicates that while the number of bicycle and walking commuters increased Statewide over a ten year period, the numbers in Burlingame and San Mateo County have remained fairly constant. The Bay Area has a temperate climate which is conducive to commuting by bipycle or walking. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan indicates that-based on a survey conducted county-wide many people who might bicycle to work are concerned with finding safe routes and having bicycle facilities, including bicycle parking and showers, at their place of employment. i \-.. Walk TotalBicycle 2000 1990 2000199020001990 1.0%108 0.7%360 2.4%409 2.8%468 3.1%558 33%Burlingame 149 3.3%San Mateo Co.2,606 0.7%2896 0.8%7,609 2.1%8,858 2.6%10,505 2.9%11,464 106,063 3.2%tt6,3t7 3.6%142,066 4.3%151,199 4.7%Bay Area 34,882 t.t%36,003 t.t% 130,706 1.0%120,567 0.8%414,581 2.9%469,867 3.3%535,148 3.7%600,573 4.3%California City of Burlingame cl-4 General Plan a Draft A to the Circulation Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Background and Setting By making the improvements proposed by this plan, the bike routes through Burlingame will be safer and easier to use. It is expected that the number of commuters using bicycles or walking could be increased to well above the Bay Area average. It is a goal of this plan to increase the number of bicycle and pedestrian commuters in Burlingame to 6.50/o of commuters walking or riding their bicycle to work; and to facilitate bicycle access to employment destinations in the City. E. Existing and Planned Land Uses Except for a few vacant parcels on the Bayfront, the Burlingame Community is primarily built out, and the land use patterns are well established. Burlingame is a well-rounded community with single family homes, apartments and condominiums near the three shopping districts, and an industrial area along Rollins Road between Broadway and the Millbrae city limits. The Bayfront Area, east of U.S. l0l, provides an offtce and industrial area between U.S. l0l and of Bayshore Highway, a Waterfront Commercial Area, consisting of offices, hotels and restaurants, along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, and community park facilities at Bayside Park including baseball, soccer, free play areas and a golf driving range. The eastem portion of the City also contains a portion of the Bay Trail, which is widely used for both recreation and bicycle commuting. Figure 1 depicts Burlingame's transportation hubs, schools, parks and shopping districts. ffi -- l; )l \- City of Burlingame cl-5 General Plan a Draft Amendment to the Circulation Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Background and Setting F. Existing Bicycle Routes There are only a few marked bicycle routes in Burlingame, although there are many routes which have been consistently used by bicyclists over the years- In 1972, the Burlingame City Council adopted a system of bicycle routes through Burlingame as shown on Figure 2, Exhibit A dated May 15,1972. The routes include Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard east of U.S. l0l, Skyline Boulevard on the western edge of Burlingame, and two other north/south routes on local residential roads between San Mateo and Millbrae, with local east-west connector routes near the train stations and the commercial core. This route map ,Is adopted in 1972 shows no easVwest routes to connect to Skyline Boulevard to the west. In the 1970's, bike lanes were installed on Skyline Boulevard. [n addition, bicycle route signs were installed to delineate one of the north-south Class trI bike routes through Burlingame. Over the years, most of the signs along this route have been removed and the bike route is no longer clearly marked. There are no signs along the other 1972identified routes through Burlingame. t3 x City of Burlingame ct-7 General Plan a o ?II N f.-ooN l--) >, u).o '.-r oi o-= <o .to F5 lJ-.1 r \ X.:rno oo er rdvtrii.Yc, ao?trd,i$"E;r'1 0)C.=d.i }rC-!J66MOF |ll a B rn sd 01 li .n t! ot<--<JQ-(:5 r=3 >sF5 Figure 2 Page Cl-8 l o o 3! J J L o a a o ? , !, l, co (, ci s , ht \,, ) oz rno rdJ Draft Amendment to the Circulation Element GOAL A: Policies: A-1. A-3. A-4. GOAL B: Policies: B-1. B-2. Policies: c-l. Bicycle Transportation Plan - Goals and Policies M. GOALS AND POLICIES Provide a framework for improving the existing bicycle route system in Burlingame. Designate routes for both local and regional bicycle trips for the benefit of commuters and recreational cyclists. Establish a list of priority projects for improvement of the community's bicycle route system. Provide a system of signs to direct bicyclists to the best routes within and through Burlingame and guide them in their use. On the portions of Howard Avenue, California Drive and Carolan Avenue where there is adequate right-of-way, create Class I Bike Lanes to provide both a north/south and easUwest connection through Burlingame. Promote bicycle travel as a safe and viable transportation mode and provide a system which connects work, shopping, schools, residential and recreation areas. Maintain Bicycle routes in a safe and rideable condition. Local bicycle routes should be signed, and should connect local schools, parks and shopping areas. Local bicycle routes should provide access to the Burlingame and Broadway Caltrain stations, and to the Millbrae lntermodal Transit Station immediately north of the Burlingame boundary. Promote the use of Bicycle Detection Systems to allow bicycles to trigger signals at the intersections between bike routes and arterials such as El Camino Real and California Drive. Identify and promote safe bicycle parking facilities near shopping areas, schools, recreation areas and transit stations. Encourage bicycle safety programs to educate students at the local schools about safe riding habits. Establish nely connections across U.S. 101 to provide access from Burlingamets residential areas to the recreational opportunities along the Burlingame Bayfront and to provide regional connections to the Bay Trail. c-3 Work with Caltrans on the design of the Broadway Bicycle and Pedestrian overcrossing proposed as a part of the U.S. 101 Auxiliary Lane project. Develop safe connections to the Broadway bicycle and pedeskian qvercrossing from Cadillac Way on the west side, and onto Broadway/Airport Boulevard on the east side of the overcrossing. Promote a second bicycldedestrian connection across U.S. l0l in the vicinity of the AtuaBoulevard off-ramp to connect to Rollins Road near Morrell Avenue and Winchester Drive. A-2 l,.f B-3. B-4. B-5. 8-6. GOAL C: c-2 \-, City of Burlingame c-9 General Plan I Draft Amendmenf to the Circulation Element a Bicycle Transportation Plan - Proposed Bicycle Network IV. BICYCLE NETWORK, FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS E. Local and Regional Routes Figure 3 shows the local and regional bicycle routes through Burlingame. The primary regional routes are: North/South Routes o Bay Trail o Airport Boulevard/Bayshore Highway o Howard/Carolan/California Drive East/West Routes o Howard Avenue from Humboldt in San Mateo to Ralston Avenue in Hillsborough o Adeline Drive from Central Burlingame through unincorporated Burlingame Hills to Skyline Boulevard The local routes through the residential neighborhoods also provide regional access, but by roads with less traffic and are more scenic. The route west of El Camino Real which follows Cabrillo Avenue and jogs up to Quesada Wayprrsses several schools and parks and offers a fairly flat altemative to El Camino Real, which is much too busy and narrow through Burlingame to accommodate bicycle traffic. F. Bicycle Storage and Shower Facilities Bicycle racks are available at the Burlingame Public Library, the Recreation Center at Washington Park and at the schools and parks shown on Figure 3. Based on the San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan, bicycle facilities are required as traffic mitigation for all new development in Burlingame. These facilities could include bicycle lockers, racks and shower facilities provided for employees working in a new office or colnmercial building. It is recommended that additional bicycle racks of a tlpe selected by the City be placed at strategic locations, such as public parking lots as apart of streetscape improvements, within the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue Commercial Areas as uses change, buildings are replaced, and sidewalks are redone. Bicycle lockers and racks are available at both the Burlingame and Broadway Caltrain Stations. The Burlingilme train station has 18 bicycle lockers available for rent on a monthly basis and a bicyle rack which will hold 8 bicycles. The Broadway train station has 12 bicycle lockers for rent and two bicycle racks which will hold a total of 16 bicycles. G. Coordination and Consistency with other Plans This plan is an amendment to the Circulation Element of the Burlingame Genial Plan, and is consistent with the transportation policies contained in that plan, including the Bayfront Specific Plan and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The regional bicycle routes shown in the plan are consistent with the routes shown in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan adopted by the City/County Association of Govemments in \- City of Burlingame c-10 General Plan Draft Amendment to the Circulation Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Proposed Bicycle Network 2000. In addition, the priority projects identified in the County's plan have been incorporated into the list ofprojects identified in the implementation chapter of this plan. In addition, the routes in this plan me consistent with the routes shown in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's adopted 2001 Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. The MTC regional plan shows the Bay Trail and the California/Carolan north-south route as regional routes through Burlingame.. The regional routes shown also connect with regional routes to the south which are shown in the City of San Mateo Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter of the Circulation Element. To the north, the regional routes connect with those identified in Millbrae's General Plan. Although the Town of Hillsborough does not have a formal bicycle plan, the routes shown through Hillsborough are the routes which are corlmonly used by cyclists and connect to the planned route on Skyline Drive in Burlingame as well as to regional routes along the San Andreas reservoir. ! City of Burlingame c-ll General Plan , Draff Amendmenf fo fhp Element Bicycle Transportation PIan - Proposed Bicycle Network G. Bicycle Transport on Transit There are two Caltrain stations in Burlingame, at Burlingame Avenue and Broadway at California Drive. Each local train is equipped with a carwhich allows up to 32 bicycles on board. These bicycle cars are heavily used during commute hours. Caltrain recently began offering "Baby Bullet" service, an express hain that does not stop at all local stops. This service does not stop in Burlingame, the nearest stop is at the Millbrae Intermodal Transit Station just north of the Burlingame border. The Baby Bullet trains offer more limited bicycle access, with 16 bicycle spaces per train. SamTrans operates a bus system throughout San Mateo County, with three local routes and five regional routes which provide service in Burlingame. All SamTrans buses are equipped with bicycle racks, which hold a maximum of two bikes, and two additional bikes are allowed inside the bus. Following are the bus routes which serve Burlingame: o Route 43 travels from BurlingamePlazaShopping Center at El Camino Real and Murchison and connects with the Tanforan Shopping Center in San Bruno, traversing local streets through Millbrae and El Camino Real. o Route 44 operates entirely within Burlingame starting at Trousdale and Quesada on the north and traveling south along California Drive to Burlingame Avenue. o Route 292 nns from the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San Mateo to the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco, and travels through Burlingame along Peninsula Avenue, California Drive and Broadway. tr Route 342 is a local route which connects the western neighborhoods of Burlingame to the Millbrae Intermodal Station via Trousdale Drive. tr Route 390 is a regional route connecting Stanford and Palo Alto to the Daly City BART Station and traverses Burlingame along El Camino Real. tr Route 391 connects Redwood City to downtown San Francisco and also passes through Burlingame on El Camino Real B Route 397 Connects downtown Palo Alto with downtown San Francisco, and kavels through Burlingame on El Camino Real. H. Bicycle Safety and Education tr Currently, there is no avenue for bicycle education and safety. It is proposed that brochures be developed which inform people of the location of the bicycle routes through Burlingame, as well as to offer safety tips for riding, such as the rules of the road, how to negotiate intersections, riding defensively, and how to use hand signals. These brochures would be made available at the City's recreation center and library, as well as distributed to schools. In addition, the posting of signs along the bicycle routes will educate motorists to expect bicycle traffic on these streets. The Burlingame Police Departrnent has a School Liaison Officer, and the brochures can be dishibuted through this officer as a part of a bicycle safety education program. The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance also has a program that provides Bike and Pedestrian Safety workshops at an employer's work site. tr In addition, the League of American Bicyclists conducts an education program for bicyclists to learn how to ride safely. Classes are taught through local community centers and provide education to both children and adults. The community can take advantage of this resource to provide education to all cyclists. i ,^ City of Burlingame c-r3 General Plan a I)raft Amendment to the Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Proposed Bicycle Network a Once some of the designated routes have been established, thecommunity should hold a "Bicycle Day" to promote the use of the bicycle routes and to distribute information on bicycle safety. City of Burlingame c-t4 General Plan a f)raff Amendment fo fhp Elemenf a Birycle Transportation Plan - Implementation V. IMPLEMENTATION A. PRIORITY PROJECTS In an effort to improve bicycle transportation in and through Burlingame, the following have been identified as having the highest priority and giving the most benefit to bicycle commuters and recreational riders in the community. l. Bicycle Detectors/Crosswalks and marked bike lane at the Cadillac WaylRollins Road intersection to access the new Broadway bicycle/pedestrian bridge. As a part of the Caltrans Auxiliary Lane project between Third Avenue in San Mateo and Millbrae Avenue, Caltrans will be constructing a bicycle pedestrian bridge adjacent to the existing niurow Broadway interchange overpass. The bridge will land in the island across from the Cadillac Way/Rollins Road intersection, where it is difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross Rollins Road to access the bridge. This crossing could be made safer by: a. providing a crosswalk across Rollins Road from the north side of Cadillac Way to the bridge landing; b. providing street markings and bicycle detectors on Cadillac Way so that cyclists can make a left turn towards the bridge landing; and c. adding a designated bicycle lane along Rollins Road approaching the bridge to separate bicyclists from the nearest automobile travel lane. 2. Bike Lanes on Carolan, California and Howard Avenue - The San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan contains a list of l5 priority projects to enhance the regional bicycle route system. One of the projects on this list is the completion of a North- South Bikeway as it runs through San Mateo, Burlingame and Millbrae. The portion through Burlingame would connect with Delaware Avenue in San Mateo to the South, and would connect to the Millbrae Intermodal Transit Station to the North. Most of this regional route is on streets (California, Carolan, Howard) which have adequate width to provide Class I bike lanes, or to provide adequate shoulder for cyclists to safely ride next to automobile haffic. It is recommended that improvements to these roadways be made to add Class II bike lanes to the extent feasible, and to provide adequate signage to direct riders to use this route (see diagram on Page CI-I5 for an explanation of Class I, tr and II bicycle routes). 3. Explore the possibility of a local bicycle path between the Broadway and Burlingame Commercial Areas and train stations using existing right-of-way along the Caltrain tracks. Along the Caltrain tracks between Burlingame Avenue and Broadway, there maybe excess right-of-way on either side of the tracks sufficient to install a Class I bicycle path. This right-of-way is not owned or controlled by the City of Burlingame, but belongs to either the Joint Powers Board which operates Caltrain, or the City and County of San Francisco (adjacent to Califomia Drive). This project would have-to be a joint effort in cooperation with these agencies and is a long range project. If the project is determined to be feasible, the path should be a joint use trail, with separate clearly designated areas for bicycles and for pedestrians. It is allso recommended that a landscaped buffe be included between the railroad tracks and the pathway. City of Burlingame c-I5 General Plan Draft Amendment to the Circulation Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Implementation 4. Place Bicycle Racks in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Districts. These two busy commercial districts can be easily accessed by bicycle from the surrounding residential areas. Bicycle racks of a design to match the existing street fumiture could be placed either along the sidewalks or in the many public parking lots which serve these areas. These should be designed into any future streetscape improvements in the public right-of- way. 5. Explore the possibility of creating a loop path connecting to the proposed creekside paths in the RoIIins Road area. As apart of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, a series of multi-use (pedestrian/bicycle, etc.) creek trails is proposed which would be developed as new development occurs in that area. In order to connect these trails within the Rollins Road area and provide a full connection through the Rollins Road area, it is proposed that bicycle connections to these creek trails be created. The exact locations of the connections and whether they would be on public or private property would need to be explored. 6. Provide a second bridge crossing of U.S. 101 in the vicinity of Winchester Drive to connect to the existing bike and pedestrian path on the east side near Anza Boulevard and Bayside Park. The Bayfront Specific Plan identifies this location for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing of 101 which provides direct access from the residential neighborhoods west of U.S. l0l to the recreational amenities at Bayside Park and along the Bay Trail. 7, Bicycle Route Signs along Local and Regional Routes. Another project on the priority list in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan is to provide directional signage and signal detectors along the regional north south route. In addition, some of Burlingame's local bicycle routes have signs which were installed in the early 1970's, but many are missing and the route is not always apparent. A comprehensive program for signing all the bicycle routes through Burlingame would go a long way toward making the City's system more user-friendly and safer. Also, the signage would raise awareness of automobile drivers to look for bicyclists along these routes. Since many of these local bicycle routes are through residential neighborhoods, the option to mark some of the routes with street markings rather than signs, where the situation warrants, should be considered. As a part of this sign program, it is also recommended that signs be placed at the prominent gateway entrances to Burlingame which include a statement which identifies Burlingame as a bicycle friendly community. Possible locations for these signs would be at the City limits on El Camino, Califomia Drive, Rollins Road, Airport Boulevard and Bayshore Highway. 8. Explore the possibility of adding "zebra crossings" (clearly marked pedestrian crossings) across El Camino Real and California Drive at intersections with bicycle routes. One of the impediments to bicycling to and from parks, playgrounds and shopping areas in Burlingame is the ability to safely cross these two busy arterial streets. Caltrans has recently completed the installation of video bicycle detectors on signals at critical intersections along El Camino Real. Where the video detectors work with the signals, the striped crossing would reinforce and make the motorist aware to riatch for pedestrians and bicyclists crossing at the bicycle route intersections. 9. Create Handouts and an outreach program to make people aware of the bicycle routes and provide guidance regarding bicycle safety. An important element of creating a safe environment for bicycle riding is education. The public needs to be aware of the routes City of Burlingame c-l6 General Plan a Draft A to the Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Irrplementation which can be used to access our local facilities, and both motorists and bicyclists can benefit from learning the rules of safe bicycle riding. The handouts would be made available to schools through the Police Department's School Liaison Officer and distributed at parks and libraries. B. DESIGN STANDARDS The proposed projects will be designed in accordance with the Design and Maintenance Standards as outlined in Chapter 5.0 of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route plan. The general criteria outlined in the County Plan is that projects are to Conform to Caltrans standards for bikeways. The following chart delineates the three types ofbicycle facilities, Class I, Class II and Class III. Specific details on the design standards for these tlpes of facilities may be found in the San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route plan. t, c-17 General Plan a City of Burlingame Draft Amendment to the Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Irplementation CLASS I BIKE PATH db BIKE PATH NO MOTOR VEHIcLES OR MOTORIZTD BICYCTES I e'mrmmum t't Recommended ioiz-T CLASS II B]KE LANE db BIKE LANE 4'-0 to 5'-f width m Parking CLASS lII BIKE ROUTE BIKE ROUTE d6 .l City of Burlingame c-18 General Plan a Draft Amendment to the Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Irrylementation C. PROJECT PRIORITY AND COSTS Following is a prioritization of the proposed projects based on which projects provide the most public benefit for safety and increased bicycle use. 1. Bicycle Detectors/Crosswalks and marked bike lane at the Cadillac Way/Rollins Road intersection to access the new Broadway bicycle/pedestrian bridge. 2. Bike Lanes on Carolan, California and Howard Avenue. 3. Bicycle Route Signs along Local and Regional Routes. 4. Explore the possibility of adding "zebra crossings" (clearly marked pedestrian crossings) across El Camino Real and California Drive at intersections with bicycle routes. 5. Place Bicycle Racks in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Districts. 6. Create Handouts and an outreach program to make people aware of the bicycle routes and provide guidance regarding bicycle safety. 7. Explore the possibility of a local bicycle path between the Broadway and Burlingame Commercial Areas and train stations using existing right-of-way along the Caltrain tracks 8. Explore the possibility of creating a loop path connecting to the proposed creekside paths in the Rollins Road area. 9. Provide a second bridge crossing of U.S. l0l in the vicinity of Winchester Drive to connect to the existing bike and pedestrian path on the east side near AruaBoulevard and Bayside Park. The following is an estimate of the costs to complete the improvements discussed in the plan. All costs estimated are in2004 dollars. *cost shown is for the study only; study would identify costs for improvements. PROJECT ESTIMATED COST l. Bicycle Detectors/Crosswalks and marked bike lane at the Cadillac Way/Rollins Road intersection to access the new Broadway Licycle/pedestrian bridge.$1o,ooo 2. Bike Lanes on Carolan, California and Howard Avenue Carolan bet California & Howard - 7,000 lineal feet California bet Broadway & Murchison - 7,000 lineal feet Howard bet Humboldt & El Camino Real - 5000 lineal ft. TOTAL: 19,000 LF X $8/LF: $56,000 $56,000 $40.000 $152,000 3. Signage for Local and Regional Routes East of El Camino Real - 15,750 lineal feet West of El Camino Real - 13,000 lineal feet TOTAL: 28,750 LF X $5/LF: $78,750 $6s.000 $143,750 4. Zebra Crossings along El Camino Real & California Drive (Seven)$35,ooo 5. Bike Racks/Broadway & Burlingame Avenue (6 w/8 spaces each)$120,000 6. Create Educational Handouts $6,000 7. Study re: Bike Path between train stations*$25,ooo 8. Study re: loop path in Rollins Road Area*$25,000 9. Bridge Crossing of U.S. 101 at AnzalWinchester Drive $2,500,000 City of Burlingame c-19 General Plan a Draft Amendment to the Element Bicycle Transportation Plan - Inplementation D. FUNDING SOURCES There are several Federal, State and local Programs which provide funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. These projects are rated based on such criteria as the need ofthe project to complete a regional bicycle route system, the increased safety that the project will provide and the amount of the local match for the outside funding. Following are a list of the primary funding sources available in 2004. tr TEA-21 (Transportation Enhancement Activities): This is a federal funding source which offers funding for projects which enhance alternative transportation opportunities. o State Bicycle Transportation Account: An annual program through the State which provides grants to local jurisdictions with an emphasis on projects which benefit bicycling for commuting purposes. o Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 (SB 821): These funds originate from the state gasoline tax and are distributed to local jurisdictions based on population. In San Mateo County, the dishibution of these funds is administered by the San Mateo City/County Association of Govemments (C/CAG). o New Construction/Impact Fee: Any new development in Burlingame's Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road areas will be required either to install the planned bicycle improvements on their property and for area-wide improvements to pay a Development Impact Fee which will frrnd the future installation of bicycle lanes on a comprehensive basis. o Peninsula Congestion Relief Altiance - This agency has a program which provides funds to employers to place bike racks and lockers at their place of business. The Alliance pays one-half the cost for purchasing and installing any bike parking for up to a maximum of $500.00 per unit. The Alliance also has a program that provides Bike and Pedestrian Safety workshops at an employers work site. a ti City of Burlingame c-20 General Plan AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE 5c STAFF REPORT DATE: September 30, ^OO4 Or*nhar 18 20r]4 TO: HONoRABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIT SUBMTTTED BY .laek n Etten Chief of BY nbwFROM-lacV n Fttan Chief af Pnliaa SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Approve Expenditurc of COPS Funds RECOililENDATION: The City Council should hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution for the purpose of approving Chief Van Etten's plan to use COPS (Citizens Options for Police Spending) funds allocated to the City of Burlingame. This hearing should be on the agenda for the October 14, 20b+, City Council meeting. BACKGROUND: The State of Califomia has awarded the City of Burlingame $100,000 in Citizens Options for Police Spending (COPS) funding for this fiscal year (2004-2005). ln order to obtain these funds, there must be a public hearing at a regularly scheduled city council meeting to review and approve the spending plan for the funds. The Chief of Police is responsible for developing the spending plan. Tne plan for consideration is the same as approved in past years by the City Council. fne entire imount of the COPS funding will be used to pay the salaries and benefits of one plus (1+) Burtingame Police Officer(s). This expenditure fulfills the mandate of Governor Schwarzenegger that COPS funds be used for police ' personnel costs. Attachments: None ( RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAMEAPPROYING THE PLAN OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE FOR EXPE_NDiTURE OFCITIZENS OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY ICOPSIiU-NIS- RESOLVED, by the CITY COTINCIL of the City of Burlingame, California that; WHEREAS, the State of California has established the Citizens Options for public Safety (COPS) programs and appropriated money from the State general fund for certain public safety programs for the 2004-2005 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the State has awarded the city $100,000 in copS funding; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has proposed that this funding be used to fund one additional police officer position pursuant to the cops funding guidelines; and WHEREAS, notice of this proposal and this public hearing has been published as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing and received and considered testimony from all persons interested in the matter who appeared at the hearing, NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The plan proposed by the Chief of Police to use the COPS funding for provision of one additional police officer is approved. 2. These funds will be used to supplement existing services as required by State law and shall not be used to supplant any existing funding for the Burlingame police Department. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk ofthe City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the of . 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COI.INCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE:ocroRER 8.2004 AGENDA 5dITEM # MTG. DATE 10.18.04 BY BY ,4/4WAPPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S OF A DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-l RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should include findings and be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Action alternatives and the criteria for design review are included at the end of the staff report for reference. Conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 1,2004, sheets A-1 through A-5, Ll.0, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the property owner shall replace the existing driveway apron and any adjacent sidewalk on the north side of the lot including an approved safe paved transition into the driveway apron located in the public right of way for the adjacent lot at 1557 Drake Avenue, design to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit and to be installed and inspected by the City Engineer prior to scheduling final inspection; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4. that the property owner shall install privacy screening trees which will grow to a height of at least 15'- 0" between the second floor deck and the neighboring property to the north; the City Arborist shall review and approve the irrigation system, the species, number and placement of trees to ensure the neighbor view protection prior to issuance of a building permit; and these trees shall be planted and the irrigation system shall be in place prior to calling for a final inspection for the building permit; 5. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6. that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TI4/O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DIYELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-l OCIObET 18,2004 structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 7 . that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 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 the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's September 29, 2OO3,memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 26,2003, memo, shall be met; 12.that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Califomia Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 13. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 15. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on September 13, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 3-2-2 (C. Brownrigg and Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran and Keele abstaining) to approve the design review for a new two story house with a detached garage at 1553 Drake Avenue, zoned R-l. In support of the action the commissioners noted: the residential design is appropriate for the neighborhood, two traffic engineers supported the relocation of the driveway from the north (right side) to the south (left side) of the property, shadow study shows that 3 months out of the year there will be a minimal impact on the adjacent property, but there are already shadows caused by the overhang of the existing one story house, nice design of proposed house, applicant is willing to replace the driveway apron to accommodate the circulation at the end of this street, the property at 1557 Drake will be developed later, City approved this existing configuration but any development at 1557 Drake will improve this site, a traffic engineer and the City Traff,rc Engineer both have 2 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TII/O-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1553 DRAKE AVENaE, ZONED R-l October 18, 2004 aheady evaluated this project and support the driveway proposal, respect their input and the input form the neighbors. In opposition to the motion to approve the commissioners noted: this is not a cul-de-sac, see safety concern for future homeowners at 1553 Drake, concerned with safety issue and bulk and mass on right side of the proposed building, aesthetically this was a good start to the design, withheld judgment on detailed design issues because thought that there might be changes to the house and it placement to address driveway and safety issues; effect ofsize on adjacent property at 1557 Drake is a concern but could be resolved through better design, de-valuing adjacent property and cannot support, changes can be made to mitigate issues; it is unfair to make planning decisions on future development of neighbor's houses that may be affected, flimsy set of studies done on the circulation, hard to determine where apron and curb cut locations will be and where the location of property lines are, need to have more information, would be helpful if apron area pained out on the site, properties at 1 557 and 1561 Drake may not be owned jointly in the future, with all the development on this block there will be 20 bedrooms where there were 4 bedrooms, need to take a closer look at the on-street parking configuration, what is the benefit to the City if this prqect is approved. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Otto Miller property owner, is requesting design review for a new two story single family dwelling and two car detached garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,384 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,411(0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. A 427 SF two car garuge is proposed for the five bedroom house. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: Design review for a new two story single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010) History: The Planning Commission held a design review study for this site on October 14,2003. The commission asked for additional information and continued the design review study. Since the Commission's questions had to do more with the site development and the use of the adjacent property owned by the developer, no direction regarding the design, was given at the time to the applicant and he made no changes to the design. He did however answer a number of questions asked by the Commission regarding the relationship of this proposed house to the three under consideration at 1535 Drake, a status report on the redwood grove at 1535 Drake and the effects of four new houses at this location. The application appeared again on the Planning Commission agenda on July 26,2004 as a design review study item. A number of concerns were expressed by the Commission including evaluation of the relocation of the driveway to the north side of the lot to accommodate traffic flow at the end of the block, having a professional evaluate and include his conclusions; concems were also expressed by the neighbors about the proposed relocation of the driveway to the south side of the lot and its effect on their ingress and egress, concerns about the proposed height of the structure and its context in the block, and the need to shift the house to the south and increase the side setback on the north (right) side, if the driveway is retained on the south side. In the submittal to the commission for the August 23,2004, review, the applicant kept the driveway on the south side of the house and moved the house 1'-2" to the south inorder to increase the side setback on the north side adjacent to 1557 Drake. The height of the house was also reduced by six inches (31'-10" to 3l'-4" where a maximum of 30' is allowed without a special permit). In the Commission's review of the August revisions they noted: the site location for the structure is wrong, vehicle maneuvering study did not address delivery trucks, concerned about the impact of shadows on the house next door which is on an odd shaped lot; aJ APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REYIEW FORA NEW TIYO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-l October 18,2004 prefer driveway on the north side-rcalize that this means more than flipping the current design; second floor deck is big enough to affect the privacy of the neighbors in their back yards, make smaller; could lower the plate 6" and avoid the special permit for height. In response the applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped September 1,2004. In these plans the height of the house was reduced to 30 feet, and a special permit for height was no longer required. The driveway was retained on the south side of the lot. There were no other changes to the design. The September 1, 2004, proposal was the subject of the Planning Commission's hearing and action on September 13, 2004. The Planning Commission Staff Report, September 13, 2004, reviews the history and comments on each Commission review in detail. Staff Comments: This application is only for design review. Originally the request included a special permit for height, however, the ridge of the house was lowered (September 1,2004 plans) so that the height complies with the R-l district regulations. The issues which became the focus of the Planning Commission's review were: o The safety of the location of the proposed driveway, which is complicated by the configuration of the end of Drake which dead ends at the creek rather than being designed as a cul-de-sac, and by the irregular shape of the lots and their driveway locations at the terminus of Drake. o The apron at the sidewalk solution suggested by the traffic engineers for back up-turn around could affect future use of on street parking in front of 1553 Drake. o The shadows caste by the proposed two story structure on the adjacent one story house to the north. o Impacts of the physical layout of the property at 1557 Drake which would affect future use of the adjacent property to the north. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Design Review Criteria Janet Garcia letter received September 22,2004, to City of Burlingame, Requesting Appeal. E-mail, City Clerk, September 30,2004, to Meg Monroe, requesting October 18,2004 appeal date Planning Commission Minutes, September 13, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report, September 13, 2004, with attachments Resolution Public Notice, Appeal Hearing, mailed October 8,2004 4 1553 Drake Avenue ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City council may vote in favor of an applicanFs request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the grven properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant:s request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. DESIGN REYIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance Nol 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. --. - -.-..1.,,_-::^:-._..-_--. , A Ot-t7.o $*'Ja. 6**^ / )uu-, 6arPth - l*ot Dznltt Ae- E*W;qod^L- G q-..{0, b bg *lr- ow+ - ph k b{b 61a4t4?- t*x.RECEIVED sEP 2 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANI.IING DEPL a I tdz\b'flPe&(d!-c^st aa n, t Q-ti,d4 .I (}-\ Honorable Mayor and City Council: Please schedule an appeal hearing for 1553 Drake Avenue to be heard at the October 18, 2004 Council meeting. City Clerk lvn-+.*- RECEIVED sEP z 2 2llr,+ E'#8iHfif,$fiIi:E -a4 t 4*,7 PLG-Monroe, Meq From:CLK-Mortensen, Doris Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:00 PM GRP-Council PLc-Monroe, Meg Setting Appeal Hearing Date ^Sent:io: Subject: This is regarding the October 4 Council Agenda, ltem 1 1 .a. request to set an appeal hearing date for 1553 Drake Avenue: The Garcias reananged everything in order to have the appeal heard as early as possible; therefore, they request the appeal date be set for Octobet 18,2004. Cc: 1 5. .. City of Burtingame Planning Commission (Inapproved Minutes September li,2004 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR ANEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GAIL{GE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED) PRO.TECT PI ,ANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she resides within 500 feet of the subject property. CA Anderson recused himself from this item because of current California state law. Both left chambers. C. Keele arrived at 8:28 p.m., abstained from voting, because he was not present at last action meeting which was continued. Reference staff report September 13,2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, Burlingame, representative for the property owner, Otto Miller. On July 26,2004 the Planning Commission stated that they liked the house proposed at 1553 Drake Avenue, but they did have a couple of concerns. He noted that the proposed height of the building was not over the 30' height limit when measwed from adjacent grade, but when measured from the average top of curb elevation it exceeded the 30' height limit. The other concems were with the large left side setback at the driveway, thought that it could be reduced and the house wouldn't have to be so close to the right side property line; concerned that it may cast shadows on the adjacent house. Since this meeting the applicant has reduced the height of the structure to 30' as measured from top of curb, so the special permit requested for height has been eliminated, also moved the house to the left l'6" more away from I 557 Drake Avenue. Shadow study was conducted on previous plans and showed that there would be a minimum impact on the adjacent neighbor at 1557 Drake. Changes would reduce shadow impact. However 1557 Drake has a large roof eave, a large fence on the side property line with plant growth, so presently nearly the entire side is shadowed by its own elements. The Commission asked for a professional traffic study on the driveway, asked to look at confluence at the end of Drake, it is not a cul-de-sac, it is a dead end, and very dangerous. The traffic engineer that did this study, Mr. Hopper, noted that the driveway located on the left side is consistent with the pattern on the adjacent lots, the City Traffic Engineer, Augustine Chou, agreed with Mr. Hopper's conclusions. The drive way apron of the existing driveway within the public right of way will be retained to help 1557 Drake get out of their driveway. Study also looked at eliminating the parking space in front of 1553 Drake to allow for better circulation for 1557 Drake. Will leave that decision to eliminate the space up to the City. Got a call from the architect's attorney, he expressed concern regarding liability of the architect if the driveway is relocated to the right side contrary to the traffic engineers' suggestion based on safety to keep it on the left side of the lot. Went to the subject property today to try and maneuver in and out of the driveways and found it very difficult and dangerous, keeping the driveway on the left side of I 553 is a better solution. The driveway on the right side is a bad design and can create a potential liability. Jay Garcia, 1 561 Drake Avenue, and Dave Taylor, I 566 Drake Avenue, presented the following comments: submitted to the Commission a summary sheet, opposed to driveway location, interesting that safety and danger are concerns now, have lived on block for 23 years and this has never been an issue, applicant has attempted to make a very simple issue look murky, City approved the design of this subdivision years ago, why is it now a problem, traffic engineer Mr. Hopper says 3 driveways pose a constraint and suggest 8 , 'City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 13,2004 changing the driveway of 1557 and t j6t Drake Avenue to accommodate problem, this is not a reasonable request; City Traffic Engineer's memo does not mention safety, says that it is a benefit to have 2 driveways, better than 3 driveways; new driveway will result in a red zone (no parking) in front of I 553 Drake, who will -enforce this, will also result in a loss of an on-street parking space on a block that already has tight parking; at last meeting Commissioner asked if the driveway change will affect the value of 1557 and 1561 Drake Avenue, since that meeting have researched this and found out that this proposal will result in a loss ofvalue of the property at 1557 Drake Avenue because of loss of the view and access issues and property value will also be lost on 1561 Drake because of access issues; 1553 Drake is adjacent to the other Millerdevelopment seems that this is an attempt to shift two story portion next to 1557 Drake and away from his other houses; memo from RKH has no quantitative analysis, says the driveway was designed as defacto cul-de-sac, Mr. Miller created a problem by putting up the fence between his property and the adjacent property; now the man that lives at 1553 Drake has to park on the grass because he can't even get into the driveway; the neighbors have used the adjacent property for tum around for years, everyone backs into their driveways that way it is easier to see kids playing the street when exiting; there is an existing condition such as this on Cabrillo where three houses share driveway for circulation, theyhave never had anyproblems; last Thursday there were 12 vehicles from workers parked on the street at one ofthe 1537 Drake parcels and the Federal Express driver had to back all the way down the street; this driveway configwation has worked for years, do not see why it has to change now. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that there are two traffic engineers recommendations to change the driveway location from the existing right side location to the left side with the new project, found the residential design appropriate, therefore moved to approve the application, byresolution, with the following conditions: l) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submifted to the Planning Deparhnent date stamped September 1,2004, sheets A-1 through A-5, LI.0, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; '- 2) thatthe property owner shall replace the existing driveway apron and any adjacent sidewalk on the north side ofthe lot including an approved safe paved transition into the driveway apron located in the public right of way for the adjacent lot at 1557 Drake Avenue, design to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit and to be installed and inspected by the City Engineerprior to scheduling final inspection; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roofheight or pitch, shall be subject to Plaruring Commission review; 4) that the property owner shall install privacy screening trees which will grow to a height of at least l5'-0" between the second floor deck and the neighboring property to the north; the City Arborist shall review and approve the irrigation system, the species, number and placement of trees to ensure the neighbor view protection prior to issuance of a building permit; and these trees shall be planted and the irrigation system shall be in place prior to calling for a final inspection for the building permit; 5) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certiff the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;1) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height ofthe roofridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Deparknent; 8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architecfural 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 staffwill inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verift that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and 9 . , CiU of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 13, 2004 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 ofthe roofnot visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; l l) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's September 29,2003, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 26,2}O3,memo, shall be met; 12) that the project shall meet all the requirements ofthe California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 13) that the applicant shall complywith Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction ofthe 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 15) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The motion was seconded by Chair Osterling. Commission discussion on the motion: project has been a challenge for over a year, this is not a cul-de-sac, see safety concem for future homeowners at 1553 Drake, first thing they may consider doing is putting up a wall at front property line to prevent car from backing onto front yard where kids playing could be hit, will have deleterious impacts on property at 1557 Drake, concerned with safety issue and bulk and mass on right side of the proposed building, aesthetically this was a good start to the design, wittrheldjudgment on detailed design issues because thought that there might be changes to the house and placement to address driveway and safety issues, can not support this motion; driveway location is better on the south (right) side of the property, effect ofsize on adjacent property at 1557 Drake is a concern but could be resolved through better designed, de-valuing adjacent property and can not support, changes can be made to mitigate issues; shadow study shows that 3 months out of the year there will be a minimal impact on adjacent property, already shadows due to the overhang of the house, two traffic engineers have reviewed proposals and support driveway on the left, nice design of house, applicant is willing to replace the driveway apron to accommodate the circulation at the end of this street; the property at 1557 Drake will be developed later, City approved this configuration but any development at 1557 Drake will improve this site; disagree with that, it is unfair to make planning decisions on future development of neighbor's houses that may be affected, flimsy set of studies done on the circulation, hard to determine where apron and curb cut locations will be and where the location of property lines are, need to have more information, would be helpful if apron area painted out on the site, properties at 1557 and 1561 Drake may not be owned jointly in the future, with all of the development on this block there will be20 bedrooms where there were 4 bedrooms, need to take a closer look at the on-street parking configuration, what is the benefit to the City if this project is approved; a traffic engineer and the City Traffic Engineer have both already evaluated this project and support proposal, respect their input and the input from the neighbors; if the lines were painted out on the site do not think it would change vote on this project, should this item be continued? CP Monroe responded that it would not be appropriate to continue the item, this is an action item and has already been continued. Chair Osterling called for a roll called vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a3-2-2 (C. Brownrigg and Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran and Keel abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 10 Item #5 Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 1553 Drake Avenue tit3t:&i;E i.ttrtIT{l -r ',ry r**_Y Item #5 Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1553 Drake Avenue Meeting Date: 9/13/04 Request: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Architect: Randy Grange, TRG Architects APN: 026-033-020 Property Owner: Otto Miller Lot Area: 5972 SF General PIan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-l CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 - (a) construction of a limited number ofnew, small facilities or structures including (a) one single familyresidence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing single-story house and detached garage to build a new two-story single family dwelling and detached two-car garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,384 SF (0.56 FAR) where 3,411 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed (27 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). The project includes a detached two-car gara1e (427 5F,20'-8" x 20L8") which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house (the den on the first floor is considered a bedroom for parking calculation purposes). All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010).a Table I - 1553 Drake Avenue Lot Area:SF' lnformation on existing house was obtained data shown on the plans. EXISTINGl PREVIOUS (8110104 plans) CURRENT (9lll04 plans) ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (lstJlr): (2ndflr): l4'-l1u none 21',-2" 25',-3" no change 2l'-2" (block average) 2l'-2" Side (left): (right): 4r_0il 8'-6u l0'-0' 5',-2', no change 4'-0" 4'-0u Rear (lstJlr): (2ndflr): 53'-0" none 39'-8" 47',-0" no change l5'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage:2r87 SF 36.6% no change 2389 SF 40% from the San Mateo County Assessor's appraisal report and from 1687 SF 29.1o/o ^ Design Review Table I - 1553 Drake Avenue I 553 Drake Avenue Lot Area:SF Information on existing house was obtained from the San Mateo County Assessorrs appraisal re,port and from data shown on the plans. (0.32 x 5972 SF) + I100 SF + 400 SF:3411 SF (0.57 FAR) Special Permit for height (31'-4" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed). a Staff Comments: See attached. Two letters in opposition of the project were submitted by Ann and Mark Thomas (1520 Drake Avenue), dated October 13, 2004, and Jay and Janet Garcia (1561 Drake Avenue), dated October 14,2004. A letter in support of the project was submitted Denise Laugesen-Baleskieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, dated l:uly 25,2004). An additional letter regarding the driveway location and vehicle maneuvering was submitted by Jay and Janet Garcia, dated August 17,2004. August 23r 2004 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission action meeting on August 23,2004, the Commission continued the project so that the applicant could address several concerns with the project (August 23,2004 P.C. Minutes). The Commission noted the following concerns in their review: a a this is the wrong site location for the building, like the building design it's the location which is unworkable; vehicle maneuvering study did not address delivery trucks; there will be significant movement problems created and that will impair the value of the driveway and parking of 1557 and 1561 ; traffic reports state driveway safer on the south side; accident opportunity is slight only if cars backing out of driveways at the same time; configured as it is now (north side) is safer for those types of vehicles; concemed with the impact of shadows of the new house on the house next door, particularly 1553 at the north edge would caste significant shadows on next door house located on an odd shaped lot and would affect where new development on this lot would be located, the shadow impact should be borne by the new house on lot I 1' 2 EXISTINGI PREVIOUS (8110104 plans) CURRENT (9lll04 plans) ALLOWEDREQ'I) FAR:1629 SF 0.28 FAR 3384 SF 0.56 FAR no change 3411 SF 0.57 FAR' # of bedrooms:J 5 no change Parking:2 covered 1 uncovered 2 covered (20'x20') I uncovered (9'x 20') no change 2 covered (20'x20'\ 1 uncovered (9'x 20') Height:not available 3l'-43 30'-0"30'-0" DH Envelope:complies complies complies cs 25.28.075 o Design Review I 55i Drake Avenue prefer driveway on the north side; designer can do a suitable design with the driveway relocated to the south; recoguize it is not as easy as flipping the current design, would not encourage flipping the current design; regarding the design, think that the second floor deck at the rear is big enough to affect the privacy ofthe neighbors using their back yards, should make deck smaller; asking for a special permit for height, 3 I '- I 0" with a 12:12 pitch roof, feel could lower the first floor plate 6" and reduce the mass and bulk some. In response to the concerns expressed by the Commission, the applicant submitted revised plans and a response letter, date stamped September 1,2004. The designer notes in his letter that by manipulating the roof pitch and reducing the finished floor elevations on the first and second floors, the top of the roof ridge has been lowered so that it is at 30'-0" above average top of curb. Therefore, the special permit for height was eliminated and the shadows from the project reduced. The dormer on the right side ofthe house was changed from a gable end to a hip roof to reduce any potential impact on the neighboring property (see building elevations, sheets A-3 and A-4). The second floor deck at the rear of the house was not reduced in size. The designer notes that the view from the proposed deck is of the neighboring single-story house (see photographs in staff report). The designer proposes to plant additional screening trees adjacent to the deck to address privacy concerns. A condition has been added requiring the City Arborist to review and approve the tree species, number and location near the deck. In regards to the location of the driveway, the designer notes because memos from an independent traffic engineer and the City's traffic engineer state that the south side driveway location is better from a safety and \-/ traffic flow standpoint, the property owner intends to follow the engineer's direction and not change the location of the driveway to the north side. The property owner is requesting that the Planning Commission act on the project with the driveway on the north side of the property. July 26, 2004 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review studymeeting on July 26,2004, the Commission expressed several concerns with the project (July 26, 2004P.C. Minutes). In response to the concems, the applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped August 10, 2004, a response letter regarding the location of the driveway, dated August 13,2004, and a shadow analysis, date stamped August 13, 2004. An analysis of the vehicle maneuvering and driveway location was prepared by Richard Hopper, RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering, dated August 10 and August 15,2004. The following is a list of the concems and a response to each by the applicant. 1. Look into switching driveway to right side ofthe lot to accommodate the neighborhood andto enhance the tratfictlow at the end of the block; study the driveway change and how the turn around on the block will be affeaed; have a circulation, maneuver study complaed by qualified engineer to review the turn oround space at the end this block and incorporate conclusions in the plans accordingly. a o In response the Commission's concerns regarding the driveway location and vehicle maneuvering at the end of the block, the architect submitted a letter, dated August 13,2004. An analysis of the driveway location and vehicle maneuvering was prepared by Richard Hopper, RI(H Civil Transportation and Engineering, dated August 10,2004, and additional analysis in a memo dated August 15, 2004. Jay and 3 a Design Review 1553 DrakeAvenue Janet Garci a, 156l Drake Avenue, are very concemed with the relocation of the driveway and submitted a letter dated August L7,2004. Response bv Architect: In his letter dated August 13,2004, the architect notes that the driveway will function better when located at the left side of the property and will benefit the neighboring properties. Currently, several driveways merge together at the end of the street. He notes that relocating the driveway away from the driveways at 1557 and 1561 Drake Avenue will eliminate the potential of a collision at the collection of the driveways and reduce the congestion at the end of the block. Vehicles driving to 1553 Drake Avenue will now be able to turn off the street before reaching the end ofthe block. Analvsis Prepared bv RKII: In his analysis dated August 10, 2004, Mr. Hopper notes that there are four driveways concentrated at the end of the block. Residents and guests at these properties use each others driveway aprons to complete the tum-around in order to proceed south ol Drake Avenue. He notes that this existing situation has a high potential for conflict among vehicles entering and exiting these driveways. Moving the driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue to the south side (left) of the lot would improve the safety of vehicles entering and exiting that driveway and reduce the number of potential conflicts with driveways at the end of the block. Mr. Hopper recommends that in order to maintain adequate turn-around capabilities at the end of Drake Avenue, the concrete apron within the public street right-of-way in front of 1553 Drake Avenue should be retained (see revised Site Plan, date stamped August 10,2004). In his addendum analysis, memo dated August 15, 2004, Mr. Hopper summarizes his second visit to the site and his discussion with Jay and Janet Garcia (1561 Drake Avenue) regarding their difficulties with exiting from their property onto Drake Avenue. He notes that in backing out of the left side of the Garcia's grrage,they cannot begin turning until the vehicle is clear of the Garcia's front steps next to the driveway and past the slope of the driveway into 1557 Drake Avenue (see attached photographs). Their vehicle needs to use apart of the existing driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue in order to completely tum around. Mr. and Mrs. Garcia feel that leaving the existing driveway apron to 1553 Drake Avenue, as recorlmended in the August 10 analysis, is not enough space to use for their vehicles to turn around. Mr- and Mrs. Garcia also noted that use of the driveway apron could be further restricted by new landscaping or fencing and that relocating the driveway to the left side of the lot would encourage a vehicle to park at the end of the street, blocking the driveways to 1557 and 1561 Drake Avenue. Mr. Hopper notes relocating the existing driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue away from the end of the block is better from a traffic and safety standpoint, but the difficulties in exiting the Garcias' driveway without the existing driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue being in place would be more difficult glven the following constraints: 1) the steps next to their driveway; Z)the slope ofthe driveway for 1557 Drake Avenue; and 3) aportion of the fence between 1553 and 1557 Drake Avenue. Mr. Hopper notes that if these constraint were removed, then vehicles coming out of the garage at 1561 Drake Avenue could turn more sharply and possibly avoid using the existing driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue. This could onlybe determined once ihe constraints have been removed. Mr. Hopper also notes that with the relocation of the driveway, there will be room for one vehicle to park on the street, between the new driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue and the end of the street. Therefore, the potential for blocking the driveways at 1557 and 1561 Drake Avenue exists, but should be minimal depending on were this vehicle is actually parked. 4 Design Review I 553 Drake Avenue In his analysis, Mr. Hopper concludes that relocating the driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue to the south side of the lot as proposed by the applicant will reduce potential vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts, improve safety, and will not materially affect vehicle turn-around capabilities. He suggests that the concrete apron within the city's right-of-way in front of 1553 Drake Avenue be retained to keep the existing turn-around capabilities at the end of the block. tn the final analysis, he does not recommend prohibiting on-street parking at the end of the street. Concerns expressed bv Jay and Janet Garcia (1561 Drake Avenue): [n their letter dated August 17, 2004,Mr. and Mrs. Garcia note that they are very concerned with the relocation of the driveway to the south side of the lot. They feel the current proposal will create severe restrictions to the ingress and egress of their property and will eliminate one on-street parking space. They also note that they have lived at this location for 23 years and have never encountered a conflict or safety hazard with the current driveway situation. The Garcias note that if the drivewayis moved to the south side of the lot, theywill have great difficulty turning out oftheir driveway. If a vehicle is parked within 12 feet ofthe end of their driveway, theywill not be able to maneuver out of their driveway. A vehicle parked on the street in front of 1553 Drake Avenue will potentiallyblock access to the driveway at 1557 Drake Avenue. In addition, relocating the driveway would eliminate one on-street parking space and would have a negative impact because the houses at 1557 , I 561 and I 556 Drake Avenue have no on-street parking in front of these properties. The Garcias note that 1553 Drake Avenue has approximately 37 feet of skeet frontage. With ttre new l2-foot driveway apron and the 12 feetnecessary "t tt " end ofthe street to allow \/ for a vehicle to exit I 561 Drake Avenue, only I 3 feet of street frontage would be left, far less than 20 feet required for a standard parking space. Therefore, the Mr. and Mrs. Garcia oppose the relocation of the drivewaybecause it is problematic in manyways. 2. Concerned about how thistits in with the neighhorhood, shouldn't be so tall, concernedwith height and si6e, coneerned with contert issues, this is a large house in context with the bloclc The applicant reduced the overall height of the building by six inches, from 3l'-10" to 3l'-4". A special permit is still required because the house exceeds the ma;rimum height allowed by l'-4" (30'-0" maximum allowed from average top of curb without a special permit). The lot coverage and floor area ofthe house was not changed. The proposed lot coverage and floor area ratio comply with the zoning code requirements. 3. There is an 11'-2" side sethack on the driveway side, don't need that much width for the driveway, if driveway is retained on left side, the house should be shifted over to the left to create a larger side setback next to 1557 Drahe. The driveway was retained on the left side. The applicant revised the plans by shifting the house 1'-2" towards the left side of the lot, increasing the side setback next to 1557 Drake Avenue from 4'-0" to 5'-2" . A 9'-6" wide driveway is provided and the house is now set back l0'-0" from the left side property line. , --, a Design Review I 553 Drake Avenue 4- If driveway is flipped will there be a greater tight impact on 1557 Drake, if not then support change; consider mass and bulk issue when looking at driveway change, may need to reduce left elevation. ' As noted, the location of the drivewaywas not changed. In response to concerns regarding light impacts on 1557 Drake Avenue, a shadow analysis, prepared by the architect, TRG Architects, date stamped August 13,2004, was provided. In his Ietter dated August 13,2o04,the architect notes that the project was reviewed for shadow impacts during different times ofthe year, specificallyon September/Ivl arch2l, December 2l and June 2l at9 a.m.,12p.m. and 3 p.m. He notes that because of the orientation of the site, the shadows are towards the street much of the time. Although not provided in the shadow analysis, the architect notes that if the house was flipped with the driveway along the right side property line, the longest shadows created by low earlymoming winter sun would be the same in either configuration because the roof ridge is located in the center of the site. With higher sun angles that clear the ridge, he notes that the sloping roof along the right side property line (as proposed) allows the sun to penetrate deeper. While a driveway along the right side would provide an additional 5'-0" setback, the two-story walls along this side of the house lengthens the shadows. 5. Show thefootprint of house approved on lot #11 on sheet A1. The applicant provided the footprint of the adjacent houses (1537 Drake Avenue, Lot I I and I 557 Drake Avenue) on the Site Plan (sheet A-l). October 1412003 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review studymeeting on October 14,2003, the Commission asked for additional information and continued this item (October 14, 2003 P.C. Minutes). The following is a list of the questions asked at the Octob e42003 meeting and a response to each by the applicant or planning staff. The applicant noted that the design has not been changed since the design review meeting because specific design direction was not provided at that meeting. 1. When did the curuent owner take title to this propefi in relation to the last hearing heldfor 1537 Drake Avenue? The current owner purchased the property on August 6,2003. On September 8, 2003, the current property owner granted 75%o of the property to Craig and Miriam Suhl. Copies of the grant deeds are included in the staff report. I 2. How many bedrooms are there in the uisting house? There are three bedrooms in the existing house. 6 a Design Review I55i Drake Avenue 3. Provide information on the size of adjacent properties, showfootprint of two adiacent properties on site \/ plan and provide rendering of the proposed houses (4) as well as three on each side of the new 4 houses. Properties adjacent to the proposed project include 1557 and 1537 Drake Avenue, Lot 1 1. The Planning Commission recently approved construction of a new house at 1537 Drake Avenue, Lot I I (2,799 SF). The existing house at 1557 Drake Avenue is approximately 2,107 SF (obtained from San Mateo County Assessor's Appraisal Report). Planning staffwould note that the average floor area in the neighborhood is 2,024 SF) (obtained from previous staff report for project at 1537 Drake Avenue, Lots 9-1 l). A streetscape rendering, date stamped June 18,2004,was submitted showingtheproposedhouse at 1553 Drake Avenue, the three new houses at 1537 Drake Avenue (only Lot 1 I adjacent to 1553 Drake Avenue has been approved), and existing adjacent houses on either side ofthe proposed house. The applicant submitted a separate 11" x 17" plan, date stamped July 14, 2004, showing the footprints of the proposed house and the adjacent houses. This plan is included in the staff report. Partial footprints of additional houses on the block are shown on the streetscape plan, dated stamped June 18, 2004. 4. Need to look a cumulative impacls offour houses not just this property. Concerned with douhling of the Jloor area. There were no changes made to the plans reviewed at the Octob er l4,2004,design review studymeeting. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission provide specific direction in regards to design of the house and its compatibility with the neighborhood. Planning staff would note that at the October .\, 14,2003, design review study meeting, the City Attorney pointed out that technically the Commission needs to look at each project separately and that the subdivision concept may make design sense but does not make sense legally because the subdivision already is existing. 5. Concerned with increase in trafJic and sewer capacity because offour houses. Added impact of allfour houses, with 19 bedrooms it would be a signiftcant environmental impact. Layout of this block is unique, need to look at intensiJicatton of the bloclc The applicant did not provided additional traffic and sewer studies for this project. Planning staffwould note that the proposed house would increase the number of bedrooms from three to five, which is not uncommon for a replacement project. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the new detached garage and there will be enough room for up to four vehicles in the proposed driveway. There is an existing 6-inch sewer main located in the center of the street that serves the properties on Drake Avenue. There are four properties down slope at the end of the sewer main, 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue. These four properties have a history of sewage backup problems. This backup is caused because these properties have plumbing fixtures below the man-hole level on Drake and by the shallow slope of the sewer main in the street. The city replaced the sewer laterals to these four houses, but protection against possible back-up caused by foreign objects in the sewer main would require the private property owners to install back flow valves on their sewer laterals. Planning staff would note that a condition of approval included in the previous approval 7 Design Revtew I 553 Drake Avenue of the proj ect at 7 537 Drake Avenue, Lots 9- 1 1 , was to have that property owner pay for the installation ofbackflow prevention devices on the fourproperties that are now subject to sewage backup. This would reduce the impact of the development on the existing sewer service to a less than significant level. In addition, the City of Burlingame recently completed a sewer rehabilitation project in the vicinity of 1537 Drake Avenue. This project involved an upstream blpass ofthe incoming flow of sewage from the manhole at the end of the cul-de-sac on the 1500 block of Drake Avenue. The rehabilitation project was completed and is expected to greatly improve sewer service to the 1500 block and to help prevent sewage back-up problems in the area. 6. Need update on the tree mitigationfor 1537 Drake Avenue Since January, 2004, the property owner and arborists have met on several occasions to discuss the root investigation, possible foundation types for the houses on Lots 9 and 10, needed protection during construction and root impacts of construction on Lot 11. The arborists investigated the back-filled excavated area on Lots 9 and 10 in regards to compaction and future root growth potential. The investigation noted that existing compression strength ratings for the fill indicate normal root growth potential. After the area on Lot 9 was excavated, and prior to back-filling, the project arborist severed exposed root faces cleanly back to the edge of excavation to encourage new root growth and noted that in his opinion the loss of roots at that time was not significant in regards to loss of health or support. The City Arborist agreed that this was the best way to treat the exposed roots. The inspecting arborist noted that further excavation into the back-filled area may cause more damage than the original root severing itself and that it is probably best to leave the area as is rather than attempt to re-excavate it using the air spade tool. Therefore, the back-filled area was not re-excavated. Air spading occurred at the end of January under the supervision of all the arborists. The air spading was done in several locations around the redwood trees, but discontinued because of the arborists' concern that the air excavation process itself, particularly given the time of year, may unnecessarily damage or destroy the trees'fine absorbing roots. The air tool also seemed to be sripping offbark from some woody roots in the air excavated trenches. However, from the results of the air spading all the arborists agreed that there would be no significant impact on the roots from construction on Lot ll. The general consensus of the arborists was that coast redwood rooting activity did not extend onto Iot 11. ln regards to the protective fencing, the arborists agree that it may remain in its existing location on Lots 9 and 10 with some additional requirements including mulching and irrigation to support the tees during the entire construction of all three lots. Conditions to meet these requirements have been added as conditions of approval which must be met prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11 and include extending the new water service line for all three lots as a first phase of construction on Lot I 1. The protective fencing area may be revised based on further root investigation for construction on Lots 9 and 10. Currently, the property owner is working on developing a foundation system for the houses proposed on Lots 9 and 10, based on the root investigation wtrich has been occurring since January. Plans have not yet 8 Design Review 155i Drake Avenue been submitted for the houses on Lots 9 and 10. Additional tree mitigation will be required when Lots 9 v and 10 are resubmitted for Planning Commission review. Recently, the property owner complied with the conditions for construction on Lot I 1, which included reinforcing the redwood tree grove protective fencing, mulching the area within the protective fencing, and installing soaker hose irrigation for the redwood tree grove, and initiating an irrigation cycle regularly evaluated by the inspecting arborist. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20,1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage pattems in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; lnterface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. 5. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 1,2004, sheets A-l through A-5, L1.0, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior Iinishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; that the property owner shall install privacy screening trees which will grow to a height of at least 15'-0' between the second floor deck and the neighboring property to the north; the City Arborist shall review and approve the irrigation system, the species, number and placement oftrees to ensure the neighbor view protection prior to issuance of a building permit; and these trees shall be planted and the irrigation system shall be in place prior to calling for a final inspection for the building permit; that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the propertycomers and set the building footprint; that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certiff the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 9 \./ I 2 aJ 4. 5 Desigtt Review 1553 DrakeAvenue 6. 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; 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; that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window t1pe, etc.) to veriff that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions ofthe 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 8. 9 10. l1 t2. l3 14. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, [nc., applicant and architect that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's September 29, 2003, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 26,2003, memo, shall be met; that the project shall meet all the requirements ofthe CalifomiaBuilding and Uniform Fire Codes,20Ol Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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 that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to complywith all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. l0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission lJnapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 interior or shall require permit; l0)the conditions ofthe Recycling Specialist, City Marshal and Building Oflicial's dated June4,2004 be met; and I l) that the ect shall meet requirements of the Building and Codes, 2001 edition, as by the City The seconded by C. Commission would like to condition added the front yard be designed focus to the front and that the plan be reviewed and bythe City and the City to issuance ofa permit. The maker motion and agreed Osterling called voice vote on the to approve. The passed 6-0-l Keele absent). Appeal were advised. This concluded at 8:00 p.m. 1553 DRAKE AYENIIE, ZONED R-l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLEFAMILYDWELLINGAND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND 7 PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTI PROJECT PLANNER: ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, HURIN C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the property. The City Attorney also recused himself because he was involved in an enforcement action on a neighboring property which involved the same applicant. C. Keiglran and the CityAttorney left the chambers. Reference staff report August 23,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She also entered into the record a memo from the City Traffrc Engineer, dated August 20,2004, prepared at the request ofneighbor Mrs. Garcia, in which he reviews the study and its conclusions prepared by the applicant's Traffic Engineer. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, represented the project, he noted that he had not expected that the discussion on this project would come down to the location of the driveway. He noted that he had located the driveway on the south (left) side ofthe house for what he felt were three obvious reasons: there would be fewer cars at the end of the block; it would be better for 1552 Drake because it would be easier to use their driveway; and it would benefit the houses at the "dead" end of the street. These observations were supported by the professional traffic engineer the Commission directed them to hire to evaluate the circulation. He submitted pictures to support his observations. In picture A it shows a car parked in the one spot that the Garcia's are concemed about, ifthe driveway is on the north side will have to juggle around. Picture B shows how the driveways currently converge and the potential for vehicular contact. He also noted that he had prepared a shadow study. Commissioners asked: in picture B where would the curb cut be located? would replace in front of both 1553 and 1557 in the public right of way; feel it would be better to move the driveway to the north side of the house based on the test that the people who live there say not on the south side and they are the ones who will have to live with it? Architect noted that both the private consultant and the City Engineer supported relocation to the south, will be safer; thought that the shadow study was thorough and clear. Comments from the public: Janet and Jay Garcia, 1557 and 1561 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1561 Drake. Upset that the City Traffic Engineer visited the site without contacting her and talking to her in the field as did the consulting traffic engineer; ifthere is not a red curb in front of the proposed house, she will not be able to get out of her driveway because the car has to clear her front steps before it can begin to turn, also will be 6 City of Burlingome Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 impossible if a car is parked in the proposed apron area; in 23 years she has never had a problem turning using the existing converging driveways. Ifhave second car in the driveway in front of garage door, can't go right without going all the way to the middle of the street, often back in so able to pull out; if one has an '-. emergency with children will delay because have to maneuver in/out; for 22 years never had a problem, including when all three houses occupied; why did the developer not ask them in the beginning? Opposed to losihg on-street parking, the proposed new houses are bigger and will need place to put cars. Studyprepared does not address delivery trucks who use the combined driveway to tum around at the end ofthe street; lived there almost 20 years, back into driveway so sure children playing at end of street are safe when pull out; the 5 driveways at the end of the block create a "de facto" cul-de-sac; someone maliciously built a fence between 1557 and 1561 which makes it harder to maneuver at the end of the block; need to consider the credibility of the applicant, asked previously to look at this as a four unit subdivision, has not abided by the construction requirements regarding trucks off sheet on lot 1 1, even if allowed to build here will he abide by the conditions of approval, the de facto cul-de-sac has worked for 20 years, not need to change now. Commissioners asked property owners: in your view if the driveway is placed on the south as proposed would it hurt your property value? Not thought about, will change the way we live there; if it were harder to get out? guess it would affect value as a safety issue if you have a family. You are the property owner of 1557? yes. Would it hurt the value of 1557 to relocate the driveway to the south side? 1557 is next door to the new house, it would block the view from the side windows, value is not an issue have raised or plan to raise. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: feel that this is the wrong site location for the building, take the neighbors seriously, may not be the aesthetic solution but it has worked for them for 20 years, its common sense since the street was built as a dead end; feel property values of both 1557 and 1561 will be impaired by building in the proposed configuration especially when there is an alternative, like the building design it's the location -which is unworkable. Disagree, even neighbor said no property loss, in fact believe new houses will enhance value; neighbors have created a fog over loosing a parking space, experts reports say that the location to the south will increase safety, there are still five driveways at the end of the street. Agree that adding pretty new houses will improve value whether driveway on left or right. But there will be significant movement problems created and that will impair the value of the driveway and parking of 1 5 57 and I 561 . Traffic reports state driveway safer on the south side; accident opportunity is slight only if cars backing out of driveways at the same time; study did not address delivery trucks, configured as it is now (north side) is safer for those types of vehicles; concemed with the impact of shadows of the new house on the house next door, particularly 1553 at the north edge would caste significant shadows on next door house located on an odd shaped lot and would affect where new development on this lot would be located, the shadow impact should be bome by the new house on lot I l; prefer driveway on the north side. Would like to leave action open for architect to make change. Design is tasteful, nice elevations. This house is nicely designed, confident architect can do another as nicely, recognize it is not as easy as flipping the current design, would not encourage flipping the current design. C. Boju6s noting the present house is nicely designed and that the architect is very capable, can do a suitable design with the driveway relocated to the south, moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: regarding the design, think that the second floor deck at the rear is big enough to affect the privacy of the neighbors using their back yards, should make deck smaller; asking for a special - permit for height, 3l'-10" with a 12:12 pitch roof, feel could lower the first floor plate 6" and reduce the mass and bulk some. Commission discussed briefly the alternatives for action. CP noted that if the item 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 were denied without prejudice it is an action and the applicant can appeal to the city council ifhe wishes. If the item is continued there is no action and the applicant may return with a new design to the planning Commission. There are no additional planning fees in either case. C. Boju6s, maker of the motion, moved to amend his motion to deny without prejudice, to a motion to continue action on the item to allow the applicant to respond to the issues raised by the Commission, particularly the relocation of the driveway to the north side ofthe property. C. Brownrigg, the second on the motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the amended motion to continue this item until the applicant had had an opportunity to revise the plans and relocate the driveway to the north side of the property. The motion to continue the item passed on a 4-l-1-1 (C. Auran dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent) roll call vote. C. Osterling noted that this action is not appealable, and revised plans will be brought back to the commission as soon as they have been submitted and plan checked by staff. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dias and took her seat. CA Anderson also returned to the chambers and tookhis seat. 8. 1411 AVENUE,c-1, SUBAREA BURLINGAME COMMERCIAL APPLICATION PLANNING REVIEW OF A WALL ATTACHED TO SIDE OF AN G BUILDING ABUTS AN ADJACENT PARCEL BACH, SITE SERVICES, INC., APPLICANT;KARP,owNER) (42 N PROJECT report August with attachments.Monroepresentedthe criteria and comments. Six were suggested Commission ifthere is a limit the sign this application? No.also askedifthe signwould create line variance? on on the adjacent properfy this sign proposal. There no further Chair the public Kyle Bach, applicant,I W. Lathrop Drive, South Indiana,that they found that the was offset five from the side property line, the the sign to five that it does not extend the property line,had slgll onto the submitted copy agreement with the property for the overhanging documented that the necessarynow the sign does not across property line.asked about the of the sign, does the agreement access to the sign from property? Yes.asked if the existing and would be lit all noted that he the existing signs are lit all night, the sign would also be lit that sign illumination can limited with a There were no further was closed. there is no burden of staff. Commission and the public C. Vistica to approve the byresolution, with following conditions: I the wall slgll '-1" x l0'-5",22 SF in shall be installed as on the plans the Planning sign (83) onand date stamped 10,2004, sheet l-10 " x 14" sheet); Z)that wall shall have a depth of 5 from face of the sign wall ofthebuilding Sign E3 shall be the that the maximum height 8 that any illumination be confined within thet ArcbitectsTRG Planning Commission City of Burlingame 50.1 Primrose Rd. Burlinganre, CA 94010 September 1,2004 RECEIVED sEP - 1 2004 Subjec[ 1553 Drake Ave CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Dear Commissioners, We have reviewed the Planning Commission comrnents about building height, privacy issues with the 2d floor deck, and rnost importantly, the driveway location. By manipulating the roof pitch and floor levels we have lowered the ridge to eiiminate the sfecial permit request for height. lf one looks at the view from where the deck woud be (see attached photos) one would be looking out over a neighboring one.story roof. We propose to add additional screening trees betileen th-e deck "nd the fence. On the right-side dormer, we have changed a gable roof to a hip roof to reduce potential impact on the neighboring property. This submittal does not reflect a redesign to retain the existing driveway loqation. Because two traffic engineers have stated that the South side location toi tne driveway is better from isafety and traffic flow standpoint, the owner has indicated that he intends to foilow that direction and not initiate a re'design. Sincerely, Randy Grange AIA Project Architect 205 Park Road, Suite 203, Burlingame, CA 94010 610.579.5762 Fax 610.579.01 l! www.trgarch.com )) RECEIVED sEP - 1 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ) i: I '' :,_, ;)i 'd \,t *2, :., , ,,*, :-; tl :i r{ ..i i 'r.#'.A .ai F "{- 'D'"s-r-v ', G,I,P" 20040B 31, i'\F+ "'l IVTD sEP - 1 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME (PLAN N ^.- DEPT ?;i .,' r a '! r.;' $ :, :. . .4'{,, ',' r,' I :' a q.\*-*_" ?: r .i (( :.tu ) IVE D sEP - t 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAM E PLAN[IING DEPT, )) .; ij.:, .. -:'i .,{' ':"i::'. . a'a :4t i i .,d * ,rr'i -lf. .2 I t ,.,--I 1l u|]{. t .r% t i \. EIVED sEP - 1 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAffi PLANNIIN'G DEPT./ t t. {;*'lsr? - - r,!n :".|l sF ?"*.{J ,?,t-4i .J h- -;:.''/ ,.!-J."i"" 1". -1/,t .(-t/t "s.> a t 0B 31 2004 (( ,-.11. City of Burlingame Planning Commission (Jnapproved Minutes July 26, 2004 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPER owNER) (4 7 NOTICED) PRO.IECT PI,ANNER:IBFN HI CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 21 6 Park Road, Burlingame, noted that there was a support letter from Denise Baliestrieri who could not stay to the end of the meeting. Project needs a special permit for height, but height in Burlingame is not measured in a standard way, measured from average top of curb, not from ambient grade as done throughout the county. Height of this building measured from ambient grade would be29' . There is only a sliver of the ridge that is over 30' height limit, needs a special permit, not a variance. Project has been designed by a well respected architect, despite where house is located should stand on its own merits. There are 5 bedrooms because that what people buying homes in Burlingame want and are selling very fast. The applicant is asking the Commission to act on this project, it is not going to help to send this project to design review, because the project architect has already created avery nice design, consistent with City guidelines. Please give comments and bring this project back for action, meets all of the code regulations except special permit height. Janet Garcia,156l Drake Avenue, Arur Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, and Caroline Oushani, 1527 Drake Avenue had the following comments, and were speaking on behalf of their neighbors, the Taylors,1566 Drake Avenue, Gussonis, 1505 Drake Avenue, O'Neals, 1516 Drake Avenue, McCrums, 1540 Drake Avenue and Ochses,l5l2 Drake Avenue; at the October 14,2003 studymeeting the Planning Commission asked the applicant to look at this project as part of the 4 contiguous properties being developed on this block, asked for the project to be reduced in size, and asked the applicant to look at impact of the development on traffic and sewer capacity; neighbor handed up pictures taken from the adjacent house at 1557 Drake Avenue, from the entrance of this house you look directly at the side elevation ofthe new house, there is only a 4' side yard, will eliminate daylight, the right side ofthe house is too massive, it will devastate the value of 1557 Drake Avenue, please look at the option to flip the driveway location, when backing out of l56l Drake it is necessary to use the driveway at 1553 Drake, including to tum, could not back out of the driveway if there is not driveway located there, would need to at least paint the curb red, applicant did not address the comments made by the Commission at the October 14,2003 meeting, please take into account that this design does not fit the neighborhood; this project is doubling the FAR on the lot, houses on this block are within 1,800 and 2,000 SF, look at the impact of all 4 houses, Mr. Hudak asked you to consider this as a separate project, but this should be looked at as one large development; the applicant ignored the Commissions requests that were made at the first meeting, there has been no environmental review or reduction in size; applicant continues to play games, the Planning Commission should be offended by the applicant's behavior; the Planning Commission and City Council discussed floor area and house size as an issue at their joint meeting, it is clear that the floor area is an issue with our City Council and that it was made a priority to work on changing the code to reduce floor area allowed in Burlingame; responsibility lies with Commission; neighbor's have asked for two years that the Planning Commission look at this project as a development of 4 houses, the Planning Commission has already granted a height variance for lot #l l, to grant approval of this house in isolation is not right; does Commissioner Auran have a listing of a house on Drake Avenue? C. Auran responded that he did but the escrow has closed. Mark Hudak responded to the neighbor's comments: the neighbor's continue to insist that this project be reviewed as a subdivision; however the CityAttorneyhas stated that this project needs to be looked at as a t7 City of Burtingame Planning Commission (Jnapproved Minutes July 26, 2004 single site and project; issue of floor area has been incorrectly stated, it was concluded that the floor area currently allowed is satisfactory to the City Council or we would be working on new regulations for floor area right now, at the joint meeting it was decided that the Planning Commission and staffwould look at the .-, standards for re-emerging lots, but it was decided that the community standard is to leave the floor arearatio as is, until the will of the people in the City changes, need to vote on something tonight. Commissioner disagreed with Mr. Hudak's view of how floor area was view by the City Council. The review of the floor area ratio was not assigned the highest priority, but it was an assignment for the subcommittee to look at. Mr. Hudak stated that he felt that the majority of the City Council believes that the floor area ratio should stay as it is. Commission asked why the driveway can't be switched to the other side. The architect's representative stated that the driveway location was moved because when located on the right side there were three driveways merging together in the corner of the street, created a paved area in the corner, decided to moved the driveway to the left side and add greenery on the right side next to the other driveway. Commission asked why it took 9 months for this project to come back, is not even re-designed. Mr. Hudak explained that the property owner was working on other projects, this property was not his top priority. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: the photo simulation of the block prepared by the architect is very helpful, concerned with driveway changes, it seems to work well now on the right side and benefits the neighbor, look into switching driveway to right side; need to look at this project as a separate isolated project from the other 3 houses on Drake; excellent job on design, although the driveway is located on the left side it looks like the architect design the right side that faces 1557 with less bulk, the second story slopes away from the property line and there are two dormers rather than a large two story element as located along the driveway elevation; concemed about how this fits in with the neighborhood, shouldn't be so tall, should swap the v driveway to accommodate the neighborhood, nice design but concerned with height and size; the special permit for height is only for a small portion, but should look at swapping driveway to enhance the traffic flow at the end of the block;well designed project, the massing is located on the driveway side away from 1557 Drake Avenue, concerned with context issues, this is a large house in context of the block, should study the driveway change and how the tum around on the block will be affected, there is an 1l'2" side setback on the driveway side, don't need that much width for the driveway, maybe the house can be shift over to the left to create a larger side setback next to 1557 Drake, would like to see the footprint ofthe house approved on lot #1 I shown on sheet Al, not sure that design review is the right path for this project, let the architect work out these issues; do a circulation traffic study, need a traffic engineer to review the tumaround space, movements and needs at the end of this block and then revise the plans accordingly, if driveway is retained on left side then right side setback should be increased; why do we need a traffic study, just advise the applicant to switch the driveway location because it allows for a better traffic circulation and gives more light to 1557 Drake Avenue; in response to the neighbor's comments, there is a difference between 3 lots re- emerging with a heritage tree, the City Council resolved this issue by saying that the floor area on re- emerging lots should be stepped down, but this project is a stand alone project, don't want to limit FAR just for this project when the size and design are o.k.; if driveway is flipped, will there be a greater light impact on 1557 Drake? if not then support change; consider mass and bulk issue when looking at driveway change, may need to reduce left elevation. Commission comments and concerns summary: o Look into switching driveway to right side of the lot to accommodate the neighborhood and to - enhance the traffic flow at the end of the block; 18 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 26, 2004 o Study the driveway change and how the turn around on the block will be affected; have a circulation, maneuver study completed by qualified engineer to review the tum around space at the end this block and incorporate conclusions in the plans accordingly,o Concerned about how this fits in with the neighborhood, shouldn't be so tall, concerned with height and size, concerned with context issues, this is a large house in context with the block;o There is an ll'2" side setback on the driveway side, don't need that much width for the driveway, if driveway is retained on left side, the house should be shifted over to the left to create a larger side setback next to 1557 Drake;o If driveway is flipped will there be a greater light impact on 1557 Drake, if not then support change; consider mass and bulk issue when looking at driveway change, may need to reduce left elevation; and o Show the footprint of house approved on lot #1 1 on sheet Al; C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above comments have been addressed and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Boju6s . Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Keighran and Keele abient). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m. xI.REPORTS of City meeting of J ,2004. CP Monroe actions of the of July 19,2004. CP noted that the relocation ofthe passenger at the Burlingame Avenue stations has sent a on the about September 10, Subcommittee letter to the notiffing them ofthe discussed. CalTrain JPB for the passenger shelters XII. side of the tracks the Burlingame Avenue ssioners had no comments shelter design. meeting for the Neighborhood and Bayfront Zoning next meeting of eighborhood Consistency to discuss zoning will be on 2404 10:00 a.m. in conference A. The next meeting of Bayfront Zoning onAugust 17,2004at conference room A. These meetings and the binders materials will be the packet preceding the date. Osterling adjoumed the at l1:20 p.m. Respectfully Michael Secretary S:\MINUTES\07 .26.04.unapproved.doc t9 Information Regarding Driveway Location & Vehicle Maneuvering r Letter from Randy Grange, architect, dated August 13,2004. r Analysis of driveway location and vehicle maneuvering prepared by Richard Hopper, RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering (initial analysis dated August 10, 2004, and memo dated August 1 5, 2004). r Memo from Augustine Chou, City of Burlingame Traffic Engineer, dated August 20,2004. r Letter of concem fiom Jay and Janet Garcia, 156l Drake Avenue, dated August 17,2004. ArcbitectsTRG August 13,2004 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingarne, CA 94010 Subjecf 1553 Drake Ave. Driveway AUG 1 3 2004 Dear Commissioners, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I wasn't present at the last Commission meeting when the discussions about the driveway took place. While there were aesthetic considerations involved in the proposal to move the driveway, as stated by Michael Lojo of our office, the main focus was actually the practicality of it. We believe that the driveway willfunction better in the proposed location, and will benefit the other properties around it. The current situation has three driveways merging together at the end of the street. Given the poor visibility (l tried backing out of 1553 myself), if cars were to back out ot'1557 and 1553 simultaneously, there could easily be a collision where the drives merge. Moving the 1553 driveway to the other side eliminates the problem and 1553 could function as a normal property, with cars backing out of the driveway and onto the street in a typical manner. Moving the driveway also reduces congestion at the end of the block. Cars going to 1553 Drake will be able to turn off the street before reaching the end of the block. This takes at least two cars out of the mix, and should also be an improvernent for the other homes at the end of the block. At your request we had a traffic engineer look at the situation. Mr. Hopper agrees that the driveway willfunction better as proposed. However, per his analysis and recommendations, we now propose to maintain the paving (driveway mouth) in the right-of-way. This will allow others at the end of the block to continue backing out the same way that they do now. We think the combination of rnoving the driveway while maintaining the bit of pavement at the other side will improve trafftc flow and conditions at the end of this block. Sincerely Randy Grange AIA Proiect Architect RECEIVED 205 Park Road, Suite 203, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.579.5762 Fax 650.579.01 15 www.rrgarch.com CNil and TransPortatlon Englne€rlng Augwt 10,2004 Mr. Randy tirange 'fRG Alchitrcts 205 Park Road Suite 203 Brrliruamo, CA 94404 RE: 1553 DnkeAvcnuc RECEIVED AUG 1 0 2004 C ITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DE PT Dcar Raudy: At yorll rcqucrt I hrvc inrrcederedOE perltngl'dt*'l|lio-liP* at lhe aorth end of Drrke er'*o .r'tfrry rrfdc io rbc Ftocation of thc &ivcwry at 1553 Dtatc Avam. You rrc ;;rrs;;;l"rll rht &iwmy rt l55t Dnlc A'rcn1e.to thc so.th side of t6 lot auay fiom It '.J&if,. t** ftp nrutndrno plenning Conunision h53 r*ed !o h6ve iha rclocrtioa of tlrc driveway cvaludcd fion a safcty and skculdim stsDdpoint p1j3611lv there arc for divtsgy! cenclo6aed U ths dcrd end of Drrkc Avenle' Rctidlots drd'.;; ,h*.- fu* h$ otitio -tho drivway apoors of tlEir reigbbors to cffccl . ulrtl:arotlld in |rd"r ;"..J souil oo prrfc evcnuc, ftis *tudioo hr" a hiSh potlrilid for- conlllctamong ffi"ili.;--m6r* urd exitinc tho" &ircunyr,. Mwingd' &ivslrry ar I55t Dralre Avsnuc ii ,1.-*r,f, ,ru" "fi, ut rrcuia iraprors the safcty of wbiclcr cneriru and o<iting thot ;;;.""y .rd..duce thc numbcr ofporcntial conlliar d lhe erd of thc stEct' Eliminrti4 thc &ive*ay apoon tom thc no,rth ddc of 1553 DnLc Avcnrr will still sllotr "Uri"fi dimg tfro ffvic*,rys * 1557 .6d t56t llrake Avcnuc to cftcr I um aro,nd in tuo ;."* a*iiltft. n",oio' Ii"p.rmt's p6dng tmpl*c). llo*wcr, to mrlntain adrquarc *i-riltai"r"Ufitt* J'rtc-cmof pn*e 6,elruc,the comrcte rpcon wilhin thc publb stseet "ei;t i-t-,"y ilfi""t of 1553 llretc Awauc should bt tcttiDd and Frldng wieia 30 ftst of th eod of rnc sreet stoutd bc pohibitcd In runrmsry, tElocadru the drivtway at I 553 Drake Avenue to the south si& oflhc ld will J*r-p"#t.r!7gti"io,o-*tri"te conflio8, improvc sftty, rtd not rerially afrcu vehiclc tum around caPrbilides' ltnrstobadEqulelyeddresseothcomccmsoflhePlanniryCommision'Ifyouhaveany qucstions, dea; codact mc d yow oomcniemo' VcrytrulYPun, ructAe,C Richad K' H;nPcr, P.E., P,T'O.E. Og7 Columba bna ' Fo.trt ClrY. CA ga{o. '(!60) 212{8.t7 . EAJ( (EsO) 2t Z-stlto AUG-I5-2604 @9'AO PN RKH. FOSTER CITY, CA P. O7 MBvto RECEIVED AUG 16 2004 C ITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. To: From: Subjcct: Datc: CC:Grange Meg Monroc Nchard IloPPer 1553 Drskc Avenuc August 15,2004 ilJ.:ffifi11il:"Hff .ff #fi J:fl-H:*lHH"ffiIJffi ::-?";:i:;H Ieft sidc of thcir guage ,rr.y ..-",-t r* i"iir trrJr&"rr_is cleu of the ste?s next to ihe drive$/ay and thc slope of oe arir"*ay ilto'iiJior*r n*nue. In doing so, their vehiclc nceds to use a part of thc existing drir.*"y "i'ls;ii;tdA'** in ordcr to tum complctely around to head In my lettcr of August 106 I rccommended leaving thc existing driveway apr-on:1 1553 Drake Avmue that lies ,,ritf,in ttc puiiic'igf'rof "uy' itt G*tiu aon't belicve that is enough space to back into. usc orthc rom*nirig irir*"v ipron.ould.be firther rcsticted by any landscaping or fencing thc ncw ou,n r at r iii"oi.r" er.nuc might ptacc uehind the apron according to the Garoias. By rcmoring O. e*isinfirt .*"y; ls5iDrakc Avenue the Garcias also believe that a vehicle could tega[y park in ile"src* where the dnveway is now and block not only their ;Iid,;;il.e;Ii"!*v, uuitiott u" drivcwav into 1557 Drake Avenuc' That is a possibilitY. TheGarciassaidthatthcyhavclivedatl56lDrakeAvcnrrcfor22yeorsandhaveneverbeen ;;;;;;il*i i,"r,i.r"to*hicle conflias where rhe rhrce driveways converge. They do not believe 0rat safcty is an issuc' I do believe rhat separating the driveways is bc$er aom ajlaffic safety standpoint, but the iim.uftio in "*iting the darcia's drivcway without thc old drivcway at 1553 Drake Avenue ;;i;;Ei;; *di be more difficult giv;n the consgaints imposed by l ) the sreps next to their iar.1r.iiitt. drivcway slopc for l5i7 Drake Avenue, and 3) a podion ofthe fence between 1553 and 1557 Drakc Avenue. If thoSe constraints were rernoved, therr vchioles coming out of ,r,. g*"g. ""'ra t.,- nro," sharply and possibly avoid using the existing drivcway at 1553 Drake erJn*] fn t ir something thai could be dctcnnined only aftcr thesc obstnrctions have been out ou Drake Avcnue. removod. thc street is not nocessarY. As for a vchicle parking whae the old driveway was and blooking access to I 557 oil 561 Drake A;;; til. *ill bc riom for only onc vehiclc botwoenthe new driveway at 1553 Drake er*r"'-a tt . .nd of the steet, so the potcntial for blocking these driveways cxists, depending *o', thi, on. ,uhicle is actually padcd,-but shoutd be midmal. Af,er talking to thc Garcias ud oUr.ning rh" sirc again, t now-believc that thc recomrnendcd parking prohibition at the end of RKH Clvll and Traneportauon Englneerlng 037 Columb. Lr;. r roarr clry' cr iNlor . (8501212{837 ' FAx{660}2',12'3lro 654212515€, JfTBNff TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDT]M PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Ruben Hurin, Planner Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer August 20,2004 1553 Drake Avenue lr*e^ +7 $lzzf o+ P.c. u ,r+T AL RECEIVED AUG 2 3 2004 t''rt,. f.[*?,Y3 tJ i 3i'- t Please take a look at the following comments regarding the driveway situation at 1553 Drake Avenue. Maintain the current configuration of the concrete pavement for the joint driveway for 1 557 and 1561 Drake Avenue. This area is within the City's right-of-way, and therefore falls within the City's jurisdiction. @emoval of the existing portion of concrete driveway at I 553 Drake is not advised, as there would not be sufficient driveway width to accommodate 1557 and 1561 Drake.) a a a a Require the developer of 1553 Drake replace their portion of the old driveway apron with a new concrete apron which conforms to current City standards for driveway aprons. (The current apron does not conform to City specifications.) As part of the driveway apron replacement, anyportion of the sidewalk area being replaced must be done in full, complete squares. Consider prohibiting on-street parking on the west curb area of 1553 Drake Avenue, starting from the northem edge ofthe proposed driveway at 1553 Drake and proceeding north for 16'- 6" to the begiruring of the existing combined driveway for 1557 and 156l Drake Avenue. (This, however, effectively translates into the loss of on-street parking along the entire frontage of 1553 Drake Avenue.) Or, allow substandard on-streetparking inthe curbareabetweenthenew, proposed driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue and the unmodified combination driveway of 1557/1561 Drake Avenue. (There would be no significant change in access since on-street parking is currently available along that curb area now.) o The benefit of the proposal to place the new driveway of 1553 Drake along the southern edge of the property is the separation of ingress/egress maneuvers from three residences (1553/1557/1561 Drake) down to two (1557 and 1561 Drake). By maintaining the existing concrete driveway approaches that are within the City's right-oflway, the ingress/egress situation would not change significantly for the residents at 1557 and I 561 Drake Avenue. Landscaping could be allowed along the property limits of 1553 Drake Avenue to improve the aesthetics ofthe project. JAYAND JANET GARCIA l56l Drake Avenue Burlingame. CA 94010 (650) s79-A$7 Garjg222@aol.com August 17,2004 RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2004 t'""f,'I*?JI..JU3+" Dear Planning Commission: We are writing to make you awarc of our serious concerns about Mr. Millers current proposal to relocate the driveway at 1553 Drake Avenue. The current proposal will create severe restrictions to our ingress and egress and eliminate a much needed parking space. The current driveway configuration has existed for 40 years. Mr- Grange presents a picture of "potential conflicts of vehicles entering or exiting then driveways". We frnd it strange that Mr. Grange did not contact us to see if this had ever been a problem or hazard. We have lived in our home for 23 years and have never encountered a conflict or safety hazard with the current driveway configuration. This hazard is non-existent. Most importantly, if the driveway is moved to the south side ofthe property, we will have great difliculty turning out of our driveway. If a car is parked within t2 feet of the end of our driveway, we literally cannot get our car out of the driveway at all. A parked car will potentially block access to the driveway at 1557 as well. Mr. Hopper suggests a remedy could be to re-constnrct the walkway to our home at 156l Drake and re construct the driveway slope of 1557 Drake. We find it absurd that we would need to alter our residences as &n accommodation to Mr. Millers proposed design. It is also important to note that if the driveway is moved we will lose one on-street parking space. This would be devastating due to the fact that the homes at 1557,1561 and 1566 Drake, already have no on- street parking. Adding one more (5 Bedroom) home to this list with no street parking will intensi$ the existing parking problems for our dead end. The curb frontage at 1553 Drake is 37 feet. The proposed driveway will take away at least 12 feet. With the necessary 12 foot "no parking" allowance at the north end to allow us to get out of our driveway, only 13 feet would be left, not close to the 20 feet needed for a parking space. Trying to designate no parking on a residential street if there is no driveway is asking for neighbor conflicts by putting us in charge of policing the space needed to access our driveway. This proposal is problematic in many ways. Blocking driveway acoess, restricting turn around capabilities, creating neighbor conflicts, and creating a potential liability for the city in case of an emergency and we cannot exit our property. Why change something that has not been a problem for 40 years when the change will bring about a multitude of conflicts? 0r{5 fr,c-LrJ Drircuals *l 1553, ,557 a'rC lst l Draka Ate . E*t*tn.7 drivC*"J *t 1553 Drakc A,/c. ;-f t1 ta-> I l 1.. ,'i II ! -**a .* ------ , +-- d*--*a? i l i G ,t Information Regarding Shadow Path Projections r Letter from Randy Grange, architect, dated August 13,2004 r Shadow Study prepared by TRG Architects, date stamped August 13,2004. ArcbitectsTRG August',3,2004 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject 1553 Drake Ave. shadow study RECE!VED AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Dear Commissioners, Although not specifically requested, we decided to provide a shadow study for this project. We heard sotre con@rns about shadow impacts of the proposed new home and thought it would be useful. We looked at shadows on September/March 2i"t, December 21"t, and June 21"t, at I AM, 12 Noon, and 3 PM. Due to the orientation of the site, the shadorrs are actually towards the street much of the time. ln addition to just seeing what the shadows would be, we were also curious if there would be significant changes in the shadows if one were to flip the house around with the driveway on the right. The longest shadows created by low early morning winter sun would be the sarte in either configuration because the ridge is in the center of the site. Higher sun angles that clear the ridge are also similar; the sloping roof on the right (as proposed) allows the sun to penetrate deeper, and while a driveway on the right (not proposed) would have an additional 5'of setback, the 2 story walls along it lengthens the shadows. Randy Grange AIA Project Architect 205 Park Road, Suite 2Ol, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.579.57 62 Fax 610.1-l9.ol1 ) www.trgarch.com PREPARED BY: S}IADOW PATH PROJEGTIONS 1553 DRAKE AVE. BURLINGAME, GA RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DLP I. 205 PARK RD., STE. 203 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ArcbitcctsTRG REC EIVED AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. l,npq* / O*rrtusrirL q @ lz rrroor.l \-/ AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. driveway driveway front lawn nrucx/ rDPreN\Ek Zt @ fl:oo $Yn |/'L 1557 1557\- front AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. fraoaa1 / aooretnbvg zt @ 12 too Nar{ AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1557L r)Ap..A/€epta-tg4- Zl @ 3.@ PM REC E IVE D AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Jttl,rr Zl @ lz Noor'l \-/ 1557L diveway front lawn triveway REC EIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. , Ju*E zl @ 4,e AM 1557\- ,*iveway driveway front lawn RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. JUNE, 2l @ lZ:oo tlooNl 1557L RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Juur 2l @ ?,@ prrll RECEIVED AUG 1 3 Zoo4 t'ttrf,f*?,Y8 tJU F+Yt \/WcenitueP- Ll O lz mall 7L front lawn drircway AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Dscengez 4 @ 4: oo Avvt diveway ECEIVED AUG 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT., PVEwrhFl Zl @ l2,o NaaN \,_1557 \ 1557L RECEIVED gwttbpe- 2l @ 5'oo Vfil t't'.-fnf*?*'8tJiF+Yt r October 14,2003, Design Review Study Minutes r Information provided by the applicant in response to the Planning Commission's request for information at the October 14,2003, meeting. Cily of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes 9. 1449 CABRILLO AYEI\ruE, ZOI\TED R.1. ,^ PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW ROBERSTON, APPLICANT AND Plnr. Barber briefly presented the 1444 and I 453 Cabrillo Avenue. is available and will provide it in 10. October 14,2003 FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK BROSNAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTTCED) description. Commission asked for the heights of the houses at notedthat we would check the files ifthat information next staffreport. There were no staff, a Chair Boju6s opened the comment. Mark Robertson, 918 E.Place, San Mateo, designer, was available to questions. Noted that existing is 14' tall, two bedrooms, bathroom, proposed be 5 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms.1445 Cabrillo Avenue, that had spoken to concemed with two clusters of trees in rear yard behind current roots are damaging fence coming up in his yard, can't grow grrrs,removal oftrees. Staff that these trees would as a part of this project. There no othercomments from the andthe public hearing c losed. Planning had the following comments with the proposal: height oftwo adjacent houses, 1444 1453 Cabrillo Avenue, know is a sloping lot with the height; is too vertical, need to reduce at the front does not fit, would be used; Front elevation is nice design, nicely but detailing is lost on elevations; Side and rear are two story flat need to break-up mass and the side walls; Height is a concern, design has a and vertical feel,reduce size of sfucture; Need to reduce size thatFARbereducedby to approximately 3, 100 SF; and Landscape plan needs more briog trees away from house, to the front. Chair Boju6s made a motion to this project to a design with the comments made; and return to action after the process is completed. This motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair Boju6s called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review with the direction glven. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-l (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 1553 DRAKE AYENUE, ZOI{ED R-l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR IIEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAT{ILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECT, APPLICANT AND ARCHMECT; OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commission asked CA Anderson how this project can be analyzedwhen there are still changes proposed on the adjacent site 1537 Drake Avenue, CA Anderson stated that the 1537 Drake Avenue project is already approved, this proposal is a separate project, can request street rendering to arralyze how project will fit in with approved project. There were no questions of staff. a t2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2003 Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road, Burlingilme, was available to answer questions; and noted that they flipped the driveway to the other side to reduce traffic at the end ofthe cul de sac, held mass away from neighboring properties. Mark and Ann Thomas, 1529 p1zks \/ Avenue, Bob Bear, 1510 Drake Avenue, Janice Ochse, 1512 Drake Avenue, Janet Garcia,1536 Drake Avenue,DaveTaylor,l566DrakeAvenueandChrisMcCrum1540DrakeAvenueexpressed thefollowing concerns: need to change approach/dynamic, it is clear there is an inherent conflict, project maxes out FAR and give rise to issue of intensification when it is looked at with the project for three houses at 1537 Drake Avenue, social cost to residents --congestions, pollution of Mills Creek, damage to redwood trees, with no return, four lots constifute a subdivision, Planning Commission needs to look at how regulations apply to four houses, subdivision has significant compounding effect, need to apply new set of standards; look at reducing FAR l0% for two houses, l5Yo for three houses and 20o/o for four, parking is a major problem, there will be at least 3-4 cars per home, where will the cars park; in the comments from public works two criteria in their review which would require traffic and parking studies, when 1537 Drake Avenue was heard at City Council for the appeal hearing the Police Chief was asked about the traffic impacts and he said that their would be impacts, however CP Monroe stated that the parking requirement is met, but traffic and parking will be worse with four new homes, it will cripple the neighborhood; annoyed with this proposal, seems like games are being played, house has 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms and almost to the maximum on FAR, developer has no sense of community, need to look at whole picfure, this should be considered a subdivision, need to look at the trees, no demolition permit has been issued because there are still unresolved issues with the trees at 1537 Drake Avenue, 20,000 SF of land, with four new houses where there were two, fifteen bathrooms where there were five, now can barelyback out of driveway due to the angles on the this street, no turn around space at the end of the block, need a smaller home more consistent with the neighborhood; fourth house is too close to the maximum, too massive, request a supplemental review under CEQA for entire four house development, need a parking and traffic study; at appeal hearing before City Council for 1537 Drake Avenue, Council member proposed that the size of houses be reduced when you - have multi-house development, Planning Commission at lll25l02 meeting stated that Code Sections 26.25.030 and25.285.090 gives a clear distinction between a subdivision and a single development, the more stringent requirements for subdivisions, should consider the four houses together, need to re-write ordinance; there has been no discussion with the neighbors on this project, project atl340 Drake was a50o/o increase and there were no complaints. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the proposal: o When did the current owner take title to this property in relation to the last hearing held for 1537 Drake Avenue; o How many bedrooms are there in the existing house; o Provide information on the size of adjacent properties, show footprint oftwo adjacent properties on site plan and provide rendering of the proposed houses (a) as well as three on each side ofthe new 4 houses; Need to look a cumulative impacts of four houses not just this property; Concem with doubling of the floor area; Concemed with increase in haffic and sewer capacity due to four houses; Added impact of all four houses, with 19 bedrooms it would be a significant environmental impact; Layout of this block is unique, need to look at intensification of the block; . Applicant needs to address concerns and consider impacts; o Need update on the tree mitigation for 1537 Drake Avenue. t3 v City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 14,2003 Chair Boju6s made a motion to continue this item until further information is provided, and project is looked at as complete package and size is reduced. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Discussion on motion: cannot consider this application without information on 1537 Drake Avenue; need update on revisions to 1537 Drake Avenue and tree mitigations; need to see proposal in context ofthe steet; bring back with detailed information as a complete package; CA Anderson stated that technically need to look at each project, staff and commission subcommiffee are working on emerging lot ordinance, CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be considered, look at maximum build out, subdivision concept makes sense but not in legal sense because the subdivision already is existing. Chair Boju6s called for a vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0- 1- I (C. Brownrigg absent and C. Keighran abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. 11. 8 PLACE, ZONED R-l-APPLI R DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE AND REAR VARIANCES AND LOT CE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION PROEFROCK, GLANCE APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD V. SP Brooks briefly presented the description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the comment. Greg Proefrock, project Dick Unsinn, property owner, were present to questions. Project designer explained house was one of about ten.A cottages built on the Farm before the area was ect lot is substandard, built prior to existing so there are non-conforming setbacks coverage. Although the proposed variances would the existing setback, the street will remain unchanged. Familyroom was constructed permits, there is no vapor barrier, it narrow, not a functional room. Trying to make ofthe space, slight increase inheight,the neighbors are okay with the project, only one can see the addition from their a study of how the project could comply with all and there would onlybe niurow in the rear yard; the solid wall on back side of the is required for fire protection, it parking lot of an aparknentbuilding, solidwall onnorth side faces a sewer easement; they area also access to second floor room,owners put in metal spiral staircase, want to correct it safe. There were no other the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to this item on the consent calendar.motion was seconded by C Osterling. Comment on motion:due to the unusual size and of the lot; and property backs up to apartment building.Boju6s called for a vote on the to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion a voice vote 6-0-l (C.. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and This item concluded :05 p.m. X. PLANNER RTS Review of City Council regular October 6,2003. the actions of the Council meeting of October 6,2003 t4 Sr. Planner Brooks revi NOY-(I-UJ u3:43pO rl0n-uto l(opubllg 11Ut r I biuJbuu4Jl EY: Fitlcliry ComPinY Eropw I'le. Yhlr 0r&r llo.-w vt hlrl Mail Doc.ument end Tar To: &aig Suhl 365 El Ponal Srn Mateo, CA 944c,2 nr GBANT DEED grEntorlc!declorclrl Documontary .t xit 8660.00 on full value of PryPenY conveyed, or on futl value less valu? of liens or ensumbzncsE remsining gt dme of sale. Area Citv of Bwlingsme AV CONSIDEBATION, rccoiPt ol wltch b htrrby rdnrowledgcd' . ::]: ' Orto J. Miller, an unmanied ttEl i;,g1,.;.., ' .,,, .t. . ,, (x II1tl hereby to Otto J. Mitler, An Unmanicd Marr as to:n undividgd 25% intorest Mirism V. Suhl.and wlfe 8s to an undividcd 75% iotercst ts Tsnants in Common rlro lollowing roal proport, in drc Ststc o{ Callfornia: City el Burlingame Cerrnty qt Ssn SEE EXHIBIT ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF DATED:g,2003 STATE OF COUNTY be(ore rfle;'Otto J. appeared p8rsonalIY u me lor proved to me onthe basis of satislrctolY to bc Oa pcfsonls)whoso namcbl to tJre within instru ment snd acknowlodged mc that he/shcfiheY sxecutd tlc sameln ruthodzsd crpecityliesl, pnd thrt by signaturs[s]on the lnvtrumcrt ths personlsl, or entity upon bchall of which thc personlsl executed the insntment Wimess my fE-.zt lRry OEfD Description:CA Document-Year.DoctD 2003'289165 ?age: I of 3 Thc FOn and Cralg J. Suhl:nd .:,' : .r ' t,: ON MAIL TA)( STATEMENTS AS DIBESTED ABOVE @ TE TOUE @nrnhdgrl lloloryPuE- Sgt rElt Orden San 17 Cofiment: nrisnoNs Wrrrrn Signature Ngv-(3-uJ uc;{apr rIcrFUrs t(lpuet tg I I tl! Eror.1 trlo- Tltlr 9drrNe. t I c?uJ9ut{J3 l-rcr r.uutruuf l-our .. EXHIBIT ONE Porrion of Lot t in Number 9.. frled 15. I9t1 ln 7 Bcginning at a on ths SouthwrsterlY linc of Drrlr! Lvenuc,$ld Doin!bcing *re most Esterly cornet of Lot 12' ss shown on thE 55e 04'WGEI, a abovo mendoned; $renca Nonhwesterly rlong seid Soudrw!.&rly fine of Ortlcc lygrug, NorUr o,e5 fagc dloncr having said SoudtrrvcsterlY lirp of Drakc. South 630 22'Wcst 15.81fcst to apoinE 340 55'Wgst lO5lsEt to tho SouthweetertY tins ol said l,.sg thencr alongsdd Southwestcrh fine South 55o Lot, North 34" ' East 50 fett to Urc most Sou0tctlY sorner of sgid Lo$ thencc dong tlrc SoutrosstcrtY thc sf eeid East lZ0 teet to the Point of bsginning. Block 55, as dcl'nsatad upon trat cenain map enrided, '{? or Earlon Addition to Burlingamc reeord h rhe offico "f ;;;';;;F1h;d;;;-d." Milo. Statc of Califom'n on Ausust Joint Plail No: ,.,j.. . ia':,. jli '. . ,.; .r\:. ,ir.i . :..::: : :fl" . :..t:r'' i:.i , ::.|l :,i Descrtpt'on: Sar,Docament-Year.DoclD 2003-289165 Pege: 2 of I Odec 11 Conunent: \-/ t ? BECOFOING REOUESTEO BY ..'o"or"u31',ffiHliilr.* carpanv Eroc til 2@er3-231Ci54 OAllSl2OO3 O3:O1P DE Fec:,t0.OO Page I ol 2 Doc T Tax Patd Recorded in Officiat Records County of San llateo Uarren Slcum -' Assessor-County Clerk-RecorderRecordcd By oLD REP0BLIC fftUE-tottirnnv I lllilt ililI ffifl ililil ilt ilil llilffiI ilt llil ilil]ilt SPACE AEOVE IHIS UNE FOB RECOBOEBS US€ APN 025-033-020 R CEIVEDWHEN RECOROEO MAIL TO - otto Miller 1553 Drake Avernre Brlrlingane, CA 94010 3 P302003 F BURLINGAM E NG EEPT, Grant Deed me State StIeet Addrss CIT P City Zp t_) / -(o InA no t -9 c.T tarf The undersigned grantor(s) Documentary transfer tax is declare(s): $ 880.00 ( X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or ( ) computed on full value less value of liens and encumbraices remaining at time of sale. ()uni"corporatedarea:(X)Cityof-'...--BrrrlHgF--.. ( ) Realty not sold. FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Abdrl De146n Safa and m:kiye Safa, -tnrslcand and rarife herebyGRANT(S)to Otto J. Miller, an unmarried man that property in the City of BurlirEane, San Mateo Cornty, State of Cali-fornia, described as:* * * See 'tD<hijcit A!' attacLred hereto and rnade a parE hereof . * * * MailTaxStatementsto Grantee at address abcnre Date Ar-rgrust 6, 2003 STATE OF Tl\x\eoCOUNTYlv On I 05 before me, the a Public in and personally known to me (or widence) to be the person(s) 'proved to me on the basis of satisfactory whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in ltttt!rttrt tt!!ttrttttlttfaf ttttttt ELLEN BAE SA}IDERS IL- - C)6 r hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and lhal by his/her/their signature(s) on upon behalf of which the person(s)the instrument the or the entity coviu.*1mu9acted, and Exphes Aug, f8, 2004illittrrrlrtrtrtrrtrtartrtraa!rtrrrtt Name or printed) 494 (Ihis area for official notarial seal) MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE F Order No. : 0373000759 E(IIIBIT ''A'' LEGAL DESCRIPMON ?he land refemed to is situated in the State of CaLifornia, County of San Mateo,City of Burlingame, and is described as follows: Portion of Lot L2, in Block 55, as delj-neated upon that certain Map entitled .MAp OF EAS?ON ADDITION fO BURIINGAME NUMBER 5,,,. filed for record in the Office of theRecorder of the county of San Mateo, State of Cali.fornia, on August 15th, 1911 in Book 7 of Maps, at. Page 46, more particularly deseribed as folrows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterry rine of Drake Avenue, said point being themost Easterly corner of Lot L2, as shown on the map above msntioned,. thenceNorthwesterly along said Southwesterly line of Dra.ke Avenue, North 55' 04rWest, adistance of 45 feet.; thence leaving said SouthwesterJ.y line of Drake South 53' 22.west L5.81 feet to a pointi thence South 34'55'rrest 105 feet to the SouthwesterX.yline of said lot; thence along said Southwesterly Line Soutl] 55' 04,East 50 feet tothe most Southerly corner of said Lot; thence aloag the Southeasterly line of saidlot, North 34' 56r East 120 feet to the point of beginning. A.P.N. 026-033-02G J. P.N. 26-03-033-02 I llllll llllll lllll llllll lll llll llllllll lll lilll llll ffil #ry "r;ws 7 6= 4 \-/ 1 r Letters of concern submitted by Ann and Mark Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, dated October 13, 2004, and Jay and Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, dated October 14,2003. r Letter in support of the project submitted by Denise Laugesen-Balestrieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, dated luly 25,2004. wT-t4-2a,8,3 L6tO4 ocT 1 4 ?003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. To: Burlingame Planning Commission From: Ann and Mark Thomas. 1520 Drake Ave. Re: 1553 Drake Ave. Date: l0ll3/03 rrrar I street Journft EC E lvE D P.AL/21, 6OMM UNI{"ATIOIY RECEI YTt AFER ffiPARAT,OH\".,s*'ffrffi_r under advice of legal counsel, we are objecting to the proposed plans for a fourth house on the 1537 block of Drake Ave. This new pmposal is part of the previously submitted three house Drake project, and accordingly, must be considered as one project. As such, the entire four-house development now requires supplemental review rurder The Califomia Environmentral Quality Act; supplemental review under the Burlingarne tree protecdon ordinance; and supplemental design review -- as a four-house subdivisior/development is incompatible with this residerrtial block consisting primarily of 1920's bungalows where the average size is less than 2,000 square feet, height is less than 29 feet and average bed/bath ratio is 3/2. The standalone, proposed fourth house - once again - is very close to the maximum allotted FAR and is simply too massive, in scope and size, to be absorbed on this cul-de-sac block, We now have changed circurnstances that raise legal questions about the approval process of this four-house subdivision/development. We note that the developer has not yet received all discretionary approvals for his demolition permit at 1537 Drake. We request ths Planning Departrrent make a supplemental investigation into building and environmental requirements for a the four-house subdivision/development; a supplemental investigation into how the develo,pment meets CEQA compliance, especially given its proximity to Mills Creek; and a kaffic review, givar that the scale of the four-home development now could bring 19 bedrooms -- and potentially 19 cars -- to a dead-end cul-de-sac. TI]TRL P.E1 RECEIVED ;UMMU,V,LA iivi.; ij. r.i ::, :. ;,; A}TER .PREPARAI IO'\ SFS?ArrRIPOR}October 14,2003 ocT 1 4 2A03 Dear Planning Commission: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. We are uriting you to voice our opposition to the pnoposd project at 1553 Drake- We have two opinions on the project We do not feel that you Gan go forward with discussion or determination on the pnoject because the City has not yet resolved the major issues involved withMr. Millers first development *1537 Drake. This new fourth home is part of a large dwelopment on our culde-sac that Mr. Miller has been trying to build. The first stage of development has been in the works for over a year. As you know, this has ben met with muoh neighborhood, community and environmental opposition Many issues are still rmresolved First, how could Mr. Mller ask to add another large piece, without the Commission taking time to look at the wlule ptcfire now that it has changed dramatically? As of today, there have been no permits issued on the project at 1537 Drake. This is because the information rcquested last lvlay, at the last Commission meeting; has not been completed- The demolition permit has mt evenbeen approved- Also, because of the Iack of information, there has been no building permit issued- The very important issue of the Redwood trees is still unresolvd and ttrc city has not yet determined the effect of thefirst development on the Redwoods. More troubling IvIr. Miller recently raised the issue of changing the layout This information comes from Mr. Mllers discussions with Erika I€witq l*tny Anderson and Steve Porter. When told by the PlanningDepartmentthathe would needto revisitthe PlanningCommissionto address this change, Mr. Mller asked for tapes to see if he could skirt the issue and not answer to the Planning Commission aboutthis major revision While not yet official" this may adversely affect the canopy or the roo8. This issue cannot be addressed yet because no change inplans have been submitted- Is it appropiate to discuss design and sizs information on a fouttr home when we have yet to decide the final fate of the otlrers? The determinations on tlme homes certainly ned to considered when building a fourth" We ask that you delay any discussion of the new home of this development rmtil the larger picture is looked at and the issue of the redwood tnees has been resolved. AIso, we also need to state that the current home poposed by Mr. Mller is not in keeping with the neighborhood consistency. It is only consistent with the other homes he wants to build. The current average on the block is a 3 Be&oom/2 Bath. auprox 2000 sq ft . and averaee heiqht 22 f6t . This projected new home is a 5 Bedroom /4 Ba;tlr- 3010 sq ft. and 30' 10"! .In addition, he is asking for a neady 2' kight variance so that it can even exceed the height ofthe other large homes he wants to build next to it. The second story alone has 4 Bedrooms and 4 Bathrooms! It is espeially disturbing that following the neighborhood effort to meet Mr. Miller halfirray with his previous plans for tlre three bouses, per Ctty Council directioru that Mr. Mller vrculd thumb his nose at all the discussion and past opinion of the Commission onthis issue and again submitplans for .another "maxe&ouf ' home. In addition, we have major corrcerns about ,fozr very brge homes being built at the end ofthis culdesac. This project now raises again issues pertaining to the sreet's infrastructure especially parking and proimity to Mlls Creek Our block is now facing a forr house developent that will bring and additional 19 new bedrooms and 15 bathrooms on a 2flX)0 square foot parcel, on a dead end stcet How many cars is that?? Also, due to the fact that it is 'not a thru sreef', and since we live at the end ofthe block ard nort door to the dwelopment , ve have major concems of sbging this dweloprneng plus traffic, parking and pollrrion and dirt as it affects orn family. These ooncems need to be addressed as a wtole. Thank you for your carefirl consideration ofou letter. Jay and Janet Garcia 156l Drake Avenue RECEIVED .-Lr^$atzr- tL MA JUL 2 6 2004 1/^t C ITY OF BURLINGAME lA-Plnnn,'n T avy\ (&n L h2 Se Lrt-r_ h.t -D ro/<^e . hnuL Ch*/@oh-\,/ 4vvaz) .sl r}-(( A,,L/4 &'ta rl rFt r I T Af/- rtn l-l r& h{T\..^a4+ t) o6 'l>\^e- U, L I 4J ,i />l-t h fi,,A O4 6 'l '1r.1- I I 1r 96t\ )oda +2.b<- t5.5O kn.-r/-l/t bf" 1..g 4n ++o oc,t t a Proiect Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: 9129103 9125t03 tr City Engineer [il Chief Building Official E Fire Marshal t3 Recycling Specialist tr City Arborist tr City Attorney Planning Staff Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1553 Drake Avenue, zoned R-l, APN:026-033-020 L r by:Date: ,U l/ rv loc*/rrr- b- Cat * **,eoln - f,,^+l( Project Comments Date: To: From Subject: Staff Review: 9129103 9n5la3 tr City Engineer tr Chief Building Official {rn.Marshat tr Recycling Sp.ecialist tr City Arborist tr City Aftomey Planning Staff Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1553 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-033-020 Reviewed 7/%Date:>-?\".t-o 3 \./ Project Gomments Date:9125t03 To:M City Engineer tr Chief Building Official E Fire Marshal tr Recycling Sp.ecialist tr City Arborist tr City Attomey From Planning Staff Subiect:Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1553 Drake Avenue, zoned R-l, APN:026-033-020 Staff Review: 9129103 0 Reviewed by:VI Date:E/103 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGII\IEERING DIVISION PLAI{IIING RE,YIEW COMMENTS The following requirements apply to the project I -+- A property boundary survey shall be preforrred by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all properly lines, property comers, easements, topographical features and utilities. @equired prior to the building perrnit issuance.) 2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towar'ds the Frontage Steet. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's fl ood zone requirements. the City's standards (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. - The project plans shall show the required Bayfront BikelPedeseian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall ide,ntifr the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewerpump stations and identi$ mitigation moa$res. <i : 9. Submit a haffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identiS the project generated impacts aod recommend mitigation' rneasrres to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The pnoject shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Divisioa The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and newproperly and lot lines proposed by the map. Page I of3 U:\private developrent\PLANNING REVIEW COlvfieMSdoc llb",t_pn -glyy^/ Proj ect N amez..M, G*y ;*r tul .?"W "Project Address:- lffi fr?.xW ?Oa PT]BLIC WORIG DEPARTMENT ENGII\IEERING DIWSION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map forreviews. 12. Map closurellot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements ofthe Subdivision Map Act. dt4 The prqiect shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutt€r, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 - The project shall, at its oum cosf design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, tnees, and sneetlights in accordance with sfieetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts dwing construction to vehicular taffic, pedestian taffic and public on skeet parking. The project shall identiff these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. . engneer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclostne doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upsheam and downsheam properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year' flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage areq creek, or creek banks requires a State --:: i Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 No consEuction debris shall be allowed into the creek 20 V The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clariS if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to Cily Engineer's approval. showing the driveway profile with elevations Page2 of3 U:\private development\PLAI.INING REVIEW COMMENTS-doc ) 1 . PI]BLIC WORKS DEPARTMEI{T ENGII\TEERING DIYISION 23 ( The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage cur_b in the sheet to prevent overflow of storm water from the steet into private property. 24.For the takeout service, a garbage reeeptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25.- For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleanin g fie,a shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanirary Sewer System is required. u:\private devetopment\PLANNING REvIEw [8ffSitt.u* Project Gomments Date:9t25t03 To:tr City Engineer tr Chief Building Official E Fire Marshal daecyctiHg Speciatist tr City Arborist tr City Attorney From Planning Staff Subiect:Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1553 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026{33-020 Staff Review: 9129103 Applicant shall submit a Waste Reduction Plan and Recycling Deposit for this and all covered projects and sections of projects prior to any demolition, construction or permitting. I OT'BT]RIJNGAME lEE PLAI\INING COMMISSION d//et4) Projcct Addrs$:9s 0eAKe 44€ Asse*sor's Parcal ozQ - o33 o2a IROPET,TT OWNER. O AddHs:0 5 Phonc 5-o- LL€E- o-g l2- a, IROJECT DESCNIPIION fax ^3 35 Pleaso indiceE q,ith an ast€ihk r thc oont8ct pssm fo( thit appti,canoo. AITIDAYIIiSIGNATIJRE: I hereby cctti& undcr pol8tty of that tp tafrmattoa glvcoh€$in is tnF strd colrect to peCiury my lnowlodge ffd k[sf. s Signsturo I tnow about tbs ptoposed application and My auttoriE the abo/o appttcaot b submit 0riraplication b tho Plrnntng .zL.6b Property r Sigoafun D&b+-FOR OFTTCB IISB ONLY_-% DelB FiLd:- FGc:-_ RECE,YED sEv z E zool t'llffii,'g,;gpir. Uandng Conmhdon! SErdy Darer__ Actm .mrw APPTJCAI\IT mmc: ParJfi 6.c4{&6 . Addrus: zag PzaAK- \am, $tytstatolzq/t b u VJAN &4n4C / Ck Ptuft ($t 6sa - F'??- 51 { z- faxt A90 - 911- oll, ARCEIIECT/DESIGNM *na t?* AP-c-Wnarl lrrdras: '2oS WY Y.b. <lF 2t3 w t sElr.:t z,e | _gg pr-t *l w4eg * Phone (w): 6So -Saq - q')<2- tut 65o-2a1-rtttf RESOLUTION APPRO\TING CATEGORICAL EXBMPTION AI{D DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: V/HEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review for a new. two-story single family dwelline with detached garage at 1553 Drake Otto 911 N Blvd. owner. APN: 026-033-020; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 13. 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that l. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, 15303, Class 3 - (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. ln urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. I, Chairman Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of September , 2004 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT *A' Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review 1553 Drake Avenue Effective September 23, 2004 I 2 3 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 1, 2004, sheets A-1 through A-5, L1.0, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; that the property owner shall install privacy screening trees which will grow to a height of at least 15'-0u between the second floor deck and the neighboring property to the north; the City Arborist shall review and approve the irrigation system, the species, number and placement of trees to ensure the neighbor view protection prior to issuance of a building permit; and these trees shall be planted and the irrigation system shall be in place prior to calling for a final inspection for the building permit; that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property comers and set the building footprint; 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; 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; 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; 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 Plaruring and Building plans. 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; 4. 5 6. 7 8. 9 \,/ EXHIBIT 66A' Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and design review. 1553 Drake Avenue Effective September 23, 2004 Page 2 10. 11. t2 13. 14. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's September 29,2003, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 26,2003, memo, shall be met; that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,200l Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; that the applicant shall comply wilh Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 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 that demolition for removal of the existing strucfures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CITY OFBURUNGAME PLANNING DEPARTMEI{T 501 PRIMROSE ROAD zuRLINGAME, CA94O1O TEL: (650) 5s8-7250 Site: 1553 DRAKE AVENUE Application for design review for a new two story sin$e family dwelling and detached garage at 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, zoned R-1. (APN: 02m33-O2o). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, September L3,2OO4 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall CouncilChambers located at 5O1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Califomia. Mailed: Septembe r 3,2OO4 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURUNGAME Acopy ofthe to the meeting Burlingame, If you raising described at orprior Property tenants s58-72s0. Margaret City Planner PU CE (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE be reviewed prior 1 Primrose Road, be limited to hearing, to the city their call (6$) NTAALTFO \-/ ,' ]:, 1553 Drake Avenue 1 fl4. dt,; :?. \.--. a RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ANd SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has beenproposed and application has been made for design reivew to allow construction of a new two story single family house with detached two car garage located at 1553 Drake Avenue, zonedR-l, APN: 026-033-020; Otto Miller, propertyowner. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on September 13,2004, at which time said application was approved; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon heldon October 18, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1 On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant eflect on the environment, and a categorical exemption per Article 19, Section 15303, Calss 3 - (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilties or sturcutres including (a) one single family resdence or a second dwelling unit in a residential is hereby approved. 2. Said design reveiew is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review are as set forth in the staffreport, minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is furflrer directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the Countyof San Mateo. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18 th day of October, 2004 , and adopted thereafterbythe following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK RFSOTIITIONNO 1 EXHIBIT ''A'' Conditions of approval categorical exemption and Design Review 1553 Drake Avenue effective October 18,2004 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submified to the Planning Department date stamped September 1,2004, sheets A-l through A-5, LI.0, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the property owner shall replace the existing driveway apron and any adjacent sidewalk on the north side of the lot including an approved safe paved transition into the driveway apron located in the public right of way for the adjacent lot at 1557 Drake Avenue, design to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit and to be installed and inspected by the City Engineer prior to scheduling final inspection; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architecfural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4. that the property owner shall install privacy screening trees which will grow to a height of at least 15'-0" between the second floor deck and the neighboring property to the north; the City Arborist shall review and approve the irrigation system, the species, number and placement of trees to ensure the neighbor view protection prior to issuance of a building permit; and these trees shall be planted and the irrigation system shall be in place prior to calling for a final inspection for the building permit; 5. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6. that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certiff the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 7. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 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 veriff 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 \-/ EXHIBIT IIAII Conditions of approval categorical exemption and Design Review 1553 Drake Avenue effective October 18,2A04 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; ll.that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's September 29,2003, memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 26,2003, memo, shall be met; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 13. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 15. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CITY OF BURLINGAIIE PLANNIiIG DEPARTUENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BUHLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 . FAx: (650) 69G3790 www.burlingame.org APPEAL HEARING FOR 1553 DRAKE AVENUE Appeal of an application for design review for a neu/two$tory single family dwelling and detached garage at 1553 DRAKEAVENUE, zoned R-1. (APN: 02m33-O2O). The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Monday, October L8,2OO4 at 7:OO p.M- in the City Hall CouncilChambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burtingame, California. Mailed: October 8,2@4 (Plea,se refer to other side) A copy of the to the meeting Burfingame, If you raising only described in at or prior Property their tenants (650) 5s8- Margaret PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE be reviewed prior Road, be limited to hearing, to the city infoqqing please call I City Planner :P E r{rxxtrA (Please refer to other side) \-/ CITY OF BURLINGAME i ': t., From: To: RECEIVED SEP 2 B 200tr CITY CLER('S OFFICE CITY C!!: PilRi rh'''ai Date:September 28,2004 City of Burlingame Mr. and Mrs. Jay A. Garcia 1553 Drake AvenueRe: In reference to our request for an appeal on September 22,2004, pertaining to 1553 Drake Avenue, we hereby request as extension to November 1,2004, as a result of time needed for expert and legal research and advice. { i'i -r JA,,q $u,4 %6./W Ape"'^ 4." Lh*r*ts, c!.&1553 Dz*lce-Iannr N75 t orn ,TYctzt i,t Q tz.o{ tu J^. 6**,a / )ru-, 6aryrh . lg^ot EzolQ )P- E*W;q^.,vt\L G q...{o) b bs *tr- ow+ - ph * b{b 61e-4t42-- t*y. (l[k-Azrx b,flPld,(d-az,s I a-a n,*'5 s Q-rr ,dq ..e $ to"r Honorable Mayor and City Council: Please schedule an appeal hearing for 1553 Drake Avenue to be heard at the October 1 B, 2004 Council meeting. City Clerk 0Jru_4-- RECEIVED sEP z 2 2001t E'g8it{ff'fl'[['.9EI-o/ r Q.: Page 1 of3 RECEIVED OCI 1 8 200+ 8,',#gFffifit$[[hgETO: FROM: DATE RE Burlingame City Jay A. Garcia Response to Mark 's letter Dated October 13,2004 October 18,2004 The purpose of my response to Mr. Hudak's letter is to clarify some inaccuracies and false comments related to the history and intent of the matter concerning 1553 Drake Avenue and our adjacent homes at l56l and 1557 Drake Avenue. INTRODUCTION We (Jay and Janet Garcia) have owned and resided at 156l Drake Avenue for twenty three (23) years. Additionally, I have owned and operated my own business in Burlingame, PREI Capital Group located at 840 Hinckley Road, for more than twenty (20) years. OVERVIEW It is important to note that I have never met or spoken to Mr. Hudak. Furthermore, Mr. Hudak has never attempted to meet or speak with me regarding this or any other matter ln regards to the timeline for this project, there has only been a total of four (4) meetings pertaining to this application. The first meeting was on October 14,2003, which Janet attended and I did not. The next meeting, nine months later, occurred July 26,2004. As noted in the Minutes (Paragraph 2,Page 18), the Commission asked Mr. Hudak "why it took nine months for this project to come back, not even re-designed". Mr. Hudak responded that "the property owner was working on other projects; this project was not his top priority". During this time there were no meetings or discussions pertaining to 1553 Drake. Not until July 26th, only the last ten weeks. have real issues and discussions been raised. Mr. Hudak depicts the picture of a year of many meetings, plan revisions and studies. This is simply not true. In fact, the meeting on August 23,2004 and September 13, 2004, the Commission recommended, on a four to one vote, that Mr. Miller switch the driveway back to its current and original location with revised plans. He did not follow this recommendation. As a result, we were not prepared with any additional expert reports because Mr. Miller did not follow the Commissions' August 23'd request. Conceming the fence and our inability to exit with two vehicles, I never attempted to put two vehicles in the garuge prior to my attempt two weeks ago. We currently have four vehicles; two have always been parked at 1561, one at 1557 and the other has utilized street parking. Lastly, in regards to the future development of 1557 Drake, I can unequivocally tell you that I have no present or future plans to demolish this home. I find it highly unusual and questionable that Mr. Hudak would make so many assumptions about our plans without ever directly inquiring about our real intent. Back in May of this year (2004), we engaged with an architect to explore the possibility of expanding our current residence at 1561 Drake to the 1557 Drake property. Upon completion of only sketched plans, we contacted a contractor to provide cost estimates. After receiving their bid, we determined this option was cost prohibitive. Since then, we have decided that we will eventually rent the house and, ultimately gift it to our children. In the meantime, Mr. Hudak's and Mr. Miller's speculation about our future has unjustifiably taken on a life of it's own. CONCLUSION 1) It appears the City approved the current plan40 +/- years ago without incident. During our twenty three (23) years of residence at this location, there has not been any noted safety issues. This includes many different families occupying 1553 and 1557. Mr. Hudak suggests leaving the driveway as is would create a very difficult back- up for the new owner and suggests changing it so the future new owner doesn't suffer. Meanwhile, Mr. Hudak has never inquired about the history and functionability of our locations. 2) The real hardships suffered will be to 1561 and 1557 for the following reasons a) A red zone would be needed in front of the replaced driveway to prevent driveway access to 1557 and 1561. This requires enforcement. Page Two of Three Furthermore, this results in the loss of the current parking space, while two existing homes will be removed and replaced by four new homes in the same area. b) The inclusion of the fence presents two visible issues: 1. Backing out of the driveway at L557 creates a safety/liability issue; not being able to see pedestrians or children by the blind spot created at the southern edge of the property. 2. The fence creates an adverse effect to our two car garuge making it very difficult to maneuver cars out of the garage without the usage of Mr. Miller's driveway. Please remember this dual usage has occurred for the past forty (40) plus years. Additionally, the narrow space at the end of the driveway makes it unsafe when exiting the driveway. All of the circumstances mentioned will most certainly have a diminishing effect on value to both 1557 and 1561 and create real safety issues. Page Three ofThree October 13"2004 RECEIVED OCT i 3 200'r CW CL[fri('S 0rF|CE CITY OF EURLIi{riAI\4E Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Council, We look forward to meeting with atl or most of you before the October l8m meeting. As you are aware, we are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the currently proposed plans for 1553 Drake. As you will read in the letter sent to you by Mr. James Jeffery, a respected professional traffrc engineer who has worked for the City of Burlingame in the past, the current plans will impose severe restrictions on our homes at 1561 and 1557 Drake. The important issues of right of ingress and egress from our properties, traffic and pedestrian safety, and parking, are of great concern The details addressed in this leffer were not brought out at the September Planning Commission meeting because it was a continuance of the July 26ft meeting. This continuance was issued subsequent to the denial of Mr. Millers plan to relocate the driveway. At this meeting the Commission granted this continuance to see new plans that keep the driveway in the current location. Mr. Miller chose not to follow the Commissions request and resubmitted the same plans without changes, arguing the issue of driveway separation. As a result, we were not prepared to have the information that currently has been made available to you. It is important that you know that we are not opposed to Mr. Millers home development, just to the relocation of the existing driveway. If you have any questions, we welcome them. Drake Avenue S .t,., \4w^ LAW OFFICE OF MICHABL D. LIBERTY 1290 Howard Ave., Suite 303 Burlingame, California 940 1 0 Telephone: (650) 685-8085 Facsimile: (650) 685-8086 October 73,2004 RECEIVED OCI 1 3 200tt CITY CL[Iii,i,S OFFICE CITY OF EL]RI.I[\,IGA!\{E VIA HAND DELIVERY Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Burlingame City Council Appeal Hearing for 1553 Drake Ave. Dear Council Members: Attached please find the report from James Jeffery, Civil/Traffic Engineer that we will be using on Monday, October 18,2004 in connection with the Appeal Hearing for 1553 Drake Ave. Very truly yours, /4,^"L Michael D. Liberry rfrff r. .E(,1 -,5to -l) o City CounciJl Appeal to planning Commission Approval of l5 j3 Drake Avenue Introduction . I have boen asked to provide my professional assessmont offaffic safety as it . ,relates to the proposed change in driveway corrigurarion al the proposed projeot at is:r i Drake Avmue (Mr. otto M ler). I have psrfomod a site waluation of rhe subjeot driveways and revicwed plans, professional reports and opinions ofpublic and pivatc parties. Through my,experience as a licensed Traflic and blvil Engineer, City TraIfic Engineer, and rrallic safety Expert, and aftor having defcndcd thii city-against claims of unsafe conditions I make the following findings: l.) Regarding the ,"I'raflic,, issue on Drake Avenue . -Ihe developer's proposed driveway should be not moved to tlhe south side ofthehouse. The City must morc importantly address, (as in the dead_end.f Cra;il";;;;),thc narrow stects, lot widths ;d as in thc casc oiDrake AvEnue, the inaded; --" tumarounds at the end oftho str€el. Mary areas have sharcd drivoways and many are,, L:111l -.T dlr"":e from rhe prrbtic right-of-way. lt is important to note the existence ofnve onveways at the subject tumaround, nOt four, as sOtcd by a previoUs dOcument. .fhe lack of a nrmaround at the end. of tfie sreer, as in ifri pJ. i"cnue condition, isoveroome by the use of multipl.e driveway app-rches "cting "s a,,tacit'' turnaround. Byremoving the present ,,norlh *il^".,_gf*.r;i th. ,rbJ-"4i;;rty 1r ss: nlare irLiJ;would have the affecr of eliminating the piesent use oi ttJanl"*"y, as a tumaround. Ift}te driveway was eliminared_ teavin'g rhe' drivew;;ppr#;;rld nor be a safea.lternadve, as you uould than hEve a pedes&ian ,"f i.'*V "r,,aar*lk being utilized bvvehicle drivers as a n'naround. aaaii"miry, .ity l,i,ri,.iiit"a. srcrion 12.04.06,Abandoned Drivewavs srales: no d,ir;; ;;;-'.;; r"n rr'[]ir.*"a ro remain once adriveway is abaadoned. In this present condition-prudent traffic safcty planning prac ces considerrelocation to rhe "sowb side" of ih. r.i-a"i r"ilrr'"I'"i ""ir,r," *isting drivewayapproach (with no drive\rrav) to create * ""ruf.;;J'itil,l*iofy ,n" opposite of wharthe citv shourd dcsire. In concrusio" "iil;;, ;"-"i.i#l'rrr,. rriveway whireleavrng the drivc*,a5, approach aoes not detiieaie th" ir," *lr""r*hicular andpedestian taffic, and thercfore is unsufe to ,"fri"l" a"i'i;;*". 2.) Regarding the ,,Right of Egress" issue: The receutly consllc"{ ftnf .oT rhe property line between 1553/1557 DrakeAvenue inrerfcrcs with 6e previousty jointly it.iJ io r""ia"r.*"v ti..r;;;;"public R/w) that has exrsted ar,ter. r,idr";lJJ;-oiigrnaty "onsrrctcd many vearsago., prior to Mr. Milter,s construction "irt" f.;;;;,i, "#h il;;li . ^,i ,earr prcvious owners and the cuncnt owncr at 1557 Drakc Avenue ut,zed the exta sDsce(now blockod by the fcncc) necessary-il;;;;;;;ir,","ro.",igr,t"iioi,i"tn"u"roni.;p;*iry;fi ;#f bftf"ff#H"lTrtH*.The "rishr ofegrcs., fo, uny ,*ina u.ti"f" iii :ri$Tr{}Ffli$ffr81f; H'lT,::*Hriff ils*qll+*:ffi ,i]':,il',fr &t';;;;;#f ii, H.:iatft ih;s l (4O8) 377-6222 constructed fence also limis thc ability ofajoint access drivewEr for vehicles backing out of 1557 Drakc Ave,nue to tum aro.nd and exit the drivqway at 1557 Drake Avenuc in a forward manner. A tbnrrard moving vchicutar exit is far safer that a backing movsmenl in any condition. Mr. Mlrler's-proposar for changing the location of the drivivay, as well as mainlaining a fencc al that tocation, creates a safery issue by restrictrng the existing . two car garage access. Attached are the tuming radius drawing for yo,r review. Ttrihnt'. dspicts accass to thc, oa$erly (space #l) garage parking space of 155? Drake Avsnue and the second the westerly (space #2). 3.) Regarding the Driveway and Fenoe Safety issues: - The currcatly proposed plans for the new homc at 1553 Drake Avenue leaves thewoodcnfcnce at the north property line crcating a haffic md safety hazara SJety hazards iaving reccnlry been creatod (and rfapproved continuea by cou"l ealjinclude blocking the vision of rear cxiting dri,ea (presently berng forced ro travef in thisdirection) from 1557 Drakc Avenue. In rddirion thi pr*rrt f"r"" brocks the view of f*r:11 l1^,1. "dewalh and atso obstructs rhe viiw oi ,.hi"t.. .pp.rcf,ing tfre - dea.r-end to entq ncighboring drivew,y or n'n around. It is the resoonsibitiw irrne citto uslu€ rhat oncc unsafe conditions are. brought to thcir attention, rliey rafe jrompi- - '', eppropriate actions 1o insrue safe conditions, 4.) Regarding the parking Issue: - The cunentry proposed home at 1553 Drake Avenue wilr arow for ttre continuation 9fa sineJg o1-sr9et pa'king space in nont oriisj 6rr. or.nu". This space is howeverproposcd to be relocated more northerg in order to accommoiarr the .tou&cm,, dri.veway to the properry. e rnr pa*ed in ,hi, l"*t ";;ll If""t "U ve*iclcs ftomexiting the garage or drivewav .t tssz o,"k anar,*, *a-, * "aaitioq w,l srso preventa vehicle &om exiting the w.rt .fy a.iu.*uy p*t "glpal "i isol Drake Avenue. I amsure it is not the intention of the City t";rnpoJ..rr'rr"ri]*irroioio* to the currentpropert,, owne* at these locations. f. nronor"a "up,pr"".fr; "n tfr" "fO tir.*r, aili",be desigratod as a tumarormd for.verriir"s arra sui'u's ffikil spot. If it is used as apa*ing spot, thcn it is crearirg a. hina"rrn., ir, ,"ii.dl"Trlr.r,y resricting theaccess and safety of vehicles at thetnd of Drake Av*"".- if,i U.ri uU "r.*O"roir,ionwould be to leave thc oresent'north- &iveuay ", isil ii"irenue and eliqinatc thcparking at rhis locariorr and insuring tr,rt isslor"r.",qvirJias aaequate on-siteparking pcr regrnar zoning sundands. In conclusion, the aflirmation by the City to approve the current plans that call for theremoval or relocalion of tlre driYeway of 1553 Drake Avenue will create taffic and safetyIssuesthat have severe safety and pcrhaps legal ramifications. I do not believe this to bethe inEntion of rhe Ci tY' The current dti velray apparently been functioning withoutincideot for 45 or m ore years. It is my professional recom mcndation rhat ii is sa&r forthe su:ent drivanray loiati on configuation to remain and fenceon the North side ro be removed. +.l4-- ENGINEERING CONSULNNG SENVICES Goi O. Box96l cA 9503 I (4O8) 377_6222 U't5 i: (3 l) =o .-lF---,,-n t{o. laail o. t 170 €r 97 EO 95.49 44,?4 aa ,t d2 90 FF= roo. GARAGE ssco .6t \ 97.65 .66 (n !.r s (t:oo -033-250 IAKE AW. INCE rl- \ \ It It 4,. -72 9!.,6 16..€l tl 95. DRtWwAy 11 a 8/ k 9..09 x s E 0aa 2e P05d.l I =\o G s _ag Ahr \n -,,L) 8tr, 9aa) 7.65 It'r s5.87 J CHIS X SfEP - r-l ck I I I I I I I l.t I ( 9! @ ssco \ NAIL 97.8O r6.66 95 ''-\ 9a{9 a4R4 90 I -ts (i 6RAGE (,l !4\(lt! 026-033-250 57 DRAKE AW. RESIDENCE 66 7.6r 97-72 ,.at .7',t 97,68 2S C1 rl ]f, - t05.00' _; 3507'30" W *t- I,4 ll/ ?6-&. Xc'rlts MIWWAY a.o9 \ E Eo \ \ t PB66 L I"r'\d'G6 =g s&aJ '* lrtt *1,t6.97 S/FP sttP r.'JIt, = **p- a-74 \ o I I i I I I I t I CARR McCLELLAN INGERSOLL THOMPSON & HORN Professional Law Corporation October 13,2004 BY HAND Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for 15 Dear Council Members: Our office represents Otto Miller Mark D. Hudak mhudak@cmithlaw.com RECEIVH D This appeal arises from a decision approving the design of a new residence on the property at1553 Drake Avenue, owned by Mr. Miller. 1t" unp"il is filed by Jay and Janet Garcia, whohave acquired the adjacent property at 1557 Drake 'and reside at r 56l Drake. The house was designed by Randy Grange. During the design review study, the commission didnot have any subslantive concerns aboutlhe house-itsele so ihe design was not referred to anoutside design review. The original application included a request for a special permit forheight,l but the design was revi-sed to io*"r the house and a special permit is no longer needed.There are no variances, special permits, or conditional use permits required. THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE The only issue involved in the appeal is the placement of the driveway for the new residence at1553 Drake. Mr. Grange located the driveway on the left (south) side of the lot; the Garciaswould prefer to have it on the right (north) side. The Commission considered several factorsbefore deciding to leave the driveway on the left side, including: 1' . The Commission was concerned about howthe house proposed for 1553 Drake *ould fit with the homes proposed for Lots 9, 10, and l l onDrake' The Commission required us to prepare a montage showing the four homes. The ' The lot at 1553 Drake slopes upwards from the street, so the house was over 30, when measured fromthe curb' when measured from the surrounding ground, the house did not exceed the 30, limit. OcT 1 3 2004 CITY OF BURLIIIGAME PLAIINING DEPT. 50.342.9600 50.342.7685 P6 F6216 Park Fload . Burlingame . Calif ornia g4O1O www.carr-mcclellan. com Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 New Avenue Burlingame City Council October 13,2004 Page2 Commission took into account the placement of the house on Lot 11 (driveway on the left) and noted that, if 1553 Drake had its driveway on the right, the house would then conflict with the one it had approved for Lot I 1. 2. Shadow Impact on 1557 Drake. The Commission considered whether having the driveway on the left side of 1553 Drake would cause the new house to cast an unreasonable amount of shadowing on the house at t557 Drake. Mr. Grange did a shadow study which showed that the new house would have very little shadow impact on the house at 1557 Drake. At the same time, several Commissioners noted that, if the driveway was moved to the right side of 1553 Drake, the house would then be in conflict with the new house being constructed on Lot I l. 3. Safety. The chief issue was whether a driveway on the right side of 1553 Drake would be less safe then the left-side driveway. Currently, five driveways come together at the terminus of Drake. The Commission required that Mr. Miller obtain a report from a traffic engineer. We presented a report from Richard Hopper of RKH. He conCluded that it would be safer to have the new driveway on the left side, to reduce conflicts with the other existing driveways. The RKH report was then reviewed by the City's traffic engineer, Augustine Chu. He concurred with the recommendation that the driveway for 1553 Drake be on the left side. Mr. Chu also recommended that the City accommodate the Garcias by extending the driveway apron for 1557 Drake onto the City's right of way. No contrary engineering report was presented. 4. Homeowner Convenience. A driveway on the right side would present a very difficult backup for the new owner of 1553 Drake. Because of the slope of the lot and the presence of parked cars, it is difficult and dangerous for persons backing out of the existing driveway. The proper thing to do is to correct this situation now, so that the new homeowner doesn't suffer. 5. Redesiex. The Commission asked Mr. Grange to redraw the house with the driveway on the right side. Mr. Grange was unwilling to do so unless he received an indemnification from both the City and Mr. Miller, on advice of his legal counsel. The attorney was concerned that, if there would be an accident involving someone backing out of a right-side driveway on 1553 Drake, the architect would be a target defendant if he redesigned the house after receiving two engineering opinions that the right-side location was unsafe. ln view of these factors, the Commission approved the design of the house with the driveway on the left side, as proposed. TIMELINESS There is an additional issue for the Council to consider. The Garcias now claim that backing out of the garage at 1557 Drake will be more difficult if the house at 1553 Drake remains in the Burlingame City Council October 13,2004 Page 3 location approved by the Commission.2 This issue was raised so late in the process that it wouldbe unfair to require reconsideration of the commission's approval. First, when he bought 1553 Drake, Mr. Miller erected a fence along the property line. Althoughthe fence has been up since July 2003, the Garcias did not claim ttrat it disturbed their parkingaccess until the past month. The Garcias have nearly 20' from their garage to the fence. Second, plans for 1553 Drake were submitted in october zoo3. The plans went through severalCommission meetings without any complaint from the Garcias abouithe access to the garage at1557 Drake. If parking access was a genuine concem, why wasn't it raised earlier? It is unfair for an applicant to go throu g\ayearof hearings, plan revisions, and engineeringstudies, then have a new issue raised aithe iast minute, *"h"n the applicant doesn,t have a chanceto verify the conditions or try to mitigate the complaini. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF 1557 DRAKE The Garcias have already been to the Planning Department to explore their options forredeveloping 1557 Drake. They may decide io teai it down and build a new irorn", or they mayopt to demolish the existing structure and build an addition to their home at 156l Drake. Theyare very coy about their plans; when asked about them at the Commission hearing, Mr. Garciasaid he had not decided. To what extent should the design for 1553 Drake depend on the garageat 1557 Drake, when that structure may not even be in eiistence in ayear? It was obvious tojhe Commission that some redevelopment of 1557 Drake will occur in the nearterm' It would be poor planning to force tvtr. uitter to place the driveway for 1553 Drake in apermanently awkward position, based on conditions at i557 Drake that are going t";h.rg;'l-The commission rightly.refused to penalize 1553 Drake for the uncertain conditions on theGarcias' lot' The commission chose to approve the best design for 1553 orut". Hopefully, theGarcias will come up w.ith a good pran foi lssz oratd;il; they come in for theirredevelopment application. The house designed b1Mr. Grange is placed appropriately on the lot. The planning commissionrelied on the advice of two engin-ers, includingitre city's own traffic engineer, in determiningthat the driveway should go on the left side. The decision of the Hanninfi co*Lirrion should beupheld. il#m::1,?;i 3#: is not occupied. rhe Garcias are using the garage for additional parking for ' For example, if the Garcias opted to construct a new house on 1557 Drake, current planningDepartment criteria would locate the garage in the back of the lot, so having a backup area at the front ofthe lot would be unnecessary. Burlingame City Council October 13,2004 Page 4 Please call me if you have any questions regarding our position before the hearing. Sincerely, Mark D. Hudak BGLIB I \l 233867. I "7'/'/r" LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. LIBERTY RECEIVED ocT 1a 2oott CITY CLErui'S OFFICE CI I Y Ci PI-IRLII{GAIVIE -3--1290 Howard Ave., Suite 303 Burlingame, Califomia 940 1 0 Telephone: (650) 685-8085 Facsimile: (650) 685-8086 October 18,2004 4irycornc;l 4iy Manager please respond BURLINGAME CITY COI-NCIL MEMBERS 501 Primrose Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1553 Avenue Appeal sac f'Ciry ettomey airlo Response Requirr:<! Dir. Finance 4ityPlunn", Dir. Public Works Human Resources r Police Chief Fire Chief - On Next Agenda Parks & Rec Librarian PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOI"IR RESPONSE TO TIIE CITY CLBRK Dear Mayor and Council members: I represent Janet and Jay Garcia I'm responding to Mark Hudak's letter of October 13, 2004. I apologize for the untimeliness of my letter, but this is the first day I can provide a response, since I only obtained Mr. Hudak's letter over the weekend. My hope is for you to receive this letter via e-mail in time for tonight's City Council meeting. It is being hand delivered to City Hall. Jay and Janet Garcia are two car-driving adults, and have three children who either are, or soon will be, of driving age. As you know, the Garcias are virtually landlocked if the driveway is moved to the south side of the proposed new residence. I believe each of you has been invited to the site to view the three merging driveways at issue. It is a problem that was, prior to this proposed development, dormant. It is now ripe for discussion and resolution. Please bear in mind that the Garcias purchased 1557 and 1561 Drake many years before this proposed project was envisioned. Previously, the Garcias used the driveway at 1553 Drake for ingress and egress in and out of 1557 Drake. The turning radius of the Garcias' automobiles -- including an SUV -- renders it difficult, if not impossible, to drive into and out of their driveway without traversing over the driveway at 1553 Drake. When the developer erected a fence over the right-of-way, he rendered the Garcias'ingress and egress virtually impossible. I Under law, the Garcias have a prescriptive easement -- or easement by necessity -- over the driveway at 1553 Drake. The developer's fence is now illegally erected over the Garcias' easement. Unfortunately, the dead-end at Drake Avenue was never properly converted into a cul-de- Over the years, the neighbors on Drake Avenue have worked well together to deal with ' IfRobert Frost said "good fences make good neighbors", he never saw the plans for this project. The fence erected by the developer is unnecessary and dangerously impacts the sight lines necessary for the imoottr transition onto Drake Avenue. According to the plans, the fence it to remain as erected. -n* ,..,_, BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS October 18, 2004 Page2 parking and turnaround issues. Unfortunately, the location of the driveways at 1553 Drake Avenue (proposed) and 1557 Drake (existing) have now brought these issues to a head. We are seeking the City Council's guidance in resolving this very important community and neighborhood issue. Mr. Hudak's references to shadows are not at issue. We're not concerned with shadow issues; we're concerned about crowding, egress and safety issues. We trust the developer's motives in seeking to impact the Garcias' egress are borne and out of a true community spirit to make Burlingame a better place to live, as opposed to expressing a vendetta against those whom he perceives to have wronged him in the past. We are mindful that the developer will sell the house, and realize a significant financial gain. From the developer's financial perspective, it matters not a whit whether the driveway is on the right side or the left. Either way, the developer gets his money and will be gone. However, the buyer and the Garcias will be left with a problem which they will have to deal with for years to come. It is only fair to resolve this issue now, when all appropriate parties are at the table. Mr. Hudak is a friend of mine. He's smart and articulate. However, even Mark will agree he does not have prognostic powers of seeing into the future or reading the Garcias'minds: he simply does not know what the Garcias will do with 1557 Drake. His thoughts, therefore, on the future development of 1557 Drake, are misplaced. The current plans are for the Garcia children to live in 1557, and drive and park their cars there. Removing the existing driveway at 1553 Drake is dangerous. The Garcias have used that driveway for years, and its further use is necessary for continuing entry and exit into and out of 1557 Drake. Removal would require the Garcias to remodel their entry at 1561 Drake, and would cost them money. It would also require the city to place a "no parking" zone in front of the driveway, and eliminate a parking spot. Our traffic engineer, Jim Jeffery, will speak to you tonight and address the traffic issues. However, one thing is clear: contrary to Mr. Hudak's assertion, there has never been a safety issue when entering or exiting 1553 Drake. That is why the driveway should be left as is. The Garcias are not litigious people. They simply want a common sense design for a neighbor who will be crowding their land and family. The use of three driveways, instead of two, simply makes sense. This appeal should be granted. The Garcias and I look forward to addressing each of you personally tonight at the meeting. cc: Mark Hudak HS.qi,L,< TO: FROM: DATE: RE: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Chris Keele October 18,2004 Text of Comments on Appeal of 1553 Drake Avenue, Burlingame I appear this evening to support appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of design review for new two-story home at 1553 Drake. Urge you to send this back to the PC for further investigation and study at the very least of the parking, driveway and traffic implications of this project. Certain design review criteria are not satisfied - or at least there are not enough data and reliable information to support findings for these: no. 2 ("Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood"), no. 4 ("Interface of the proposed structure with structures on the adjacent properties"). Criteria no. 3 - or at least part - "mass and bulk of the structure" is also implicated. May be wondering, you're a member of the Planning Commission, why didn't you raise these concerns at the meeting on Sept. 13? Wanted to and planned to. In fact, flew in from Vancouver the night of September 13 and rushed here to join the commission meeting with just that intent. But was informed upon my arrival, just as Mr. Hudak was beginning his presentation for the applicant, of the following. Because this item was continued from the comm'n's Aug. 23 meeting (which I had missed because my father had died on August 19 and I was in the Midwest on the 23rd attending to his affairs), and I had not reviewed the tapes of that meeting, I must abstain, which I did, over my objection. There is no need to re-hash what happened, or why I disagreed with staff's decision to not allow me to participate in deliberation and decision of this item on Sept. 13, other than all of us - City Planner, Chairman Osterling, and I - forgot the policy or rule that to participate in matters that have been continued, where a commissioner misses the meeting from which the matter has been continued, the commissioner must listen to the tapes of the missed meeting. None of us remembered this or reminded the others. Reviewing staff reports, all prior meeting minutes, all documents pertaining to the project, and even doing a site inspection, which I had done, apparently are not enough. So that's why I'm here. I offer my comments not only as member of the public, but as a member of the PC who has followed and studied this project, as well as the other three new homes that Mr. Miller is constructing immediately adjacent to 1553 Drake. Traffic, parking and ingress and egress from driveways at the dead end of Drake are the issues of immediate concern. The change in location of the driveway at 1553, and the resulting shift of the mass and bulk of the structure toward 1557 drive these issues. I listened to the tapes of the meeting of Sept. 13 (even though I was there), and was reminded that three of the five commissioners who were allowed to decide this matter expressed concerns similar to the ones I share with you now. In fact, Comm'r Bojues expressly suggested that this item be continued to study the traffic, parking and driveway problems, but voted to approve the SanFran- I 69322. I 0099999-0000 I project when the City Planner stated that it would not be appropriate to continue the item as it had already been continued. You're well aware of the problem from a substantive standpoint. In the project's final design, which the Commission studied and decided Sept. 13, driveway to 1553 is on the south (or left) side of the house. This shoves the structure toward the north (or right) side. Closer to 1557. As you know, Drake is a dead end, not a cul-de-sac. There is little room to maneuver vehicles, even now. The conflux of driveways and aprons creates a situation where users of garages and driveways at 1557 and 1561 must have room, including that afforded by a driveway and apron at 1553, to maneuver vehicles in and out of their driveways. Project applicant and two commissioners - Chairman Osterling and Comm'r Auran - cite to three memos from two traffic engineers, one the applicant's own consultant, the other city traffic engineer Augustine Chou, to support placement of the driveway for 1553 on the left (or south) side of the proposed 5 BR house. In reality, none of these memos or their analyses fully address the issues that have surfaced since the plans were reconfigured and the problems have been fully characterized. Richard Hopper's memo dated August 10 raises more questions and concerns than it answers.o First, contrary to how some have characterized the analysis, Mr. Hopper did NOT address safety for vehicles entering and exiting driveways at 1557 1561, or any location OTIIER than 1553 - the project. Mr. Hopper completely failed to address the safety of pedestrians - namely children. Or the viability of service vehicles needing to access and depart the end of Drake. o Second, Mr. Hopper's recommendation about an apron in front of 1553 and prohibition of parking in front of 1553 Drake is undermined by his owns client's efforts. There is no evidence or indication that the Hopper analysis was cognizant of the intensification of use of that end of Drake that was occurring due to Mr. Miller's seriatim development.o Moreover, the fence that Mr. Miller constructed prevents viable use of any apron to residents or visitors of 1557. I tested this yesterday. You have first hand evidence of this from neighbors. o In fact, Mr. Hopper concedes this in his memo of August 15.o In his Aug. l5 memo, Mr. Hopper cites reasons for the difficulties encountered by users of 1557 and 1561. Two of the three are pre-existing conditions - steps at 1561 and driveway slope at 1557. But owners and users of these properties should not be forced to change existing character of their property to accommodate a design of a planned project. And the third is the fence between 1553 and 1557, which Mr. Miller himself erected! The other problem with Mr. Hopper's cursory analyses is that it is not supported by any data, any observations, any measurements, any test drives, or any radius drawings oi calculations. These are all things the commission should have been afforded an opportunity to question the applicant and his consultant about. SanFran- 169322. I 0099999-00001 With all due respect to the City's traffic engineers, Augustine Chou's memo dated August 20 suffers from the same deficiencies in data and methodology. There are substantive problems as well. o The city engineer cites a "benefit" to placement of the driveway to the left (or south) of 1553, but benefit to whom? The three users of the properties at the end of Drake say it will be a hindrance, if not worse.o References maintaining the apron, but again fails to cite any understanding of the overall development of the area or the impact of the fence between 1553 and 1557.o The City engineer did not agree with any of Mr. Hopper's conclusions except concurs with an undefined "benefit" from separation of the ingress-egress of the three driveways at the ends of the block. o No mention of safety. o No independent analysis of parking; merely refers City planning staff to Mr. Hopper's comments. Plain and simple the memos do not provide sufficient suppoft for approval of the project. And they certainly do NOT address overall safety in the project area. With all due respect to my fellow commissioners, the decision of 2 of 3 comm'rs who voted to approve was based in part on inaccurate assumptions and speculation, including as to what the owner of 1557 plans or does not plan to do with that property.o For example, Comm'r Auran cited future development of 1557 in voting to approve 1553, but there was no evidence whatsoever that any development of 1557 hiJever been contemplated. Urge the Council to consider the impacts that 1553 in conjunction with development of the three lots at 1537. You cannot separate 1553 from these. Intensification of use at that end of Drake is enofinous. The numbers themselves tell us, obligate us, to tread extra careful here. Of the 24 propefties on Drake north of Adeline, Mr. Miller is developing four, increasing the number of residences to 26. Six bedrooms are being replaced with 19. The FAR is nearly doubling. Garage, driveway and expected vehicle use are more than tripling. The traffic, driveway and parking issues that have crystallized at 1553 are a reflection ofthis. On Sept. 13, Comm'rs Boujes and Brownrigg correctly called for additional study and analysis of driveway and parking configurations at 1553. This is especially appropriate, given that one person is orchestrating and coordinating the intensity of development in the area. Mass and bulk of the shifted design are also a concern. Shadows and other property impacts from this need to be studied - or mitigated. On Sept. 13, Comm'r Vistica - ihe most leamed and experienced of the commissioners in the area of architectural design - properly implored the commission to weigh these impacts in assessing the project. Final comments if you'll permit me. SanFran- I 69322. I 0099999-00001 I do not deny or try to abridge Mr. Miller's entitlement to buy and improve properties. In certain instances he has served this community well by replacing and improving deteriorating housing stock and making our community more livable. In those situations I applaud Mr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Miller is entitled to develop, but the issue is, at what expense? I submit, not at the cost of others being able to use their properties or to the detriment of users of existing properties. None of us have that right. Mr. Miller's rights are not unfettered. There is always a balance of rights when you live in a community, especially one as close and great as ours. And in balancing the property interests here, I hope you find that the evidence and information so far indicates that Mr. Miller's plan is detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and to the use of existing properties by their owners and visitors. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. Respectfully, Chris Keele SanFran- 1 69322. I 0099999-0000 I STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATf,LOlrsl04 7a TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BY DATE:October 18.2004 FRoM: Parks & Recreation Director (55&7307) STJBJECT: COMMT]NITY RECOGNITION POLICY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council review and approve the attached Community Recognition Policy. BACKGROUND: During the process of renaming the Burlingame Soccer Center Murray Field, the City began to formalize the Community Recognition process. The lvlayor appointed a committee of Council members Baylock and Nagel to review the draft originally recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Council Committee met with stafi'on three occasions and has revised the policy. The Policy being submitted for approval allows for recognition for either long-term service to the community or one-time donations. Recognition may come in the form of inclusion in the Walk of Fame (to be established) or the naming of facility component - such as a field, room or playground. Recommendations to the Walk of Fame will be made to the Council by representatives from each of the City's Commissions. Recommendation to name a facility component after an individual would come from the Commission with the closest sphere of influence to the facility in question. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of soliciting annual applications for the Walk of Fame will be minimal. Fund for recognitions for one-time donations and facility renamings will be considered during the approval process. BY ATTACHMENTS: Community Recognition Policy I, II CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY - October 4,2004- In order to honor those who have made significant contributions to our Community, this policy of Community Recognition is established. For the purposes of this policy, examples of a FACILITY include City buildings and parks; examples of COMPONENTS include rooms inside of buildings, playgrounds and balifields. FACILITIES shall be named after their geographical locations or historical names and shall not !:_rynamed to recognize individuals, groups or donors (hereinafter "individuals"). COMPONENTS of facilities may be named to recognize individuals, as listed below. It is the intent ofthis policy to prohibit, except under extraordinary circumstances with a 5-0 vote ofthe City Council, the following types of recognition:A. Names of streets that have existing homes or businesses using the street name in their address; B. Naming of either FACILITIES or COMPONENTS after corporate entities. Under extraordinary circumstances that would cast a negative image upon the City, any ofthecity recognitions may be revoked at the discretion ofthe city council. TYPES OF AWARDS A. COMPONENTS - Unnamed COMPONENTS may be named to honor individuals for their service to the community. An example would be: Smith Field at Bayside park. The naming of a COMPONENT for an individual will be a permanent honor. Criteria - For a city CoMPONENT to be named in honor of an individual, the individual must have demonstrated or performed the following:a. Thi.ty (30) or more years of service to the communityb. Had a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individualsc. Been considered an appropriate role modeld. Made a significant contribution to the community (examples below)(l) Created opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs (2) Made a significant impact on the continuation and,/or enhancement of established community programse. Served multiple community programs and touched many lives m. V 1 IV. 2 Nomination a. Individuals need to be nominated by at least two established community organizations. b. Nomination submissions should include a list of contributions and witten recommendations from community members. Supporting documentation, such as newspaper articles or minutes of city meetings, is encouraged.c. Nominations should be submitted to the city Manager's office, where they will be held until the Selection Committee meets. The City Manager will act as the custodian ofthe community Recognition process. Selection a. The city commission whose sphere of influence is most closely associated with the facility in question will review nominations. For example, the Parks & Recreation Commission will review nominations regarding park facilities; the Library Board will review nominations regarding library roolns, etc. Commissions will consider the criteria above, including written nominations and supporting documentation, and will conduct a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council. b. The City Council will take Commission recommendations into account and conduct a public hearing before making a final decision. At least four (4) members ofthe city council must vote affrmatively in order to approve this recognition.c. The city Manager will notify individuals who have been approved for recognition by the city council and will anange for a Recognition ceremony. If the individual is deceased, that person's family will be notified. 4. Recognition Recognition will be made either at a City Council meeting or ataspecial ceremony at the site ofthe facility to be renamed. Walk ofFame - Recognizing that few individuals, though deserving of significant recognition for their service to the community, are likely to quali$,1o have a COMPONENT named in their honor, a community Walk of Fame will be established. The Walk of Fame will be a permanent honor, consisting of a marker describing the honoree's accomplishments, placed along a selected pathway.1. Criteria - For a Walk ofFame marker to be dedicated, the individual must have demonstrated or performed the following:a Ten (10) or more years of service to the communityb. Had a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individualsc. Been considered an appropriate role modeld. Made a significant contribution to the community by(1) Creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs; and/or(2) Making a significant impact on the continuation and/or enhancement of established community programs J B 2. Nomination a. On an annual basis, nomination forms will be submiued to community organizations and placed in public facilities.b. Nominations must be endorsed and submitted by at least one (l) established community organization.c. Each community organization will be limited to one (1) nomination per year. d. Nomination submissions should include a list of contributions and written recommendations from community members. Supporting documentation, such as newspaper articles or minutes of City meetings, is encouraged.e. Nominations should be submitted to the City Manager's Office, where they will be held until the Selection Committee meets. The City Manager will act as the custodian ofthe Community Recognition Process. 3. Selection a. The Selection Committee will be formed each year, consisting oftwo (2) representatives from each City Commission. The representatives will be selected by each Commission's Chairpersonb. The Selection Committee will consider the criteria above, including written nominations and supporting documentation, and will conduct a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council.c. The City Council will take the Selection Committee's recommendations into account and will conduct a public hearing before making a final decision. Three (3) affrmative votes of the City Council are necessary for nominees to be recognized onthe Walk of Fame.d. The Selection Committee will limit the number of inductees to the Walk of Fame to no more than four (4) in any one year.e. The City Manager will noti$ individuals who have been approved for recognition by the City Council and will arrange for a Recognition Ceremony. If the individual is deceased, that person's family will be notified. Annual Timeline a. May - Applications are solicited from recognized community organizations b. August - Nomination deadlinec. September - Selection Committee makes recommendations and Council votes on themd. October - Recognition Ceremony 5 Recogrition Ceremony The city Manager's ofiice will arrange for a Recognition ceremony to honor those added to the Walk of Fame. One-Time Donations - The City of Burlingame may occasionally wish to acknowledge one-time donations of property or funds. C. 4. I Criteria a. Special consideration may be given to those who greatly assist capital projects by making a significant donation of(l) Land or a facility to be used by the City; or(2) Funds that enable the City to purchase/develop land or a facility b. Consideration may range from placing a plaque of recognition to the naming of a component of a facility. Nomination A wriuen request for recognition of a one-time contribution may be made by the donor or by the City Department Head directly in charge ofthe capital project. Requests will be forwarded directly to the City Manager's offrce. Approval a. The City Commission whose sphere of influence is most closely associated with the facility in question and the City Council must agree to accept any gift where recognition is a condition of donation. b. Public hearings need to be held by both the City Commission and the City Council prior to approval by either body. At least four (a) members of the City Council must vote affirmatively in order to approve this recognition. c. Other than the above recognition, donors will not be offered, nor will they receive any privileges or consideration by the City other than those offered to all community members. d. In determining whether to accept the contribution, the City Commission and City Council must consider any ongoing maintenance costs that may be incurred by the City. Timeline a. After a written proposal is received by the City, final approval by the City Council shall not be made for at least three (3) months. During that period the City Commission will conduct a public hearing and will make recommendations to Council. Another public hearing before the City Council will be held at the end ofthe three-month period. b. If recognition is a condition ofthe donatiorl approvals must be made prior to final acceptance ofthe donation. Recognition Recognition will be given during the dedication ceremonies of the facility or project. 2. 3 4 5 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE rolrsl04 TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE:10-13-04 FRoM: Jim Nantell BY SLIBJECT: Committee to Explore a Safeway Store Design Option RECOMMENDATION: Determine if the Council feels it would be helpful to create a committee to collaboratively develop a Safeway Store design option for submittal to the City for formal review and approval. BACKGROUND: Although both the Planning Commission and the City Council denied the approval of the proposed new Safeway Store it is our belief that both the community and Safeway would like to find an option that would allow a new store to build in the near future. The waiting period for Safeway to submit a similar project will end early next year. If Safeway is interested in returning with a proposed new store project we believe it would be beneficial for all concerned to work collaboratively to try and find an option that will be more acceptable for the company, community and the city. Mayor O'Mahony recently indicated that she was considering appointing a committee of Vice Mayor Galligan, Council Member Baylock, Planning Commissioners Osterling and Vistica, as well as a representative of Citizens for Better Burlingame and of the group of citizens that have collected signatures in support of a new Safeway Store to work with Safeway representatives to develop an acceptable development plan. At the Council Meeting of October 4s Council Member Baylock requested that the item be agendized for the Council meeting of October 18m. In undertaking the discussion of the matter it is important to remember that Safeway has not indicated their plans relative to redesign or re-submittal of plans for a new store. A decision by the Council as to how to best proceed will need to be discussed with Safeway to determine their desires. The only suggestion that staffwould provide is that if the Council was inclined to appoint a committee as described above you may want to think about two representatives from the community groups. The thought is in maybe more feasible for have two representatives of each group working to build buy for the compromises that may well be needed. 7b BY STAFF REPORT IIONORABLE MAYOR AND CruY COI]NCIL October 11.2004 AGENDA ITEM * 8A flr"; totwtol TO: BY DATE: APPROVED FRoM: Robert Bell, Human Director stBJEcr: Adoption of Resolution Fixing the Employer's Under the Public Employees' Medical and Ilospital Care Act for AFSCME Local2190 and 829, BAMM, Department Head/Unrepresented, PoHce Administrators and the IAFF BY RECOMMENDATION: Sta"ff recommends that the Council approve the attached resolution increasing the City's contribution towards medical premiums to $922.19 per month for members of the above labor groups and associations. This change will be effective January 1,2005. BACKGROT]ND: The above units met and conferred with the City regmdrng their medical plan options for 2005. The above units have agreed to the City's tiered medical plan previously approved by Council. The attached resolution fixes the maximum City contribution to$922.19. BT]DGET IMPACT: The cost of this benefit increase was included in the 2004105 budget approved by Council. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF TIIE CITY COLINCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT RESOLYED, by the City Council ofthe City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, Government Code Section 22825.6 provides that a local agency contracting under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act shall fix the amount ofthe employer's contribution at an amount not less than the amount required under Section 22825 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, is a local agency contracting under the Act for participation by members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 856 and AFSCME Local 2190, Burlingame Association of Middle Managers (BAMM), Department Head and Unrepresented Groups, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the Police Administrators therefore be it RESOLVED, that effective January 1,2005 the employer's contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his/her enrollment, including the emollment of his/her family members in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of $922.19 per month; Plus administrative fees and Contingency Reserve Fund Assessments. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regulm meeting of the City Council held on day of Octofu 2004, and was adoptedthereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COLTNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK STAFF REPORT HONORABLE MAYOR AI\ID CITY COI]NCIL October 11.2004 AGEI\tDA ITEM # MTG. DATE LOlLsl04 8b TO: BY DA.TE: APPROvED FROM:Roherf Rell- Ifrrmen Director BY srIBJEcr: Adoption of Resolution Fixing the Employer's Contribution Under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act for the Burlingame Police Officers' Association (POA) RECOMMEITDATION: Staffreconrnends that the Council approve the attached resolution increasing the City's contribution towards medical premiums to $902 per month for members of the Police Officers'Association (POA) This change will be effective January 1, 2005. BACKGROT]ND: The POA meets and confers each year on their medical contribution for the calendar year. The group ctrrantly receives $820 per month. They were given an option of receiving a lOo/o increase which would be $902 per month or participating in the City's new tiered medical plan. They elected to receive a monthly contribution of $902 per month. POA members will now have to pay out of pocket for any of the family medical plans offered by CaIPERS. BTIDGET IMPACT: The cost of this benefit increase was included in the 2004105 budget approved by Council. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COI.INCIL OF TIIE CITY OF BURLINGAME FDONG T}IE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION I.]NDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT RESOLYED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WIIREAS, Government Code Section 22825.6 provides that a local agency contracting under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act shall fix the amount of the employer's contribution at an amount not less than the amount required under Section 22825 of the Act; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, is a local agency contracting under the Act for participation by members of the Police Officers Association (POA) therefore be it RESOL\fED, that effective January 1,2005 the employer's contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his/her emollment, including the enrollment of his/her family members in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of $902 per month; Plus administrative fees and Contingency Reserve Fund Assessments. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meetrng of the City Council held on day of October 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COLTNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK STAFF REPORT IIONORABLE MAYOR AI\D CITY COTJNCIL October 11,2004 ;f**1 7-h&n*^ AGEI\IDA 8cITEM# MTG. DATE rolLsl04 TO: DATE: FRoM: Robert Bell. Human Resources Director st BJECr: Adoption of Resolution Fixing the Employer's Medical and Hospital Care Act for Fire Administrators /n'w Under the Public Employees' APPROVED BY RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Council approve the attached resolution increasing the City's contribution towards medical premiums to $1,013.90 for Fire Administrators. Fire Administrators represent the Battalion Chiefs, Division Chiefs and Fire Marshal. BACKGROUND: The above unit met and conferred with the City regarding their medical plan options during contract negotiations last year. They were granted the Blue Shield family rate for the term of their contract. The attached resolution fixes the maximum City contribution to $1,013.90 which is the 2005 Blue Shield family rate. BT]DGET IMPACT: The cost of this benefit increase was included in the 2004105 budget approved by Council. ATTACIIMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TTM CITY OF BURLINGAME FD(NG TI{E EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WIIEREAS, Government Code Section22825.6 provides that alocal agency contracting under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act shall fix the amount ofthe employer's contribution at an amount not less than the amount required under Section 22825 ofthe Act; and WHE11B4S, the City of Burlingame, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, is a local agency contracting under the Act for participation by members of the Fire Administrators therefore be it RESOLYED, that effective January 1,2A05 the employer's contribution for each employee or annuitant shall be the amount necessary to pay the full cost of his/her enrollment, including the enrollment of his/trer family members in a health benefits plan up to a maximum of $1,013.90 per month; Plus administrative fees and Contingency Reserve Fund Assessments. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, Crty Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifu that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regulm meetrng of the City Council held on _ day of October 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COI.]NCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE 8d 10t1812004 TO Honorable Mavor and SUBMITTED /'9.' BY APPROVE;DATE:October 5. BY FROM: SUBJECT: Larrv E. Anderson. Ciw tfornev ACCEPT REPORTS FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CITY OF BURLINGAME REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES DO NOT REQUIRE AMENDME!{! RECOMMENDATION: Accept Reports of Executive Officers that no amendments are needed to the conflict of interest codes of the two agencles. DISCUSSION: Government Code $ 87306.5 requires each agency to review its conflict of interest code every two years to ensure that it is current as to language and designated positions. Attached are the reports from the Redevelopment Agency and the Financing Authority, which shows that no amendments are needed at this time. Attachment Report of Executive Director of Redevelopment Agency Report of Executive Director of Financing Authority U/M Name of Agency: Mailing Address: Contact Person: Fax Number: Offlce Phone No: This agency has reviewed ats conflict of interest code and has determined that: o The code needs to be amended and the following amendments are necessary: (Check all that appv O lnclude new positions (ancluding consultants) that must be designated O Revise the titles of existing positions o Delete the titles of positions that have been abolished O Revise the titles of existing positions O Delete the titles of positions that have been abolished O Delete the positions that manage public investments O Revise disclosure categories O Other fl No amendments are necessary. The agency's code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions; the disclosure categories assigned to those positions accurately require the disclosure of all investments, business positions, interests in real property and sources of income which may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by those designated positions; and the code includes all other provisions required by Government Code Section 87302 Signaturc of Executive Director Date You must complete this report regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this report no later than October 1, 2004 to: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 2004 LocalAgency Biennial Notice REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 James Nantell, Executive Director 650 - 342-8386 650 - 558-7204 2004 LocalAgency Biennial Notice Name of Agency: BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORIry Mailing Address: 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact Person: James Nantell, Executive Director Fax Number: 650 - 342-8386 Ofiice Phone No: 650 - 554-7204 This agency has reviewed its conflict of interest code and has determined that: D The code needs to be amended and the following amendments are necessary: (Check a that apply) O lnclude new positions (including consultants) that must be designated O Revise the titles of existing positions o Delete the titles of positions that have been abolished O Revise the tltles of existing positions O Delete the titles of positions that have been abolished O Delete the positions that manage public investments O Revise disclosure categories O Other { No amendments are necessary. The agency's code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions; the disclosure categories assigned to those positions accurately require the disclosure of all investments, business positions, interests in real property and sources of income which may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by those designated posltions; and the code includes all other provisions required by Government Code Section 87302 Signature ol Executive Dircctot You must complete this report regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this report no later than October 1, 2004 to: City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burllngame, CA 94010 Date: i STAFF REPORT HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED October 12,2004 BY AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE 8e 10118t04 TO: DATE FRoM: PUBLIC WORKS suBJECr:RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ISSUE A CO RACT CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $982 ,9OO TO ADD WORK TO THE MARSTEN PUMP STATION UPGRADE AND OUTFALL PIPELINE PROJECT AND APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO MARSTEN PUMP STATION UPGRADE AND OUTFALL PIPELINE PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 80520 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve the following resolutions: ' Authorizing staffto issue a contract change orderto AndersonPacific Engineering Construction, in the amount of $982,900 to add work to the Marsten Pump Station Upgrade and Outfall Pipeline Project, which consists of installin g 420 feet of 66 inch diameter storm drain pipeline parallel with Easton Creek. ' Approving a transfer of $669,000 from various storm drain projects. BACKGROUND: In March 2001, Council awarded The Marsten Pump Station Upgrade and Outfall pipeline phase 1 contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction in the amount of $965,900. The phase I construction included installation of 412 feet of 66 inch diameter pipeline along Easton Creek and under Fwy 101 by a tunneling method. The pipeline installation has bien succerrnrUy completed on time and under budget. The Marsten Pump Station Upgrade and Outfall Pipeline project is part of the Easton Creek water shed improvements which will alleviate flooding in the areas uto"g Easton Creek, when all phases are completed. DISCUSSION: Staff has negotiated a contract change order with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction in the amount of $982,900 to extend the installation of the 66 inch diameter pip.tin" ay +ZOfeet downstreamalong Easton Creek. Staff has estimated that the City will rur. upp.oximately $2g5,000 inmobilization, construction, and bidding costs by issuing a contract change order to thecurreniproject as opposed to pursuing new bids next year. (See attachment A) This work is currently included in the 2005 - 06 storm drain CIP budget. By advancing the schedule, BY all Easton Creek watershed improvements can be completed by 2006, dependent upon available funds, thereby providing flood relief to adjacent businesses and residents one year sooner than originally planned. Remaining work includes the installation of a new pump station and outlet structure along Easton Creek. BUDGET IMPACT and TRANSFER OF FUNDS: Council has approved the Marsten Pump Station Upgrade and Pipeline Outfall Project, as part of the 2004 - 05 budget. There is funding of $444,700 available in the project. The added work will require the transfer of funds remaining from other completed storm drain projects, and one postponed storm drain project as follows (see Attachment B): Funding Transfer: o CIP 80510 Calif-Grove SD Pump Station (completed)o CIP 80590 Rollins Box Culvert Imp. (completed). CIP 79420 Safeway SD Crossing (postponed). CIP 79411 El Portal, Gilbreth Creek Lining (completed)o CIP 80110 Almer SD pipeline (completed). CIP 80880 Sanchez I LagunaArea SD (ongoing)o CIP 80900 Sanchez Box Culvert Cleaning (completed)o CIP 79410 Easton Creek Improvement (completed)o CIP 80620 Burlingame Creek Improvement(completed) Total Estimated Total Funding: o CIP 80520 Marsten Outfall Pipeline (designated for phase 2). Transfer Funding Total Expenditures o Added pipeline constructiono Engineering and geotechnical service. Constructionmanagement,inspection,staffadministration Total $ 45,000 $ 70,000 $ 154,000 $ 45,000 $ 20,000s 20,000 $ 280,000 $ 10,000 $ 29.200 $ 673,200 $ 444,700 $ 673.200 $ 1,1 17,900 $ 982,900 $ 70,000 $ 6s.000 $ 1,1 I 7,900 EXHIBITS: Resolutions, Appropriation Transfer Request, Attachments A and B c: city clerk, city Attorney, Finance Director, public works Director Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction U :\80520. stf.Phase2. Oct04Rev3.wpd RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ISSUE A CHANGE ORDER IN TT{E AMOUNT OF $982.900 TO ADD WORK TO THE MARSTEN PUMP STATION UPGRADE AND OUTFALL PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 80520 RESOLVED, by the CITY COLINCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the change order cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said change order for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I, DOzuS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifu 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: COLINCILMEMBERS: City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DATE: L0-L2-04DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEER]NG 1. REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRI PT ION SEE ATTACHED LIST DESCRIBING TO AND FROM TO: FROM: Just.ificati.on (Attach Memo if Necessary) ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE WITH COST SAVING CHANGE ORDER TO PRESENT CONTRACTOR DEPARTMENT HEAD 3. APPROVE AS REOUESTED APPROVE AS REVISED Remarks: CITY MANAGER DATE: DATE DISAPPROVE COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQUIRED Remarks FT\IA\I'E NTDF'TAD DATE:BY RESOLUTION RESOLUTTON OF THE CITY COI'NCIL OF TIIE CITY OF BURLfNGAI.{E APPROVING TRA}ISFER OF ET'NDS FOR FISCAI YEAR 2OO4l05 RESOLVED. by the City Council- of the City of Burl-ingame, that the Department herei-nabove named in the Request for Appropriation, Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request: and the Einance Director has approved said Request as to accountj-ng and available balances, and the City Manager has recomnended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: , TEEREEORE, IT rS EEREBY ORDERED AI\ID DETERMINED that the recoNnendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. MAYORI, DORIS I'IORTENSEN' City Clerk of the City of Burli-ngame, do hereby certify that the foregoingreso1utionwasintroducedataregu]-armeetingoftheCityCounciIheIdonthe-dayof-, , and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:AYES: COUNCILI,IEMBERS NOES: COUNCILUEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCITMEMBERS CITY CLERK FILE: S : \APUBLICWORKSDIR\EORI,IS\PROJECTS\TRANSREO. DOC BY: Appropriation Transfer Request Fund Dept Obiect Proiect Amount Description From To: 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 80510 80590 79400 79411 80110 80880 80900 79410 80620 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Cal Grove SD Pump Staiion Rollins BC lmprovement Safeway Box Culved El PortalCreek Lining Almer SD Pipeline lmprovement Sanchez / Laguna Area SD Sanchez BC Cleaning Easton Creek lmprovement Burlinaame Crk lmprovement 45,000 70,000 154,000 45,000 20,000 20,000 280,000 '10,000 29,200 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Project completed Project completed Proiect postponed Project completed Project completed Project completed Project completed Project compleled Proiect comoleted Total $ 673,200 320 80520 220 Marsten Outfall Pipeline $ 673,200 Extension of pipeline construction al Attachment A Cost Comparison for the Additional Marsten Outfall Pipeline Work Contract Change Order to Anderson Pacific Construction Co. vs. Open Bidding Procedure D Bell 5-Oct-04 Change Order Method $ 35,ooo $ 89,900 $ 103,000 $ 183,ooo $ 470,000 $ 77,400 $ 24,600 $- 982,900 70,000 65,000 $ 13s,ooo t 1,r 17,900 Bid Method $ 50,000 Cost Difference Bid - cco$ 15,000Mobilization Revise jacking pit Receiving pit Supply Pipe (RCP - Ameron) 420' lnstallPip€ oBM Nada Pacific) 42O' lnstall MH at jacking pit lnstall inspeclion MH at Marsten PS Construc{ newjacking pit at Hyatt Hotel Parking Lot Construction Subtotal Design & Bid Cost: Contract Book, City staff, Engr Design, CADD, Geolech CM, CE, staff, permits, envir rprt Engr., Bidding, CM, staff Subtotal Grand Total 420" 420', 103,000 183,000 470,000 77.400 24,600 250,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (89,900) $ 250,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ r,158,ooo $ 160,000 $ 8s,000 $ 245,000 $ 1,403,000 175,100 90,000 20,000 l't0,000 285,100 Notes: 1. consk cost based on Anderson Pacific letter dated Aug 23, 04 and Nada Pacific letter dated Sept 7, 2004 2. Engr clst per WK email dated Sept 15, 04 3. No contingencies listed Attachment B By: Rev: Date: D Bell 28a 7-Oct-04 PROJECTS STATUS REPORT Studies la.1 Storm Drain Utility 7851 0 Califomia / Grove SD Pump Station Rollins.N Carolan Box Culvert SD lmprove Easton Creek Levy lmprovement & b.7 Marsten PS / Outfall Pipeline 8051 0 80590 80600 80520 Capacitv lmorovements - Mills Creek lc.1 Mills Creek rehab, ECR to SF Bay lc.2 Mills Creek Box Culverts Capacitv lmprovements. Burlinqame Creek la.t Sateway - EcR / Howard crossing ld.2 72 " bypass Pipeline ECR to SF Bay Capacilv lmprovemtns. Ralston Creek le.1 60" pipe, Bellevue - Douglas connect I TBA 79420 79380 .3 El Portal, Gilbreth, Trsdle Crks lining .4c Easton Crk @ Bemal trash rack .5 Sanchez Creek BC sec{ion improvement '.8 Almer - Bellevue Storm grd waler pump line .10 Chula Vista SD lmprovement 79411 79410 TBD 80110 80570 Pipeline Replacement I g.1 Replace deteriorated conugated I and other pipelines 79390 Sanchez Creek / Laquna Arae SD lmprovemenl g.'l Sanchez Crk / Laguna Area SD 9.2 Sanchez Crk SD Box Culvert 80880 80900 SCADA lnteqration Proiect Itr.t,Z,a SCeon Design/Build lntegration I 79400 1.2 Easton Creek lmprovements 1.3 Mills Creek lmprovements 1.6 Burlingame Channel lmprovements 79410 78520 80620 Construction complete Construction complete Construction complete Marsten Outfall Pipeline - construciion ongoing Future Safeway projecl Misc SD Projects Construction complete TB Constructed No present upgrade plans at this time Construcrtion Construct Spring 05 ldentified POects: Calif Dr BC and Misc local SD improvements N. Park Apts. BC Cleaning CMC approx 80% complete 320 Fund 326 Fund 327 Fund Dredging, embankment improvemer(, partial lining Dredging, embankment improvement. Structural, capacity evaluation, inlet improvements. t%ymtrts to be 1 made to ongoing mntrac{s Budget Status 31-Aug-04 $74,275 $57,467 173,443 2,380 627,399 $ $ s $154,313 $'13,107 58,987$ $ $ $ 196,634 257,633 227,334 $ $ $ $ $ 344,452 837,500 252,542 249,OO2 394,668 $896,212 $ $ $ 69,049 53,668 45,493 $ 100,000 $ 182,697 $ 180,000 $ 896,000 $ $ 320,000 500,000 Budget money available for Marslen Outfall Proiecl o 45,000 70,000$ $ 444,7OO $ 154,000 $ $ 45,000 20,000 $ $ 20,000 280,000 $10,000 29,200$ $ 1,'r'r 7,900 'l 1 ( $3,763,812.99 Ck. No. 97501 - 98060 Excludes Library Cks. 97688 - 97730 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT PAYROLL FOR SEPTEMBER 2OO4 $2,373,308.54 Ck. No. 159844 - '1601 10 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS , PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS & ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION z> ts-E =' cLd6 0) Eg klqtlllRlSIFINEXCEL\M ISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS (( 10.08.2001 I?AHE GENERAL fUNO PAYROLL REVOLVI }IG FUND CAPI'TAL IIiIPROVEIIENTS FUND t./ATER FU}ID SEWER FUNO SOLID L/ASTE FUNO PARKI}IG ENTERPRISE FUND SELF INSURAI,ICE FUND fACIIIIIES SERVI CES FUNO EAUIPI.lEIIT SERVI CES TU}IO I II FORI,|AT I ON SERVICES FUND TIRE I'IECHANIC SERVI CES FUIIO OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONAT IOI.IS IRUST AIID AGENCY IUND U]ILITY REVOLVTNG FUND TOTAL FOR APPROVAL NONORASLE I,4AYOR AND CITY COUNCILI ( THIS IS TO II{CLUSIVE, TI{E IiIOUNT OTF I CIALS, ACCOROANCE RESPECTFUTLY SUBMITTED, C ITY OF EURLINGAMEt,/ARRANT REGISTER FUI,ID RECAP . 04.O5 FUIIO 101 130 320 326 ,27 528 530 6',I8 619 620 621 62t n0 731 896 PAGE 1O AHOUNT 85 ,345.22 9,306.65 114,167.36 301,774.78 2,r51.69 20.10 1 ,909 .26 3,825.09 1,631.15 3,1/.0.56 1 ,639.56 277.19 1,616,82 129 ,116,64 534.85 $660,993.53 CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIi4S LISTED ON PAGES NUMEEREO FROi' 1 THROUGH 10 AND/OR CLAII,4S NUI'IBERED FROI,I 97940 THROUGH 98060 INCLUSIVE,TOTALIN6 IN OF $660,993,53, HAVE BEEI.I CHECKED IN DETAIL ANO APPROVED 8Y THE PROPER AIID IN MY OPI IOII REPRESE T IAIR AI]D JUST CHARGES AGAINSI THE CITY IN !,ITH TNEIR RESPECTIVg AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON, FINAI]CE DIRECTOR APPROVEO FOR PAYI,4EIIT DATE ( COUNCI L DATE ( r NUMBER NAME 9B049 NORTH STATE ENVIRONI'{ENTAL SUPPL I ES 25045 98050 GELCO INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. ?5046 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 980r 1 I,IARTIN ROBERTSON COIITRACTUAL SERVICES 25047 98052 MELISSA MIZEL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25048 98053 DANIEL HAAS CO}ITRACTUAL SERVICES 25049 98054 DAVID CROSATTO tl I SCELLANE0US 25050 98055 JEFF CASTELLO I',II SCELLANEOUS 25051 98056 RIYAD SALMA MI SCELLANEOUS 25053 98057 API TUND FOR PAYROLL EDUCATION TRAINING EXPENSE 25054 98058 DAN VALARDI DEPOSIT REFUNDS 25055 98059 CAROL EEJIMA CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25056 98060 DE LAGE LANDEN CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25057 TOTAL CITY OF BURLINGAMElllARRANT REGISTER 10/08/04 VENDOR DETAI Lr*r Denotes Hand lJritten Checks ACCOUNT 592.00 620 15000 100.00 101 30700 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 700.00 101 68010 ?20 1781 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 1,000.00 101 2?5?5 1,000.00 101 22525 1,000.00 101 ?2525 769.00 101 64250 260 384.00 101 22520 400.00 101 68010 2e0 1781 497.97 101 65100 ?20 PAGE 9 AMOUNT 592.00 1 00. 00 700.00 700.00 700.00 1 , 000.00 1 , 000.00 1 ,000.00 769.00 384 .00 400 .00 497.97 s660,993.53 W ))) ( I,IUMBER IIA'.IE 98031 98035 98037 98042 98013 98045 98046 ( CITY OF BURLIN6AIiE!/ARRAIIT REGISIER 10/08/01 VE},JDOR DETAITr*r 0enotes Hand l,,tritten Checks 130 20022 '130 20028 AMOUNT 682.50 810.13 400.00 570.00 2 ,865 .48 5,n8.67 615.00 600.00 625.00 40.00 't ,800.00 200,00 2,065.00 AT&T L' I RE LESS COMIIUIIICATIONS 98036 AT&T I,IRELESS cs .tu[ I cAT I 0N s UTILITY EXPENSE 21693 98038 SAN IiIATEO COUNTY FOREIISIC LAB COI/IRACTUAL SERVICES 21700 ZACK LOUDON COIIIRACTUAI. SERVICES 98039 AETNA EMPLOYEE BENEFITS I.i I SCELLAIIEOUS AD CLUE PUBLICAT IONS & ADVERTISING c.t-.E.A. I,I I SCELLANEOUS TOI,4 DO}IIiELLY TRAI }II NG EXPEIISE DAVID I,JRIGI{T CONSTRUCTION r,i I scELt-A E0us KEN BOL/DEN CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 98047 ROBERI CHAPI.{AN I'II SCELLA}IE IS ACCOUNT 682.50 130 20026 55.41 101 64250 160 t0l 56100 160 896 20281 400,00 101 68010 220 1781 570.00 101 65100 220 2,621 .31 244,17 21523 21607 24640 24809 ?4830 ?4819 24999 25041 25A42 25013 21760 98040 DEITA DENTAL PLAII OT CALIFORNIA 24793 EiIPLOYEE BEIIEFTTS 98011 5 t758.67 130 20011 615.00 101 54420 150 600.00 101 65200 260 625.00 101 22516 40.00 101 68020 140 2200 1,800.00 101 22546 200.00 101 68010 220 1781 2,065,00 101 22516 T1AE OIMAttEY I.4 I SCELLANEOUS 98011 ARBORI'EAR LLC UNIFORMS AIID EOUIPTIEIIT ( 98048 IIIRELESS UORKS I SCEttANEoUS 25011 ?,260.26 101 65100 400 ?,260,?6 205 .57 631.86 PAG! 8 NUMBER NAME 98030 SEAN CUTRIGHT I.( I SCELLANEOUS 98031 CITY OF BURLINGAME tllARRANT REGISTER 10/08/04 VENDOR DETAILr*r Denotes Hand t"lritten Checks ACCOUNT ?01.?4 619 64460 210 5120 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 370.50 101 68010 220 1648 101 68010 1?0 1112 101 68010 120 1'.11',1 619 64460 220 5?40 ?13.24 101 68020 160 2200 500.00 730 69533 220 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 700.00 101 6E010 220 1781 8?4.90 101 65200 260 50.00 101 68010 2?0 1521 492.80 101 68010 220 1521 1 ,800 .00 't01 2?546 990.00 527 66520 220 2,000.00 101 22546 PAGE 7 98019 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DTSTRIBUT 23639 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 98020 CLARE EVANS CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23615 98021 JANNETTE GREER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23769 98022 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES I.t I SC. SUPPL I ES I'1I SC. SUPPL I ES CONIRACTUAL SERVICES 23941 98023 NEXTEL COI.I'4UN I CAT I ONS COI.IMUNICATIONS 23946 98024 MUSrC SYSTET.|S CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ?3956 98025 RONALO AUGUST FAATZ CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24004 98026 I'IICHELLE SALLING COIITRACTUAL SERVICES 21006 98027 CHRISTINE REED TRAINING EXPEIISE 21153 98028 FLORA ROBELET CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24167 98029 ERIC GATTIiIAN CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24169 83 ?2 78 183 433 ?78 AMOUNT ?01.?4 500.00 370 .50 895.83 213.24 500.00 700.00 700.00 50.00 192.80 1 ,800.00 990.00 2,000.00 821,90 98032 A&G SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CRAIG SUHL I.II SCELLANEOUS CORY GREENE CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ?4311 24100 ?4173 ) 98033 24t498 700.00 10't 68010 220 1781 700. 00 fl )) ( CI TY OT BURLI}IGATIE[/ARRA}IT REGISlER 10/08/01 VENDOR DETAI L '*r oenotes Hand tll.itten checks ( ACC0Ut/T 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 318.77 620 15000 371 .36 502.01 101 65100 110 530 65100 200 71 .60 55.65 '101 65200 202 101 65200 203 98006 Tol/[E f0R0 sALEs, I C. SUPPLIES 98007 98010 OFT I CE OEPOT CREOIT PLAN OTT I CE EXPEIISE EOUIPI,4EI,JT MAI NT. 98008 AUTO PRIDE CAR UASH VEIIICLE iIAINT. FIRE APPARATUS IlA I IIT. 98009 LIIICOLII EOUIPiIENT MISC. SUPPLIES I,iARK I'IEYERS CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GERALO SUI DEPOSIT RETUNDS VERIZOI] L/IRELESS cofit'ruN I cAT I 0N S I,' I LLER DEVELOPMENT I.I I SCELLANEOUS IIUI{BER TAME 98005 9801 1 98012 98013 98015 98018 22051 22116 22216 22278 2?5?9 22593 22629 22812 22855 23065 23066 23256 23306 AMOUNT 500.00 318.77 873.37 127,2' 150.60 300.00 11 ,r1 3,500.00 600.00 125.00 290.55 952,00 3'12.08 CARL DEOUAilI CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 98014 ALLIED IRON CO. Ilt SC. SUPPLIES 300.00 101 22520 11.51 '101 68010 160 110'1 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 90.88 619 64160 120 5240 425.00 101 64420 031 290.55 320 80790 2'10 952.00 101 65500 010 ROBERT BEtL I'I I SCELLANEOT',S 980',16 tlcr. LLAN EIECIRIC PROFESSIONAL & SPECIAL IZEO S 98017 OFF I CE TEAI.{ H I SCELLANEOUS OFF I CE t{AX OTFICE EXPENSE OFI ICE EXPE}ISE OFFI CE EXPENSE OFFICE EXPEIISE - 48.69 1r.82 311 .37 33.58 101 68010 101 66100 101 68010 101 65200 ( 110 110 110 110 1 10'r I ',t0'l 22r47 PAGE 6 90.88 450.60 101 68010 120 1111 3,500.00 101 22146 CI TY OF BURTI},IGAMEUARRAIII REG I STER 10/08/04 VEIIDOR DEIAITr*r oenotes HaM lrritten Checks 101 65200 400 526 69020 t 00 At,4OUNT 700.00 21 .a1 500.00 105.00 71.25 851 .82 1,271.1' 859.12 700.00 17 ,271 ,54 168.00 2,595.27 1,515.17 1 ,96a.75 NUIIBER IIAME 97989 97990 9n91 97992 97993 97991 97995 97997 CIR LORI TALO COiITRAC'UAL SERVICES LONGS DRUGS POLICE I NVES] I GAI ION EXPEIISE KAI.'AIII/ SU','MERV I L IE CONTNACTUAT SERVICES FRANKLIN OFF I CE SUPPLIES OF FI CE EXPENSE DAI]IEL TILLES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PAUL ROSS UALLACII COIITRACTUAL SERVICES SPORTS CHOICE I{ I SC. SUPPLIES 97996 OEtt I,IARKET IIIG L.P. Il ISCELLAI{EOUS M I SCELLANEOUS 20550 20153 20502 205 23 20616 20752 20845 20900 21211 21599 ' 21647 ?1769 21855 21948 ACCoU T 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 21.81 101 61100 292 500.00 101 68010 220 1781 ?66.13 101 64420 110 105.00 101 68010 220 1660 74.2' 10'1 68010 220 1660 8r1.82 rjo 69533 120 1,918.10 2,326,05 MISC. SUPPLIES 859,12 527 66520 120 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 17,?71.54 320 80370 220 168.00 101 68010 220 1615 2,595.27 320 80180 2'10 1,515.17 101 68010 120 1787 1,968.75 ',t01 68010 2?0 1781 612.78 101 66020 200 2300 97998 XAIE OEATHERAGE CON1RACTUAL SERVICES 97999 O.L. FALK CO}ISTRUCTION INC. COXTRACTUAL SERVICES 98000 98001 98002 98003 TRACY S IRI COIITRACTUAL SERVICES I.]ILBUR SI.II TII ASSOCIATES PROFESSIOI,IAL & SPEC IAL I ZED S ANDEGO, IliC. i,II SC. SUPPLIES VB GOLT LLC CONTRACTUAL SERVICES )) 98004 REED EOUIPMENT CO EOUI PMENT I.IAINT. 21980 612.78 21685 PAGE 5 ) ( CITY OF BURLINGAMEl.,ARRAIIT REG I STER 10/08t04 VENDOR DETAILr*r Denotes Hsnd t,ritteh Checks 834.30 919,49 98,0'10.00 720,07 1 ,540.18 118.40 1,185.10 106.93 941 .60 IIUI.IBER NAI,{E 97975 97976 97977 97979 9n80 97981 97981 97985 97986 97987 CINTAS CORP. #464 UNITORMS ANO EOUIPI,4ENT ITROII CITY HALL iIAINTEIIANCE JI.IB CONSTRUCT ION, INC. COI/TRACTUAt SERVICES SAN I4ATEO COUNTY TIRE SAFE iIISCELLANEOUS EXPEIISE VALLEY CREST TREE COI|IPANY MI SCELLANEOUS GARY PARTEE l.II SCELLANEOI,JS BURTOII I S FIRE APPARATUS FIRE APPARATUS }IAINT. FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. CREATIVE I}ITERCONNECT CONTRACTUAL SERVICES !/ESTERN STAR NURSERIES l,l I ScELT,A EOUS 63.89 180.11 101 65200 527 66520 140 110 1691 1 16913 17299 17495 17910 18713 18755 18990 19027 19249 19366 19768 19865 269.A0 292.60 269,80 20.10 114.50 218.60 ACC0U T 831.30 101 58020 '140 2100 919.19 621 64450 220 98,010.00 320 80900 220 7?0,07 621 64450 ',t'10 530,00 101 65200 290 1,510.18 n1 2?560 1'18.10 101 68020 140 2200 LEHI6I,I SAFETY SHOE CO UNI FORIIS AND EOUIPIlENT 97982 ACCESS UIJIFORMS & E}IBROIDERY U}I I FORI,IS AND EOUIPI4ENT UNIFORMS ANO EOUIPiIENT PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY UIII FOR}'IS AND EOUI PI.IENTul FoRr,rs AxD EoutPl,tEliT UNI FORMS A}IO EOUIPT,IEIIT UNI FORMS AI'ID EOUIP}'ENT UN I FORI,{S A}.ID EOUI PMEI.IT UNI FORI,4S ANO EOUIPiiE}JT 1,845.00 101 22516 54.56 52.37 101 65200 625 65213 203 911.60 731 22560 97988 E f REr'l co sTRuclI0[ co. I c. t,4 I SCELLANEOUS 600.00 (( 97978 STANDARD REGISTEN OFF I CE EXPENSE PAGE 4 AMOUIIT 530.00 241.33 1,845.00 228.36 97983 101 65210 140 526 69020 lao 527 66520 140 528 66600 140 619 64460 110 520 66700 110 228,36 la1 6520A 2?0 200'19 600.00 101 22516 NUMBER NAI,IE CITY OF BURLINGAMEI.'ARRANT REGISTER 10/08/04 VENDOR DETAILr*r Denotes Hand Uritten Checks ACCOUNT 2,696.51 101 35121 857 .34 1 01 661 00 2',r 0 2,700.09 618 64520 210 1,125.00 618 64520 210 PAGE 3 97961 97962 ocE PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9:7963 ABAG. LIABILITY PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 M I SCELLANEOUS 101 65500 110 101 65200 111 101 65200 120 AMOUNT 2,696.51 857.34 2,700.09 1 , 1 25.00 1,767.88 255.33 167.?6 1 , 1 50.00 35.12 3 , 1 09.86 1 , 093.99 ?5.96 61 6.00 09493 09518 97964 IDEAL RESTORATTVE DRYING, INC. PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 97965 CHIEF BILL REILLY OFTICE EXPENSE I.II SC. SUPPL I ES MISC. SUPPLIES BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. FIRE APPARATUS I',IAINT. TRAVEL & I'IEETINGS TRAINING EXPENSE 97966 UECO INDUSTRIES, INC: MISC. SUPPLIES 97967 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEI'I IiII SC. SUPPL I ES 97968 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHINES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97969 DHL EXPRESS OFFICE EXPENSE 97970 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT M I SCELLANEOUS 97971 DOUBLETREE HOTEL MISC. SUPPLIES TRAVEL & I'IEETINGS 97972 SYDNEY MALKOO SMALL TOOLS 97973 LINDA HOECK CONIRACTUAL SERVICES 97974 cuMMlNS I.,EST, INC SUPPL I ES 11352 11568 1 1640 13589 14252 1 4958 1 5595 16?47 16347 1 6390 27.06 63.23 98.17 '156.88 37.70 161.90 222.94 101 65200 190 101 65200 203 101 65200 250 101 65200 260 255.33 '27 66520 1?0 167.26 625 69582 120 1,150.00 101 68010 220 1101 35.12 101 65100 110 3,'t09.86 731 22594 101 64100 120 101 64100 250 25.96 620 66700 130 616.00 101 68010 220 1349 99 00 953 140 ) 16414 170.69 520 15000 170.69 )) CITY OF EURLINGAIIE!/ANRA T REG I STER 10/08/01. VENDOR DETAI Lr*r Denotes Hand tlritten Checks NUIISER IIA}IE 97953 SAII FRANCISCO I/ATER DEPT. !,ATER PURCHASES 97951 SNAP O TOoI-S SI.IALL TOOLS 97955 TolrARK sPoRTS, Itic, 8LDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 97956 (" ACCOUNT 298,967.94 526 69020 171 29.41 101 65200 130 763.59 101 68010 190 1787 000.00 150. 00 101 64250 114 526 69020 110 ( U S POSTAL SERVICE t.I I SCE LLA}iEOIJS OFF I CE EXPENSE L'EST CROt'P PAYI,4ENT CTR. MISC. SUPPLIES I.{UT f I E CALEREAIIi COIITRACTUAL SERVICES 36343 68010 110 1100 03353 03587 03761 03821 03910 03964 09125 25.00 1 18.95 ,1.87 49.95 372,43 41.00 699,27 81.08 117.10 376.76 6.81 202.97 3.00 180.00 280.00 369.00 230.00 55,00 503,00 60.00 53.00 90.00 120.00 315.00 68010 220 68020 68010 68020 68010 69533 PAGE 2 AIlOUNT 298,967,94 29,4',1 763.59 3,150.00 1,118.19 312.65 1 ,631 .00 3 97957 97958 97959 BURLIIIGAI{E REC. DEPT./PETTY CASII HI SCEttANEoUS OFTICE EXPEIISE I.IISC. SUPPLIES I.I I SC. SUPPLIES I'I I SC. SUPPLIES I.I I SC, SUPPLIES }IISC, SUPPLIES MISC. SUPPLIES }II SC. SUPPL IES I.II SC. SUPPLIES t'll SC. SUPPLIES UNIFOR}IS ANO EOUIPMEIIT EOUIPMENT I.IAI }IT. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES COIITRACTUAL SERVICES CO}ITRACTUAL SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CONTRACIUAL SERVICES OUES & SUESCR I PI IOI,IS DUES & SUESCRIPTIOIIS IRAVEL & I,iEETIIIGS TRAVEL & IIEETIIIGS CO}ITRACTUAL SERVICES 10'l 101 10'l 10'l 10'l 101 101 101 101 101 101 10'l 't01 10'l 101 68010 1 68010 1 68010 1 68010 1 68010 1 58010 1 58010 I 68010 1 68020 1 68020 1 68020 2 68010 2 68010 2 101 68010 220 101 68010 220 '101 580'10 220 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 00 20 20 15?0 '1891 1330 1661 1521 1111 1370 1781 2200 2200 2300 1349 '1331 1r21 1648 1611101 101 101 101 101 730 210 2200 240 1100 250 2100 2t0 1100 220 312,65 101 64350 120 1,631.00 101 68010 220 1891 ( 97960 POM INC. IlISCELLANEOIJS 09248 1 ,t 07.25 530 6t100 400 1 ,407 .25 CITY OF BURLINGAI'iEI.IARRANT REGIST€R 10/08t04 PAGE 1 Al,louNT 123 ,525 .00 55.65 599.83 2,011,49 578.00 ?9 .5' 180. 16 457 .82 408.05 262,20 17,0t 7,98 1,800.00 97940 * DOI'NTOI,II| BURLINGAIIE IMPROVEI.IENT 25058 III SCELLA}.IEOUS UI'IBER }IAME 97941 GRAY 'S PAINT, SURLINGAME I,II SC. SUPPTIES MISC. SUPPTIES 97912 VENDOR , DETAI Lr*. oenotes tland l,Jritten checks ACCOUNT 123,525.00 731 22556 35.11 20,51 619 61160 124 5210 619 61160 1?0 5180 699,83 101 65200 203 12.06 101 101 620 620 625 578.00 101 10700 29.55 619 54160 120 5110 97943 97915 97946 979t 8 97919 97950 97951 BAUER COMPRESSORS FIRE APPARATUS IIIAINT. CORPORATE ENVI RONI'IENTS, INC., Mlsc. suPpLlEs K & I.I DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP I.II SC. SUPPLIES MOTOROLA I }IC. SUPPL IES P. G. & E. GAS & ELECTRIC SANDRA POBE COITTRACTUAL SERVICES BURIINGAiIE AUTO SUPPLY GAS, OIL & GREASE FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. SUPPL IES MISC. SUPPLIES FIRE APPARATUS iIAITIT. 23 10 z1 86 01025 01309 0199? 02160 02218 02615 02914 03054 03175 362 549 57 81.64 60.33 38.19 55200 55200 15000 66700 65213 201 203 120 203 97944 BURLINCAI.IE RECREATIO}I OEPT. RECREAT ION EXPENSES IEOEX OFFICE EXPEIISE OTFICE EXPE}ISE OFFICE EXPE}ISE 9n47 !',1.1. GRA!NGER, INC. FIRE APPARATUS I.IAINT. PUI.IP EOUIPMENT REPAIR 101 64420 110 10't 64350 110 526 69020 1',10 23,67 431.15 101 65200 203 519 6t 150 230 5120 408.05 619 64160 120 262,20 620',15000 17,017.98 101 66100 170 1,800.00 ',t01 68010 220 1644 21,63 619 64460 120 5130 )) 97?52 R&SERECTIONOF I,i I SC. SUPPLIES 03234 21.6' 01507 01663 ) ( 09.30-2001 tiAt{E THIS IS TO INCLUSIVE, TNE AMOJNT OFF ICIALS, ACCORDAIICE RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEO, TOTAL FOR APPROVAL HoNoRABLE MAYoR AND CITY CqJNCILI CITY OF BURLINCAI4ETANRAflT REGISTER FUID RECAP - 0/..05 DATE ( FUNO PAGE 9 AHOUI.IT 61,418.06 10,507.23 51,194,368.81 GENERAL FUND PAYROLL REVOLVING IUND CAPI TAL II'{PROVEI.IENTS FUND I,'ATER CAPIIAL PROJECT FUIID SE}'ER CAP ITAL PROJECT FUIIO I'ATER FUND SEI.IER FUND SOLID I'ASTE FUND PARKIIIC EIITERPRI SE FUND TACILITIES SERVICES FU}ID EAUIPI4ENT SERVICES TUND INFORIIATION SERVICES FUNO FIRE I{ECIiANIC SERVICES TUNO TRUSI A}ID AGE}ICY TUND UTILITY REVOLVIIIG TUND 101 130 320 326 327 526 5?7 528 530 619 620 621 625 731 896 79,656.13 ?97,901.39 43E, 102.38 1 't ,830.35 217,930.19 2,509 .72 198.14 4,162.80 4,161 .65 1 ,485 .07 2,015,21 400.00 61 ,387 ,19 CERTIFY THAT TIIE CLAII'IS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM l THROUGH 9 aND/OR CLAI|TS NUT,IBERED FROr.t 97835 THROUGfi 97939 INCLUSM,TOTALING IN oF $1,194,368.81, liAvE EEEN CHECKED t DETAI! A',lO APPROVED 8y TlrE pROpER AIID IN ''IY OPIIIION REPNESENT FAIR AND JUST CIIARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN 9ITH THEIR RESPECIIVE AMOU}IIS AS INOICATED TNEREON. FINA}ICE DIRECTOR APPROVED FOR PAYi,4ENT couNctL DATE ( NUIIBER NAME 9n37 Tflot4AS FLEISCHLT I,4ISCELLAIIEOUS CITY OF BURTIIiCAMEI,JARRANT REGI STER 09/30/ol VENDOR OETAILrrr Denotes HaM l.lritten Checks 25037 ACCOUNT 1,000.00 101 22525 325.00 101 37010 1,225.00 101 22516 97936 OAVID CAUCHI I.{ I SCELLANEOUS 527 23611 527 665?0 120 PAGE 8 AHOUNT 1,000.00 325.00 1,225.00 313.16 $1 , 191,368.81 97938 JACX ]SAI TII SCELLANEOI',S 25058 25039 ?501097939 FORESTRY SUPPLIERS IIIC. I,I I SCELLANEOUS I.i I SC. SUPPLIES TOTAI - 23.31 ))) ( 97921 BURLINGAI{E FIREFIGIITERS FUND 245'19 UNION DUES 97922 BURLINGAI.IE POLICE ADMINISTRATION ?4520 M I SCELLAi,IEOUS 979?3 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 I.,II SCE LLANEOUS NUIIBER NAI,IE 97924 TEAilSTERS #856 UNION DUES 979?5 IEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 EI,IPL0YEE EENEFITS MI SCELLANEOUS 97926 AT&T IdIRELESS cor{l.tuN I cAI IoNS co,rMUNICATtoi,ls UTILITY EXPENSE 97927 BANK OF hIALNUI CREEK CONTRACIUAL SERVICES 97928 O'NEIL PRODUCT DEVELOPI{ENT INC EOUIPI.IENT MAINT. 97929 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS }II SCELLANEOUS EI.IPLOYEE BENEFITS 97930 THE LIGHTHOUSE FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 97931 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS MISC. SUPPLIES 97932 PENINSULA TEIIIPLE SHALOT'| OEPOSIT REFUNDS 97933 KEVIN GRIFFIN DEPOSIT REFUNDS 97931 ASHDO!,JN DOIJNEY LLP M I SCELLANEOUS 97935 TURNER CONSTRUCTION I.I I SCEL LAIIEOUS CITY OF EURLINGAMEI.JARRANT REGISTER 09/30/04 VENDOR DETAILr*r Denotes Hand tlritten Checks ACCOUNT 64.00 130 21080 160.00 130 ?0024 580.00 130 ?0024 455.00 130 21091 130 21015 130 21092 101 65100 160 101 65200 150 896 20281 PAGE 7 AMOUNT 64. 00 1 60 .00 580.00 455 .00 320.60 1,013.84 37,552.32 498,44 , ,127.63 95.70 157.32 1 , 1 00.00 300.00 1 , 000 .00 24526 24528 24607 24613 24675 ?1796 ?4810 24963 24996 ?5034 25035 6.96 313.64 495.54 214.96 303.34 80 83 990 1364 37,552.32 327 79480 220 498.44 530 65400 200 130 20025 130 20021 95.70 625 65?13 ?03 157.32 527 66520 120 1,100.00 101 22520 300.00 101 22520 1,000.00 101 22525 21036 1 ,1?5.00 101 ?2546 1 ,125 .00 (( CITY OF BURLINGAI.IE[/ARRANT REGISTER 09 /30/04 VENDOR DETAIL '*r Denotes Hand L/.itten Checks PAGE 6 AMOUNT 7,361.00 2 ,609 .7? 7,762.19 100.00 2,840.00 1,082.62 1,000.00 2,290.00 2,308.10 536,17 337 ,970.88 1,000.00 NUI.IBER NAI.IE 97907 97908 97909 97910 97912 9n13 97915 97916 97917 97918 9n19 sBc,/ilcl cofiHu[ ICAT I0NS cofit'luil I cAT I ol,t s co, {uli I cAT I oN s UTILITY EXPENSE 101 65300 101 61100 101 65200 896 20281 GBA I,{ASTER SERIES I I'IC. MISCELLAIIEOUS EXPEIISE SCS FIELO SERVICES PROFESSIO}IAL & SPEC IAL I ZEO S JAIIIIETTE GREER TRAINI NG EXPENSE I NOUSTRIAL PLUI'iBI N6 SUPPLY PROFESSIOIIAL & SPECIAL I ZEO S SRIAII ROCHE I'I I SCELLANEOUS SPANGLE ASSOCIATES DEPOSIT RETUXD 8R IA[ I.IACNflORST I.I I SCETLANEOUS c.9. ROEN C0. COIITRACTUAL SERVICES NANCY SCIUTTO MI SCELLANEOUS ACCOUNT 7,361.00 526 69020 290 2,609.72 528 66600 210 160 160 160 23693 23727 237?8 23769 238t 6 23857 23865 n9a5 24113 21466 21171 24175 259 69 3787 71 75 79 94 }IOI4E DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES SIDEIIALK REPAIR EXPENSE I,IISC. SUPPLIES S}'IALL TOOLS 86.3t 308.89 141 ,23 101 662',t0 219 519 5t 460 120 619 64450 130 100.00 101 68010 260 1101 2,840.00 526 59020 233 1,082.62 619 61160 210 1,000.00 101 2?525 2,290.00 141 23620 2,308.40 101 22590 300.00 101 22525 337,970.88 327 79180 220 1,000.00 '101 22525 ) 9n20 BURL INGAI'IE FI REF IGHTERS TUND ilISCELLAilEoUS 24518 3,800.00 130 200'16 3,800,00 21372 300.00 97911 SFPUC UATER OUATITY BUREAU IIISCELLAIIEOJS 97914 DEPARTI'IENI OT JUSIICE l{ I scE L LAr,l E0r,,s )) (( NUMBER NAI.4E 97894 97903 97905 ToI/NE toRo SALES, I itc, SUPPI IES OFFI CE TEAI.I t.I I SCELTANEOUS 320 79400 210 3?6 79400 210 327 79100 210 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 21 .07 175 .99 4,2?8.00 300.00 638.05 108.14 676.00 273.00 12,593.75 1 ,713,50 312.?5 CITY OF BURLINGAME!,ANRANT RECISTER 09 t30/04 VENOOR D€TAI LrrrDenotes H6nd L/ritten Checks 97896 HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES PROFESSIOI.IAL & SPEC IAL I ZEO S 22235 97897 [EL] G COISTRUCTION DEPOSIT REFU}IDS ACCOUNT 21.07 620 '15000 175.99 5?6 69020 120 1,228.00 3?0 81160 210 300.00 101 22520 63E.05 101 65200 260 108.14 101 65200 203 676.00 621 64450 200 2B-0a 1u 651A0 220 548.00 621 64450 200 97900 PITIIEY BOL/ES INC CITY HALL I.IAI}ITENANCE 97901 97899 ALLTED IRO CO, FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. II,IAGI ST ICS INTERNATIO}IAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9NO2 PITNEY 8OI./ES CITY I,IALL I.IAIIITENANCE 97898 HOLDEN DANIELS IRAINING EXPEI,ISE CYBERNET CONSULT I NC, INC. PROFESSIONAL & SPECIAL IZED S PROFESSIO}IAL & SPECIALIzEO S PROFESSIONAL & SPECI AL I ZEO S 97901 ?2501 22687 22921 23128 23231 23256 23306 3 ,5?6,25 4,911.56 1,1s5.94 146.56 82.26 2,31 21 .82 89.30 1,713.50 101 6t300 010 offrcE HAx OFFICE EXPENSE OFFI CE EXPEXSE OFIICE EXPEXSE OTTICE EXPEIISE OFF I CE EXPEIISE 101 64250't10 101 65200 110 101 642t0 110 101 64400 110 621 61450 110 9. 10 37.30 144.30 97906 DATASAFE OTFICE EXPENSE OFT I CE EXPENSE OTF I CE EXPENSE 23110 10't 6/.200 110 101 6/.420 110 l0l 66100 110 190.70 ( 97895 ROBERTS AND BRUNE t{Isc. suPPt- tEs 22178 518.00 22878 fl NUMBER NAME 97889 CDll GoVERNI|ENT, INC. OFFICE EXPENSE 97890 LYNN CURRIE I,I I SCELLANEOIJS 97891 SAVIN CORPORATION OFFICE EXPENSE 97892 MISSION VALLEY FORD SUPPL I ES 97893 CINGULAR l',lRELESS COfiMUNICATIONS CITY OF BURLINGAME I.,IARRANI REGISTER 09/30/04 VENDOR DETAILr*t Denotes Hand Llritten Checks ACCOUNT 171.77 621 64450 160 641.90 101 66210 180 596.93 620 15000 19,235.67 101 22590 199.71 101 66210 219 97878 AFFINITEL COMMUNICAIIONS COMMUNICATIONS 20216 97879 HERTZ EOUIPMENT RENTAL CORP. RENTS & LEASES 20284 97880 DAPPER TIRE C0., INC. SUPPL I ES 20461 97881 EIP ASSOCIATES DEPOSIT REFUND ?05?6 9788? SASE Co}rPANY, INC. SIDEI,'ALK REPAIR EXPENSE 20639 97883 SPRINT PCS COM].|UN I CAT I0NS COI.IMUNICATIONS 20721 97884 FRANCoTYP-PoSTALIA, INC. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20967 97885 JAt.IES HOI./ER DEPOSIT REFUNOS 21 001 97886 NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, IN 21107 TRAVEL & I.IEETINGS 97887 RENEE RA},ISEY CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ?1136 97888 outcK r'ilx CoNCRETE I.IISC. SUPPLIES 21140 103.92 10"t 65100 220 512.00 101 22520 1,039.96 619 64460 250 1,008.00 101 58010 220 1331 526.25 526 69020 120 74.57 101 64250 110 325.00 101 370't0 231.09 101 68010 110 1101 56.50 620 15000 33.80 68,9? 101 644?0 160 101 64',t50 160 PAGE 4 AMOUNT 171.77 641.90 596.93 19,235.67 199.71 102.72 103.92 512 . 00 1,039.96 1 , 008. 00 5?6,25 74.57 325 .00 234.09 66.50 21482 ?1537 21530 21675 21717 49.59 101 66100 160 49.59 ))) ((( CITY OF SURLINGAI'IEI,JARRAIIT REGISTER 09/30/04 VENDOR OETAIL '*. oenotes liand !/ritten Checks 97863 H I.TECH EI'IERGENCY VEHICLE FIRE APPARATUS I.IAINT. 97861 SIIAII P IPEL I NE It{C COIITRACTUAL SERVICES 97865 SI ERRA I.iOREIIO I'{ERCA}ITILE CO. st4Atl r00rs 97866 COUNTY OT SAN I.IATEO cot1l.{uN I cAT I 0N s ACCOUNT 112.02 625 61213 203 751.88 326 80770 220 135,04 101 68020 130 2300 75.00 101 66100 160 17546 17959 18357 18565 1 875 5 18E54 19025 '19083 19366 19397 19471 19576 11 ,696.55 320 80880 210 320 80900 210 PAGE 3 AMOUNT 142.A2 751 .88 135.01 75.00 165,21 198.00 132.60 518.93 28.39 16.64 69,011.08 100.00 I ,697.00 368,50 96.61 101 66210 260 526 69020 260 97868 BAY ALARI{ COIITRACTUAL SERVICES 1913',1 97872 ARROJIIEAD IIOUNTAIN SPRINC I.IATER ,.II SC. SUPPLIES 19330 97873 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEI4S EOUI PI4ENT I'IA I NT. BURTO}I I S IIRE APPARATUS FIRE APPARATUS IIAINT. 97871 !,t LSEY & r{aM PROTESSIONAL & SPECIAL IzEO S PROTESSIOIIAL & SPECIAT I ZEO S 97869 PREIERRED ALLIANCE PERSON}IEL EXAI.II NAT IOIIS 97870 ANG NEI,ISPAPERS l,! I sc. supPuEs 97871 97875 !]IIIGES ARCHITECTURE & PTANNING I.I I SCELLANEOUS 97876 TIS}IER DEVELOPMENT INC. t' ScELLAIE0US 19&00 619 61460 220 5180 132.60 101 64420 121 98.39 101 64400 120 5'18.93 101 65200 200 28.39 520 66700 120 46.64 101 65200 203 400.00 731 22525 1,697.00 101 22516 97877 CII I HUA NU}IG }iI SCELLANEOUS 19912 2,250.00 101 22546 2,250.00 98.39 [uxgER AI|E 97867 LEI'IIGH SAFETY SIIOE CO TRAIIIIiIG EXPE}ISE TRAINI NG EXPE}ISE NIJI.IBER NAME 97849 97850 97851 97852 IJECo l|,IDUSTRI ES, INC. I'I I SC. SUPPL I ES 97853 CI TY OT BURLINGAME},ARRANT REG I STER 09/30/01 VENDOR DETAI t '*r oenotes Hand l,ttitten Checks ACCOTJT.TT 2,857.80 320 80480 400 3,636.00 101 65100 291 1,m.$ 623 65213 203 555.63 5?? 66520 120 1,617.00 527 66520 218 111.17 619 61160 120 1,9A3,7' 101 68010 ?20 1787 POM INC. I.' I SCELLAIIEOUS SAN T'IATEO COUNTY SHERIFFIS OFC. PRISO}IER EXPENSE 09248 09433 11610 13815 14338 14855 15711 15764 16225 16411 17299 17495 101 66210 200 526 69020 200 527 66520 200 620 '15000 PAGE 2 AI4OUNT 2,857 .8A 3,636.00 1 ,777,19 92.00 1t617 .00 1 ,903,75 4,162,26 '131 .69 733.01 291 ,942.00 1,401 .83 I,JINGFOOT CO}I}IERCIAL TIRE SYSTEI'IS 11316 FIRE APPARATUS MAI}IT. 97851 97855 97856 97857 978t8 I.IORTIi VALLEY OIL I.i I SC. SUPPLIES OEIJEY PEST CONTROL RAT COIITROI PROGRAM ROYAL I.IHOLESALE ELEC'RIC MISC. SUPPLIES PENII.ISUI,A SPORTS OTFICIALS COIITRACTUAL SERVICES I'IOSS RUEBER t EOUIPI'IENT CORP. t'! I sc. SUPPLIES 97A59 CUiti NS |EST, tNC. SUPPL IES 97860 Jr,iB coNSTRUCTI0N, INC. COI/TRACTUAL SERVICES 97861 STA},IDARD REGISTER OFFICE EXPENSE VALTEY OIL CO. EOUIPI,IENT I'IA I NT. EOUI PI.IENT ',IAI }.IT. EOUIPMEIIT MAINT. SUPPLIES 131.69 5?6 69020 120 73 3.01 520 15000 291,942,OO 326 80770 220 1,401.83 101 64250 110 910 399 706 515z 61 86 34 61 9' 95 9' 115 298 ?98 298 ) 97862 COLORPRIIIT OFF I CE EXPENSE }.I I SC. SUPPLIES I.II SC. SUPPLIES TRAI N ING EXPEIISE 17497 101 61250 1't0 326 807t0 120 327 81010 120 526 69020 260 1,012.46 92.00 620 66700 120 555.63 )) ((( CITY OF EURLINGAI.IEIJARRAIiT REGISIEN 09/30/04 " VENDOR DETAI Lr*r Denotes lland iJ.itten Checks ffiaiot NUIIBER NAI,4E 58,124.29 11 ,795,43 281.93 199,173.00 37 ,10 365 ,22 '153.06 8.6',l PAGE 1 AI,IOUNT 1,054.50 973.31 269,671.65 37.09 ?,440.26 361 .11 655.10 108.41 51,301.65 152.72 1 ,963.83 330.00 97835 AtPtr,/E A!/ARDS, INC. I.i I SC. SUPPLIES 0'105 2 97836 BURLINGAI4E RECREATION DEPT. RECREATION EXPENSES 01663 97837 cotpoRATE EilVI ROIiIENTS, INC., PROFESSIOIIAL & SPECIAI.IZEO S 01992 97838 021 10 97439 EI'ING IRRIGATIOII PRODUCTS I'i I SCE L LAN EOI,IS 0?157 97810 ACCOUUT 23.27 101 662',10 120 '1,05(.50 101 10700 973.34 519 64460 210 5180 VEOLIA I.]ATER PROFESSIONAL & SPECIAL IZED S BLO6. & GROUNDS MAINT. PROFESSIOTIAL & SPECIAL I ZED S CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 327 79480 210 527 66530 190 527 66530 210 527 66530 220 02181 97841 l,t. !/. GRAI NGER, INC. I,I I SC. SUPPLIES 0224A 97812 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY STREET RESURTACING EXPENSE 02261 97843 LAI./SON PROOUCTS, INC. SUPPLIES 02755 97814 P. c. & E. UIILITY EXPEIISE 03054 97a15 sBc 03080 coltt'tuN I cAT r oN s 97846 IIATER/F I NAIICE PETTY CASI{ MI SCELLAIIEOUS IIIfORTIAT IOII SERVI CES DEPT. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 37,09 101 68020 192 2200 2,100.26 896 20282 36/..11 101 68020 120 2200 108.1't 620 15000 51,301.,65 896 20280 152,72 101 65100 160 1,963.83 10'1 65150 220 330.00 101 61350 210 03378 97847 I,JEST GROI,P PAYHENT CIR. PROFESS IONAT & SPECIALIZED S 03964 120 5130 120 120 5110 120 5180 97848 B. E.I. ELECTR I CAL SUPPLIES I,I I SC. SUPPLIES HISC. SUPPUES I{ I SC. SUPPLIES I.I I SC. SUPPLIES 09072 619 64460 619 61460 619 64460 619 61460 571.?9 23,27 655.40 101 66210 226 ,n 09-24-2004 TIltS lS T0 tNcLus tvE, THE AIqJNT OFFI CIALS, ACCORDANCE CITY OT BURLIIIGAI.IEUARRANT REGI STER FUND RECAP . 04.05 PAGE 9 AI.IOUNTNAIlETUND 101 130 120 326 327 526 527 528 530 618 619 620 621 z3O 731 736 738 896 GENERAL FUND PAYROLL REVOLVIIIG FUNO CAPI TAL I}.IPIOVEI.IE}ITS FUND 9ATER CAPITAL PROJECI FUIID SEL/ER CAPITAL PROJECT TUND I,JATER TUND SEI'ER FUIID SOL ID L]ASTE FUI]D PARKIIIG ENTERPRI SE FUI,ID SELT I }ISURAIICE FUNO FACILITIES SERVICES FUIID EOUIPI.iE}IT SERVICES FUIID I II FORI,IAT I OII SERVTCES FUI,ID OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DO}IAT IONS TRUST AND A6ENCY TUND BURL I I,I6AI.IE TRAIII SI{UTTLE PROGRAM PUBLIC IV ACCESS FUND UTILITY REVOLVIIIG FUNO 93,588,80 425.00 68,040.00 2,520.00 765.00 12,58/.65 18,979.66 1,444.15 3,554.02 29,676.331,lfi.n 4,106.72 25,408.00 I19.08 93 ,551 ,37 21,185.12 15/..55 u4,40 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $381,091 .52 HoNoRABIE tlAYoR AND CITY CoUICILI CERTIFY THAT THE CLAI}IS LISTED OII PAGES NUT,IBEREO FROM'I TIIROUGN 9 AND/oR CLAI S IUXBERED tRoI 9m1 rfiRoUGH 97831 INCLUSM,ToTALI]tc IN OT $381,091.62, HAVE EEEII CHECKED IN DETAIL ANO APPROVED BY ]IiE PROPER AND IN iIY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARoES AGAINSI TIIE CITY IN L'ITH TIIEIR RESPECTIVE AI'IOUI,ITS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUEIIITTEO, FI IIANCE D I RECTOR OATE APPROVED FOR PAYI.IEIIT COUNCI L )) DATE ) 21400 97823 FEDERAL SIG}IAL EI4ERGENCY PRODUCT 24406 SUPPL IES 97824 NELSOII NUGENT TRAVEL & iIEETI}IGS 97E22 A&c sEivtcEs CONIRACTUAL SERVICES CENTER HARO!'ARE MISC. SUPPLIES 9782' RU'AII & TUCKER LLP PROTESSIOIIAL & SPECIAI.IZED S ( ACCoUIT 350.76 527 66520 250 13,551.39 527 66520 220 105.32 520't5000 115,65 619 64460 120 5130 5,218.25 618 64520 210 237.61 527 66520 260 4,200.00 101 22516 262.01 '27 66120 250 7,125.00 101 2?546 300.00 101 ?2520 300.00 101 22520 150.00 130 20015 ( CITY OF BURLINGAI,IEIJARRA}iT REGISTER 09/24/ 04 VEIIDOR DETAILr*r Denotes fiand trritten Checks PAGE 8 AMOUNT 350.76 13,554.39 105.32 115 ,65 5,218.25 237,61 1,200.00 1,166.12 262.O1 7,1?5.00 300.00 300.00 150.00 30.17 .\t{ A\I, EiIEDCO TRAIIIIIIG EXPENSE 97827 MARK BURA}I I.I I SCELLAIIEOUS NUI,IBER NAI'IE 97821 97826 978?8 97829 97830 97832 97834 JAI.IES DAVINO TRAVEL & I,lEETI}IGS R. C. BENSON & SONS MI SCELLANEOUS S8C LONG DISTANCE UTILIIY EXPENSE 24295 21656 ?4678 24891 21904 24963 25028 25029 25030 25031 25032 25033 S A}ID S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS I.i I SC. SUPPLIES I,I I SC. SUPPLIES TRAI IIING EXPEI/SE 7t46,21 310.06 1 10, 12 101 66210 120 527 66520 120 327 66520 260 FA}IG I,'ANC DEPOSIT REFUNDS 97833 JOH[/ CHILCOTT EI.IPLOYEE BENEFITS TOTAL 30.17 896 20281 $381 ,091.62 .tN" ( 97831 stoPE Ft LL.roEllLA DEPOSI T REFUIIOS 97808 CRESCO EOUIPI'IENT RENTALS ?3470 MISC. SUPPLIES STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE I'IISC. SUPPLIES NUI.IBER TIA},'E 97809 ERTER AND KALINOI.,ISKI,INC. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97810 G!'ENDOLYN BOGER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97811 CAVALLINI CONSTRUCTION ,.II SCELLANECIJS 97812 sBc/Mcr COI'{MUNICATIONS COI,Ii.IUNICATIONS 97813 KE I TH I.IART I N DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS OFFICE EXPENSE PUI.IP EOUIPI.IENT REPAIR IRAVEL & MEETINGS SUPPL I ES TRAINING EXPENSE 97811 DEr.lEY SERVICES, tNC. RAT CONTROL PROGRAM CITY OF BURLINGAI'IELIARRANT REGISTER 09/?4/04 VEilDOR DETAI Lr*r Denotes Hand L,ritten Checks 23531 ACCOUNT 101 66210 120 101 66210 226 526 69020 120 774.84 526 69020 220 3,710.00 101 68010 220 1331 1 , 500. 00 101 22546 40.59 63.87 432,42 101 67500 160 101 64250 160 PAGE 7 AI'4OUNT 536.88 774.84 5,710.00 1 , 500.00 1 93.00 90.37 1 00.00 32. 00 1 ,661.64 250.00 161.56 672.00 ?3703 23723 23728 23788 23902 101 66210 526 69020 527 66520 5?7 665?0 620 15000 620 66700 1 28.09 64.91 13.00 15 -64 19.56 34.00 5.17 3 .00 ?40 110 230 250 250 97815 DEPARTIIIENT OF JUSTICE PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 23905 97816 DUNBAR ARTIORED EANKING SERVICE FEES lillSC. SUPPLIES 239?5 97817 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN ?3935 POLICE INVESTIGAIION EXPENSE 97818 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES It{ I SC. SUPPL I ES 23941 97819 CLIS UTILITY SERVICES I'I I SCELLANECl{.JS 24249 97820 AI.IERICAN STONE MISC. SUPPLIES 100.00 101 66210 218 32.00 101 64420 ?10 101 64250 120 530 65400 120 250.00 101 55100 292 161.56 101 68010 120 1114 672.00 5?6 69020 233 508.n 't52.87 ) 24271 454.48 101 66210 120 454.18 )) ((( CITY OF BURLI}IGAI.IEIJARRAIIT REGISTER 09 t24/04 VEiIDORr*t Denotes liand l.tritten Checks DETAI L ACCOUIIT PAGE 6 AHOUNT 6d9.89 ?2,382.50 85.00 172,91 303.62 340.00 19,521.99 1 ,275,00 520.00 9,184.00 1 ,051 ,16 116.76 NUII1BER NAME 97n5 97801 21893VI NCENT FALZON iII SCELLAIIEOUS TRA INI H6 EXPENSE 9M7 AIL PETROLEUI.I RECOVERY SERVICE, GAS, OIL & GREASE 9n98 Tofll,tE toRD sAt-ES, tNC. SUPPL IES csc co suLTAr,rls I.,ITSCELLANEOUS -19 699 50 39 101 2361'1 101 56210 260 9779 TECHNoLoGY,EIIGIIEERI[G & CONSTRU 22435. iIISC. SUPPLIES 97800 22,382.50 101 37010 85.00 101 65200 201 172.91 620 15000 303.52 620 65700 120 340,00 101 35220 19,521.99 736 64571 2?0 1 ,275.00 101 22546 520,00 896 20281 9,184.00 618 64520 22' 22008 22116 22465 22500PARKING COiIPANY OF AI4ERICA CONTRAC1UAL SERVICES 97802 HELIITI G COIISTRUCTIOI,I iII SCETLAIIEOUS SIERRA OFf I CE SUPP!IES OFFICE EXPEI,ISE OTFICE EXPE}ISE OFF ICE EXPENSE OFFI CE EXPENSE TRAVEL & I,IEETINGS OTTICE EXPENSE OFF ICE EXPEIISE OFF ICE EXPEIISE otFIcE r.,tAX OfT I CE EXPEIISE OFFICE EXPEI,ISE 22r01 97803 sAx |'{ATEo REGIO}IAL NETr.]oRK, rNC. 22759 UTT!ITY EXPENSE 97804 JE|TKINS/ATHENS IfiS CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 22851 97805 23301 97806 71.84 36.48 59. 13 98. 11 287.80 287.00 69,27 101 101 101 101 101 526 619 620 65100 64t50 64150 65300 66?10 69020 61460 66700 1r0 110 110 110 250 110 110 110 23306 177 ,07 269.69 101 61250 110 101 68010 110 1101 97807 RECALL. TOTAL I I{ FOR'4AT I OII iIGI,IT I.IISCELLANEOUS 23111 101,00 101 22518 101.00 9N96 SAN ITIATEO COUNTY CONTROLLERS OIT ?1897 IlI SCELTANEOUS n CITY OF BURLINGAI,IEt.,,ARRANT REGISTER 09/?4/04 VENDOR DETAI Lr*r oenotes Hand t,,ritten Checks NUIIBER NAME 97790 CDI.' GOVERNIIIENT, INC. MI SCELLANEOT,S 97791 STAR COFFEE I}IC. BLDG. & GROUNOS MAINT. 97792 HILLYARD t4ISC, SUPPLIES 9N% POSITIVE PROMOTIONS r't I scELLANECtr,,lS MISCELLANEOT,S EXPENSE 97794 ELLISON EDUCATIONAL EOUIPMENT MISC. SUPPLIES ACCOUNT 261.72 101 66?10 226 1,111.28 528 56500 210 675.00 101 68010 120 1521 18.78 101 68020 200 2200 1,663.13 736 64570 220 ?,5?0.00 3?6 75170 210 493.48 527 66520 250 765.00 101 68010 220 1331 519 64460 220 5130 619 64460 220 5110 619 64460 220 5120 154.55 258 64580 400 18.50 621 64450 190 115.0e 101 68020 120 2200 526 23611 526 69020 290 PAGE 5 97781 CALIFoRNIA ROCK & ASPHALT, INC. 19507 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 97782 POI.'ER I.'ASHING SERVICE PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 19564 97783 STEVE SILVER PRODUCTIONS INC MISC. SUPPLIES 19675 97784 CAL.LINE EOUIPMENT INC EOU I PIi,iENT l.IAI }IT. 19697 97785 PENINSULA CORRTDOR JOINT CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20060 9n86 LYNX IECHNOLOGIES PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 20501 97787 PHIL SCOTT TRAVEL & MEETINGS 20550 9N88 RENEE RAI.ISEY CO}ITRACTUAL SERVICES 21 136 97789 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR. 042 COIITRACTUAL SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21240 210.82 635.34 261.67 AMOUNT 264.7? 1,111.28 675 .00 48.78 1 ,663.13 493.48 765 .00 2 , 1 07.83 151.55 18.50 115.02 139.71 21482 21623 21658 21765 78 49 -9 149 ) 21818 't19.08 730 69583 120 1 19. 08 2, 520 . 00 )) (( 9N69 NI.IECN EMERGENCY VEHICLE FIRE APPARAIUS I.{AI NT. 17546 97770 PLASTI-PRINT, INC MI SC. SUPPLIES 18791 97N1 Ai4ERICAN I.'ATER I,IORKS ASSN. ,,t I scEttANE0us 18951 97N2 UESTERN RIGGI116 PRoDUCTS IIIC PROTESSIONAT & SPECIAL IZED S '18976 9f773 18990 97n4 19027 9n75 ACCESS UN I TORI.,IS & EMEROIDERY III SC. SUPPLIES UII I FORI4S AND EOUIP}IEIIT UIII TORI(S AND EOU I PI,IEIIT uNt foRlrs A D EoutPHEilT UNI FORI,IS AND EAUIPI,IEiIT 101 65200 120 10't 65200't40 525 69020 110 619 64460 140 620 66700 110 NUI.4BER NA}.IE 97776 9n77 MARY JANNEY EiIPLOYEE BENEFITS PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY UNI FORI.IS A}ID EOUIPI{ENT UI{I FORI.IS AND EOUIPI.IEIIT UIIITOR}IS AND EOUIPI,IENT U}.II TORMS ANO EOUIPMEIIT UII I FORI,IS AIID EAUIPMENT UNI FORI.IS ANO EOUIPI.IENT 08 34 08 60 88 CITY OF BURLI}IGAI,4EIJARRAIlT REGISTER 09/24/04 VEIIDOR DETAI Lr*r Denotes Nand Uritten Checks ACCOUNT 81.62 101 65200 203 511.25 527 66520 120 110,00 526 69020 233 250.00 619 61460 210 5240 342.39 42.09 286,17 14.03 136.84 101 66210 140 526 69020 110 527 66520 11A 528 66600 140 619 64460 110 620 66700 110 1,376.00 618 64520 2,t0 320.72 101 65200 111 31 235 15 90 PAGE 4 AMOUNT 81.62 541.25 410.00 250.00 1 ,121.52 946.32 275.00 697 ,13 1 ,176.00 320,72 GOETZ BROTHERS III SC. SUPPLIES MI SC. SUPPLIES I SC. SUPPLIES 19042 19015 581.t5 44.71 101 68010 101 68010 101 68010 120 120 120 1789 1780 17a1 19095 97N8 ARROLIHEAD I,IOUNTATN SPRING IJATER llISC. SUPPLIES 19330 977N BURTON IS TIRE APPARAIUS TIRE APPARATUS I,4A T NT. 19366 LIEBERT CASSIDY 9HITI.IORE PROTESSIONAL & SPECIAT I ZED S 9n80 ToM Ai{ES TRAININ6 EXPEIISE 19502 600.00 101 6t200 260 600.00 ( 275.00 130 20015 81.51 101 65200 203 CITY OF BURLINGAME I.IARRANT IEGISTER 09/21t01 . VENDOR DETAIL '*r Denotes Hand trritten Checks PAGE 3 AMOTJNT 558,90 929.39 613,01 291.23 766,00 53.01 29.20 1,036,62 91 .00 258.90 248.96 20,930,97 68,040.00 909.15 NUI.IBER NAI{E 97756 97757 97758 9n61 BAY AREA AIR OUALITY I.IISC. SUPPLIES 9N59 RECHARGE ' EI,I OTFICE EXPENSE 97760 DltL EXPRESS EOUIPI,|ENT I'IA I NT. 97754 MEYERS, NAVE, RIEACK, STLVER 11',|0',1 PROfESSIONAL & SPEC IALI ZED S 97n5 ACCOUNT 558.90 101 6,/.350 210 929.39 527 66520 120 613.01 618 61520 501 294,23 896 20281 766.00 327 nwl 120 53.04 101 6t200 '1'10 29,20 '10'1 65100 200 1,036.62 731 22594 91.00 101 68010 120 1787 268,90 526 69020 120 248.96 620 66700 130 ?0,930.97 10',t 22515 68,040.00 320 80900 220 909.15 530 65400 200 UECO INDUSTRIES, INC. MISC. SUPPLIES BURLIXGAME SCHOOL DISIRICT CLAII,IS PAYI{ENTS AT&T UTILITY EXPE}ISE ALL CITY I,IAI,IAGEI'IENI I,II SCELLA EOI,S COLORPRINT OTTICE EXPENSE I SCELLAilE00S 1'1640 11695 13940 't1358 14523 11958 15595 15701 16347 15599 1?299 17102 9n62 97763 97765 LI},IHART PETEXSEN POI'ERS ASSOC. MI SCELLA}IEOUS 9n66 Jfi8 CONSIRUCTIoN, IUC. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PEIII NSULA ASA tiIsc. suPPLtEs I'IOSS RUBBER & EOUIPI.IEiIT CORP. ISC. SUPPL IES 16225 97767 r,rEtio l,r0BI LE CO.tt'lUN I CAT IoNS EOUI PI.IENT IIIAI I.JT. ))) 97768 17tt97 107.71 340,99 118,70 9n64 SYDIEY ].iALK@ SI4ALL TOOLS 't01 6/.200 110 101 64100 115 ( NU|IIBER NAI',IE CITY OF BURLINGAMEI.,IARRANT REGISTER 09/24/04 03788 ACCOUNT 500.00 101 65100 120 13,255.07 618 64520 210 101 65200 202 620 15000 97744 lltTHER.TYSON IMPORTS, INC }IISC. SUPPLIES 9ri45 ABAG . LIABILTIY PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9n46 oLE ' S VEHICLE I.IAINT. SUPPL I ES 97747 1,689.52 194.85 PA6E 2 AMOUNT 300. 00 13,255.07 471.96 1,578.29 1 ,884.37 191 .00 361.16 1,408.83 6,242.00 09518 09626 09570 28 68 263. 208. ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDI.'ARE t.IISC. SUPPLIES MISC. SUPPLIES BLDG. & CROUNDS MAINT. BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. VEHICLE ''IAINT.FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. SIDEIJALK REPAIR EXPENSE PUMP EOUIPilENT REPAIR I'IISC. SUPPLIES MISC. SUPPLIES I'tlSC. SUPPLIES t'ltsc. suPpLrEs 144.41 447.87 78.16 88. 70 2.70 169.0'l 1.32 40.02 286.83 1 54 .60 10.51 1 50.80 361.46 58.17 't5 .07 1 ,335 .59 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 ,26 619 619 619 6621 0 68020 68020 65200 65200 65200 66210 66210 690?0 64460 64460 64460 120 120 190 190 202 203 219 230 120 120 120 120 2200 2?00 5 180 5240 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS I.,IISC. SUPPLIES 09790 97719 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97750 PETER GAINES TRAVEL & MEETINGS 1 0507 97751 CAL. STEAM I.I I SCELLANEOTJS I,IISC. SUPPLIES MISC. SUPPLIES 1 0557 97752 EIIPLOYMENT DEVELOPI,IENT DEPARTMEN ',I I SCELLANEOTJS TEilPORARY EMPLOYiIEIIT SVC. TEI,IPORARY EI,IPLOYI.IENT SVC. TEIIIPORARY EIiIPLOYI.IENT svc. MI SCELLANEOUS 10567 97753 PIP PRINTING OFF I CE EXPEI,ISE 491.00 101 65200 220 527 66520 250 101 66210 2?2 ,?7 66520 120 101 68020 192 2200 526 69020 120 5?7 66520 120 597 503 380 ?60 502 00 00 00 00 00 101 101 101 101 530 010 011 011 011 010 65100 6801 0 67500 55100 65400 't 100 1 0620 90.93 101 65300 110 90.93 (( VENDOR DETAILt*r Denotes Hand l,rritten checks 97748 IIUMBER NAME 97712 97736 97737 97738 9n42 CITY OF BURLIIIGAME[,ARRA}IT REGISTER 09/?4/04 VE}IDOR DETAILrir Denotes llgrd t,lritteh checks 51 .83 237.35 227.60 112.94 22.39 20.56 2,152.86 101 65200 101 65200 101 68020 10't 65200 101 65200 527 66520 620 15000 111 130 200 2300 202 203 120 PAGE 1 AI'IOUNT 168,55 351.40 502.04 2,825.53 25,389.50 772.21 153.75 I,760,19 316.79 10.23 10,788.06 97731 ALAN STEET & SUPPLY CO. BLOG, & GROUIIDS I4AItIT. 01059 0'1309 01313 01862 02157 02615 03054 03366 ACC0UItT 168.65 101 68020 190 2200 351.40 101 65200 203 502.04 101 56210 120 BAUER COI'IPRESSORS FIRE APPARATUS IIA I NT. 97733 HARBOR SAND & GTAVEL I.IISC. SUPPLIES EURL IIIGAI4E AUTO SUPPLY I,IISC. SUPPLIES SIIALL TOOLS EAUIPI4ENT IIAIIIT. vEHlcLE ilAI r. TIRE APPARATUS II/T I XT. I.II SC, SUPPL I ES SUPPLIES 97735 clTY 0F REDI,IOoD ClrY CO{I.{UN I CAT I ON S CI TY HALL ',IAIIITEI/ANCE 300.00 25,089.50 621 64450 160 62't &4r0 220 468,97 224.21 619 61160 120 620 15000 8,750.19 526 69020 120 316,79 528 66600 120 10.23 527 66520 170 394 394 101 66100 120 101 66100 220 m,24 10',t 68020 192 2200 453,75 619 64460 120 02755 02880 97710 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORPORATIOII O3OO2 iIISC. SUPPLIES 97711 E}'IN6 IRRIGATIOII PR(I)UCTS I{ISCELLANEOJS K & U DISCOTJNT LIGIITING & SUPP }II SC. SUPPLIES LAL'SON PRODUCTS, INC. I,I I SC. SUPPLIES SUPPLIES P. G. & E. GAS & ELECTRIC CITY OI SAN I.IATEO ilISC. SUPPLTES CONTRACTUAT SgRVICES 5 5 04 02 ) 9n13 SAN I.IATEO COI'}ITY CONVETITION & HI SCELLAflEOUS 03431 92,514.75 731 22587 92,514.75 97f34 01507 693.18 97rJ9 NATIoNAL I/ATER*IRKS, INC. I'llSC. SUPPLIES )) 09- 16-2004 NAlilE GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND I,JATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND SEI'ER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND L/ATER FUND SEI.TER FUND SOLID I,IASTE FUND PARKIIIG ENTERPRISE FUND SELF IT,ISURANCE FUND FACILITIES SERVICES FUNO EOUIPMENT SERVICES FUND INFORI.IATION SERVICES FUND FINE }IECHANIC SERVICES FUND OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS UTILITY REVOLVING TUND TOTAL FOR APPROVAL CITY OF BURLINGAMEI.'ARRANT REGISTER FUND RECAP. O4.O5 ( PAGE 10 AMOUNT 1 35 , 548 .83 a3 ?u. ).f ( FUND 101 320 326 327 ,?6 527 528 530 618 619 6?0 621 6?5 730 896 27,466.59 360,148.00 18,143.15 5,409.75 5,498.83 8,768.85 1,896.28 3,033.98 15,892.75 24,316.99 1 8,91 3.40 1 07.00 1,022.08 1 60.89 ft:i/i,?>{f;zr.T;tr, HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUI,{BERED FROM 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE, AND/oR CLAIilS NUilEERED FROil 97567 THROTJGH 97687 TNCLUSTVE,TOTALING rN THE AMoUNT of $6?6,326.37, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPRoVED BY THE PRopEROITICIALS, AND IN MY OPIiIIOII REPRESENT IAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE I.'ITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, DATEFINAI'ICE DIRECTOR APPROVED FOR PAYMENT DATECOUNC I L ( /e\ fr ,l'. NUMBER NAME CITY OF EURLINGAUE l',ARRANT REGISTER 09/ 16/04 VENDOR DETAILr*3 Denotes Hand t,ritten Checks 25020 ACCOUNT 400.00 101 65100 220 1,627.50 320 80430 210 600.00 101 22546 300.00 101 22520 300.00 101 225?0 150.00 101 22520 150.00 101 22520 3,402.00 101 65100 220 97680 A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97681 TOMASI-DUBOIS & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S PAGE 9 AMOUNT 400.00 1,627.50 600. 00 300.00 300.00 1 50.00 1 50 .00 3,402.00 $6?6,325.37 25021 97682 ANDREI.I YANG I,I I SCELLANEOUS 97683 JEFF OI.JENS DEPOSIT REFUNDS 25022 250?3 ?5024 25025 250?6 ?5027 97684 97685 TOMO BANDOV DEPOSIT REFUNDS RAYi,IOND JOHNSON DEPOSII REFUNDS 97686 l,lARK SHER!,O@ DEPOSIT REFUNDS 97687 VP CONSULTING, INC. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TOTAL ,+ S1a,v ))) 97666 OIIVIA CHEN CONSUITANTS PROTESSIOIIAI & SPECIAL I ZED S 21t115 AtERT.AL L MISC, SUPPLIES 97667 EURLINGAI{E ROTARY TRAVEL & IIEETINCS 97668 K€II}IEDY,/JEII(S CONSUTTANTS PROfESS IONAL & SPECIALIZED S 97669 AT&T I.IIRELESS co,ft{u[ r cAT loNs EI.IPLOYER RESOURCE INSTITUTE PUBLICATIO}IS & ADVERTISITIG ( ACCOUNT 225.00 101 65200 120 18,070.52 326 80910 210 540.00 101 64150 250 1,020.00 326 80950 2t0 69.57 101 64250 160 650.85 101 54350 210 3100 177.00 101 64t 20 150 587.50 101 51120 030 835.12 530 65100 200 210.00 101 64420 1r0 30.88 101 65100 160 168.00 101 68010 220 1787 21.00 320 81030 120 CITY OF EURIINGAI'4Et,IARRAI{T REGISTER 09/16/01 VENDOR . DETAI L!*' Denotes Hand U/ritten Checks AMOUNT 225.00 18,070.52 510.00 1 ,020.00 69,57 650.85 375.00 1n.00 587.50 30.88 '168.00 21.00 NUI,4BER NAME 97665 97673 97571 97675 97676 97677 24607 97670 G00D Ill,itAcBR IoE, souER l. R IICHTE & 24658 PROIESSIOI'IAL & SPECIAT I ZED S 97671 24659 97672 DIAr.tol,tD cofit'tuN I cAT IoNs INC PROFESSIOI,IAL & SPECIALIZED S BLDG. & GROUNDS }IAIIII, BLDG. & GROIJNDS !.IAIIIT. 125.00 125.00 125.00 101 66210 210 526 69020 190 ,27 66520 190 21566 24570 21695 21711 21718 24809 21816 24a5A 21871 TIANACED HEALTH NETIORK t'I I SCELLANEOUS THE POIJER SOURCE EOUIPMENT I.IAI }iT. AD CLUB PUSLICATIO}IS & ADVERTISIN6 T MOBILE COfiMUNI CAT IONS JOSH RUEI'4I'iELE COI,ITRACTUAL SERVICES 97678 DORIS I,IORTENSEN }iI SC. SUPPLIES ( 976N S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIOI{S TRAIIII NG EXPENSE 21963 276.49 527 66520 260 276.19 ( PAGE 8 835,12 210.00 IIUTIBER NAI.IE 97653 97614 97655 97656 97658 97639 97660 97661 97662 97663 sBc/l,tcl co4 u[ ICATIoNS cor,0.ru I cAT to s COMI'IUII I CAT I ON S 101 68010 1 101 651t0 1 621 &450 1 PAGE 7 AMOUNT 2, &0.00 300,00 120.00 724.31 1,500.00 386.57 105.00 546,62 66.?1 CITY OF BURLINGAI.IEIJARRANT RECTSTER 09/16/Ol VENDOR DETAILr*r Denotes Sand lrritten Checks SAN FRA}ICISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES C 23533 t.I I SCELLANEOTJS TONY PONIERIO DEPOSIT REFUIIDS ACCOUNT 2,840.00 526 69020 233 300.00 101 22520 120.00 n0 69533 ?20 ANOREII FREEI'IAN CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2355? 23653 23779 2394'l 23946 23998 21030 175 ,05 178,87 374.39 60 60 0 60 97657 EUGE}IEEORDEGARAY I.I I SCELLANEOUS KELLY MOORE TRATTIC CONTROL I,4ATERIAtS 1,500.00 101 22516 386.57 101 66210 222 U}IIVERSAL BUILOIiJG SERVICES COIITRACTUAL SERVICES COIITRACTUAL SERVICES COI,ITRACTUAL SERVICES CONIRACTUAL SERVICES COIITRACTUAL SERVICES CO}ITRACTUAL SERVICES COIIIRACTUAL SERVICES CONIRACTUAT SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES COI,IIRACTUAI. SERVICES CI T I CORP VENOOR TINANCE EOUI PiIENT I.IAI NT. OUILL OFTICE EXPEIISE NEXIEL Cor.{,tu I CAT Ior,rs col' ,4uN I cAT I 0N S SOUTH SAII FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 SUPPLIES CAL CHIETIS BOOKSTORE TRAIII I NG EXPEIISE 211.91 101 68020 160 2200 66.71 10',t 65200 200 100 279 386 885 355 732 967 53 896 856 3 1 3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 15 00 00 619 619 619 619 519 619 519 619 619 619 64160 64160 64460 64460 64460 64460 &460 64460 64460 61160 220 220 220 220 2?0 220 2?0 220 220 220 5230 5170 5240 51 10 5170 5210 5130 5180 5190 5180 )) 97664 24090 349.08 62',t 64450 110 13,509.15 214.94 ?3748 23728 105.00 620 15000 516.62 101 65200 260 ) 349.08 (( CITY OF BURLIN6AMEI,'ARRANT REGISTER 09 / 16t04 VENDOR DETAILr*r oenotes iland l/ritten Checks NUMSER IIAME 97638 CSG CONSUTTAIITS IlI SCELLANEOUS 97639 LYO}I VENTURES, INC }lISCELLAI,IEOUS SAII IIATEO DAILY JOURIIAL I,I I SCE L LANE O{JS DAHAIIUKIR BRANDES ANCH I TECTS PROFESSTOTAL & SPECIAI.IZED S 9761? ACCOUNT 1,445.00 101 35220 3,750.00 101 22516 500.00 526 69020 233 5,502.89 320 80370 210 31.70 101 64420 150 110.12 527 66520 260 192.04 526 69020 210 175.00 101 64120 011 49.00 101 65200 160 't,132.80 10'l 65300 o'10 59.97 101 65300 110 THE IIINOVATIOII GROUPS PUBLI CAT IONS & ADVERTISING 97613 s&s L/oRLDUTDE TRAI N I NG EXPEXSE TIIE I4OB I LE STORAGE GRqJP PROTESSIOI{AL & SPECIALIZED S 976t 0 97641 9761tt 97645 97646 97647 97619 22165 22751 22804 23051 23082 23138 23156 23169 232s6 23301 23306 23311 23436 110 110 110 110 1101 14.46 234,02 79.65 82.45 101 66100 101 58010 101 65200 101 61100 PA6E 6 AMOUI]T '1,445.00 3,750.00 500.00 5 ,502.89 3',1 .70 110.12 192.04 175.00 49.00 1,332.80 59.97 140.58 184.95 1 ,573,15 TLC ADMI',II STNATORS r,r I scELLAlE0us AT&T T'IRELESS CO,iI.IUN I CAT I ON S OFTICE TEAiI I.I I SCELLANEOUS 97618 SIERRA OTF I CE SUPPLIES OFF I CE EXPENSE oFF I CE r..rAX OTT I CE EXPENSE OTF I CE EXPENSE OFF ICE EXPEI,ISE OFF I CE EXPEIISE 97650 UNIVERSAL SPEC IALT I ES, INC. PROFESS IOIIAL & SPECIATIZED S 97651 CANON F INANCIAL SERVICES, INC. CI TY HALL I,4AII'ITENANCE 184.95 619 61160 210 5120 1 ,573,15 621 64150 200 97652 ERLER AND KALIilotSKt, I{C, PROFESSIONAL & SPECIAT IZED S 23531 29,782.26 326 a0722 210 ?9 ,78?.26 ( 23085 CITY OT BURLINGAI'IEI.IARRANT REGISTER 09/16/04 VENDOR DETAIL 'tr Denotes Hand Uritten Checks 20523 20896 20900 20925 21211 21360 21482 21613 21623 21741 21767 ?19 22138 22178 101 66210 260 526 69020 260 527 66520 260 619 6L460 260 PA6E 5 AMOUNT 152,19 'l ,060.86 15,170.88 1,155.00 853.12 74.57 1,116,25 160.83 1' ,386.70 2.29 ,74.13 NUMEER NAME 97623 97624 OELL IIARKETI}IG t.P. I,{ISCELLAIIEOUS 97626 l,{uN IHETRIX SYSTET'IS CORP. OFFI CE EXPENSE 97625 97627 crR MISC. SUPPLIES 97628 SPITERI IS I{ARDIJOOO BLOG. & GROUNDS I.IAI IIT. 976?9 CDlr covERNr4ENT, l[C. OTF I CE EXPENSE 97630 ACCOT]NT 152.59 101 64420 110 1,060.85 530 55100 200 15.470.88 521 64450 100 6001 1,455.00 101 54200 110 853,12 527 66520 120 I ,675.00 101 68010 190 1111 74.57 101 68010 110 1101 TRANKLIiI OFFICE SUPPI.IES OTIICE EXPENSE I'4PACT PAPER & INK EOUI PI'IEI.IT I,IAINT. DU.ALt SATEIY TRAI N I NG EXPENSE TRAINING EXPEIISE TRAINI NG EXPENSE TRAI N I NG EXPENSE 1,134.07 t ,134.05 I ,131.06 1,134.05 97631 S'AR COFFEE INC. BLOG. & GROUNOS MAINI. 97532 SKYHAI.IKS SPORTS ACADEMY CONTRACIUAL SERVICES 97633 TURBO DATA SYSTEI.iS, INC. MI SCELLANEOUS 97631 PUSLIC AFFAIRS MANAGEI,IEIIT PROFESSIONAL & SPEC IAL I ZED S 97635 AI&T col|lftuN I cAT toNs 97636 ROEERTS AND BRUIIE I.II SC. SUPPLIES '160.83 6?1 64450 190 15,386,70 101 68010 220 1t72 10,889.68 101 37010 5,082,62 325 80n0 210 2,29 101 65150 160 571.43 526 69020 120 97537 UNDERGROUND COIISTRUCTIOII MA}IAGER 22305 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S )) 6,0u,95 3?7 81010 210 ) 6,084.95 1,675.00 '10,889.68 5,082.62 NUI1EER NAI'IE 97609 97611 PARAiIOUNT I S GREAT AMERICA I.4I SC. SUPPL I ES CONIRACIUAL SERVICES VEIIDORr*t oenotes lland !/ritten Checks DETAI L ACCoU T 18078 2,?56.00 13,560.00 CITY OF EURLINGAI'IEI.IARRANT RE6ISTER 09/16/04 ( 101 68010 120 1422 101 68010 220 1212 320 79400 210 325 rc400 210 327 79100 210 PAGE 4 AiIOUNT 15 ,8'16.00 434.30 565.12 63.66 ?43,11 181 .63 10,08'1.00 4,036.00 337.50 498,67 265 .00 36,510.00 97610 ccs SERVICE, It/CItsc, SUPPUES LEIIIGH SAFETY SHOE CO INAINING EXPEIISE CoNTRoL |iANUFACTURI G C0., INC. PROFESSIOIIAL & SPECIAT I ZED S PROTESSIONAL & SPECIAI.I ZED S PROTESS IO',IAL & SPECIALIZED S 97612 97613 PRUDEIITIAL OVERALL SUPPIY CO}ITRACTUAL SERVICES 97611 97620 AFFINITEL COiII,IUNICATIOI.IS COMMIJNI CAT IONS 97621 VERIZON }/IRELESS iIESSAGING SERVI 18753 cot'tMUN I cAT I O S COI,IMUII I CAT I ON S 434.30 619 64460 120 5170 565,12 101 68020 260 2200 83 83 526 69020 160 527 65520 160 243,11 101 65200 220 18r.63 101 61200 r50 00 00 520 80900 210 320 80520 210 630.93 101 66210 226 4,036.00 528 56600 210 337.50 101 55300 110 99,73 398.94 101 68020 110 2100 101 68010 220 1101 265.00 621 64450 160 19397 97616 CALIFORNIA ROCK & ASpfiAtT, IilC. STREET RESURIACI }IG EXPENSE 19507 ANG IIEI.ISPAPERS PUBL I CATTOIIS & ADVERTISI I.IG 97515 L/l LSEY & HAX PROFESSIONAL & SPECIAT I ZED S PROFESSIONAL & SPECIAL I ZED S 97617 POIER I.]ASHI NG SERVICE PROFESSI ONAL & SPECIALIZED S 97619 CE CAPITAL OFFICE EXPENSE CONIRACTUAL SERVICES 18250 18755 19027 19083 20216 20216 201?1 3 3 581 500 6 3 19564 97618 CIUCCI COXSULTING GROt'P IIIC OFFICE EXPENSE 19791 10,231.20 't4,250.60 12,058,20 ( 97622 c. H. SULL C(r,|PANY BLOG. & GROt'IIDS MAINT. 20459 292.28 101 68020 190 2200 292,28 ( 630.93 CITY OF BURLINGA}{EI.'ARRANT REGISTER 09/16/Ol VENDOR OETAILrir Dengtes Hand Ht.itteh Checks PAGE 3 AMOUNI 2,278.50 20.81 226.17 5,852.00 ,75 ,90 812.37 24,052.45 647 -44 1',l0.55 291 ,912,00 7?0.07 39.05 NUMBER NAI.{E 97596 97597 PEI'IINSULA SPORTS OFFI CIALS CON'RACTUAT SERVICES 11855 15711 15739 15827 15167 16414 16160 16629 16911 17128 17299 17195 17546 3.79 9,17 ACCoUIT 256,87 619 64450 120 2,278.10 101 6a010 220 1787 I'II LLBRAE LOCK S}IOP I'I I SC. SUPPLIES I.I I SC. SUPPLIES SUPPI.IES 101 68020 120 2200 619 61160 120 5110 620 15000 97598 TEAM CLEAII CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97599 ACTtoil SPoRTS I.II SC. SUPPLIES 97600 CUT,TMINS IEST, tNC. HISC. SUPPUES 97601 97602 97503 97604 97607 226.17 101 65200 220 5,852,00 101 68010 120 1781 575.90 527 66520 120 81?.37 730 59t83 120 OISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY MISC. SUPPLIES t.iUN ICTPAL I.IA I II TEIIAIICE TRAITIIiIG EXPETISE CAPITAL EOUIP}IEI,IT CI NIAS CORP. #464 UNI TORI,{S AND EOUIPMENT GOLOEN NURSERY r't I sc. suPPLlEs I.I I SC. SUPPLIES STANDARD REGISTER OF FI CE EXPENSE HI.TECII EI.,IERGEi{CY VEII I CLE FIRE APPARATUS I'IAI NT. GORDON E. HC CLIIITOCK PROFESS IONAL & SPECIATIZED S 00 1523 225 827 527 66520 260 620 65700 800 93.27 17.24 101 68020 120 2200 527 66520 1?O ?91,912.00 326 SOnO 220 7?0.07 621 64450 110 39.06 625 65213 ?03 687,U 101 68020 110 2200 97605 JMB Co{STRUCT I0 , r[C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97606 ) 97604 1n02 1,102,66 61A &520 210 1 ,102.66 97595 ROYAL gNOLESATE ELECTRIC it I SC, SUPPLIES 256,87 )) (( ctTY 0t BUR r,lcAr4E IJA R R A N T i E G I S T E R 09/16/04 VENDOR OETAILr*r Denotes Hand lrrltten Checks llur.r8ER Al,tE 97580 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 8LDG. & GROI,NDS UAINT. 97t81 ACCOUNI 10,115.22 101 68010 190 111i| A},IOUNT 40,445.22 387.00 162,38 3,152.82 660.33 1 ,931 .32 135.54 8.65 '104.00 151.n 09113 97581 CITY OF MI LLBRAE PROFESSIONAL & SPECIAL t ZEO S 09231 97585 387.00 101 68010 220 189'l 162.38 101 68020 t20 2200 3,152.82 101 64350 210 660,33 101 68010 190 1787 1,931.32 518 61520 601 97582 97r87 97592 97593 RANDY SC'II,'ARTZ }IISC. SUPPLIES I.1I SCELLANEOUS MUFFIE CALBREA'IJ CO}ITRACTUAL SERVICES SIERRA PACI FIC TURT SUPPLY BLDG. & GROU}IDS MAI IIT. SAII I.IATEO LATJN MOtllER SIIOP BLOG. & GROUNDS MAINT. EOU IP}'IEN] MAINT. I,4I SC. SUPPLIES INTERSTATE TRAFFIC I.I I SC. SUPPLIES ELECTRO.MOTIOII I}ICORPORAIED PUI'IP EOU IPi,IEI{T REPAIR PUI.IP EOUI PI'IENT REPAIR STANDARO BUS I}IESS MACHIIIES OFF I CE EXPENSE RECHARGEIEM OFFI CE EXPEIISE 6,15 821,21 10'1 68010 120 1101 101 68010 400 1101 03171 03518 09125 09159 09518 09560 09570 09790 11610 14007 1425?. 14523 136.28 171 .55 127 .71 101 68020 190 2200 101 68020 200 2300 519 64450 120 5180 97'88 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDIJARE OTT I CE EXPEIISE 97589 8.55 101 65100 110 '104.00 101 66210 1?0 97590 I,JECO INDUSIRIES, INC. MISC. SUPPTIES 97191 029 660 101 66210 230 527 66520 230 2 1 89 19 151.73 101 58010 110 1101 75,78 101 55200 110 ( 97194 H0L CoRE[&Cot'lE II I SCELLAI,IEOUS ?,614.51 101 30400 2,651,51 PAGE 2 830.39 481 ,29 3,690, o8 97583 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS I,4I SC. SUPPLIES 97586 ABAG . L IABI LI TY CLAII.IS PAYI.IENTS 181.29 527 66520 120 14750 NUI'IBER NAME 97568 * PENINSULA OIL GAS, OIL & GREASE 97569 BAUERCoT-.TPRESSoRS FIRE APPARATUS MAINT 97570 CRAFT PRINTERS OFFICE EXPENSE CITY OF BURLINGAMEI.'ARRANT REGISTER 09/16/04" VENDOR DETAILr*r Denotes Hand llritten Checks ACCOUNT 1,275.00 101 22590 2,130.60 101 65200 201 I ,665.98 '101 65200 203 300.93 101 56100 110 67.94 625 65213 203 4,732.85 528 66600 210 PAGE 1 97'67 * COUNTY CLERK SAN MATEO COUNTY 2?558 DEPOSIT REFUND 21019 01309 01842 02027 02365 02625 02645 02755 02898 03041 03080 19.36 176.23 8.55 186.88 101 66210 101 68020 101 65200 '101 68020 101 66210 526 69020 527 66520 619 &460 120 190 2200 190 192 2?00 219 120 120 120 AMOUNT 1 ,275.00 2,530.60 1 , 665 .98 300 .93 67.94 4,732.85 225.59 1 ,050.24 81 .03 495.29 89.71 97571 97572 97'73 PENINSULA BATTERIES MISC. SUPPLIES SUPPL I ES 97574 e7575 97576 97'77 PACIFIC NURSERIES MISC. SUPPLIES 97578 sBc COMMUNICATIONS UTILITY EXPENSE PATTERSoN PARTS, INC SI'IALL TOOLS SUPPL I ES L. N. CURTIS & SONS FIRE APPARATUS t'{AINT. MACTEC ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 619 64460 120 5180 620 15000 K & !' DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP I'tlSC. SUPPLIES LAl.rsoN PRoDUCTS, I NC. MISC. SUPPLIES MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. MISC. SUPPLIES BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. M I SCELLANEOUS SIDEI.'ALK REPAIR EXPENSE MISC. SUPPLIES MISC. SUPPLIES t'IISC. SUPPLIES 1,050.24 101 66210 120 81.03 620 66700 120 205.73 15.91 67.87 15.20 -16.24 11.59 89.71 730 69560 120 101 67500 160 896 20281 35.64 1 60.89 101 65200 130 620 15000 97579 031 06 183.1? 119.70 302.82 1 96.53 ) 09- 1 0- 2004 NAME GENERAL FUND PAYROLL REVOLVIN6 FUND CAPITAL II.IPR0VEMENTS FUND WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND IIATER FUND SE!'ER FUND PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND SELF INSURANCE FUND FACILIIIES SERVICES FUND EAUIPMENT SERVICES FUND INFORMATION SERVICES IUNO FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS IRUST AND AGENCY FUND TOTAL FOR APPROVAL CITY OF BURLINGAI,IEI.'ARRANT REGISTER FUND RECAP. 04-05 FUND 101 130 320 326 526 527 530 618 619 620 6?1 625 730 731 2, 537, PAGE 7 Al.{0uNT 48,393.06 296, HONORABLE I'IAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FRO!4 1 THROUGH 7 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 97501 THROUGH 97566 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AI'IOUNT OF $903,982.78, 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 IJITH IHEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED TIIEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBI4ITTED, FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYI,tEilT 878.17 865.48 480.65 13r.71 059.44 676.91 78 9? 50 03 50 71 92 ,278, ,989. ,929, ,745.n8. ,640. ,970. 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 $903,982.78 DATECOUNC I L ,(( CITY OF BURLINGAME I.'ARRANT REGISTER 09/10/04 VENDOR DETAILr*r Denotes Hand trritten Checks ACCOTJNT PAGE 6 AMOUNT 8,168.76 1 00.00 ?3,670.00 300. 00 2,525.00 525 .00 300.00 90 .00 4,450,00 NUMBER NAME 24752I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES M I SCELLANEOUS OFFICE EXPENSE OFFICE EXPENSE OFFICE EXPENSE OFFICE EXPENSE OFFICE EXPE}ISE MISC. SUPPLIES PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS LIBRARY..RECORDS AI.ID CASSETT LIBRARY-.BOOKS AND MAPS COi'IMUN I CAT I0NS COI!{MUNICATIONS BLDG. & GROIJNDS I4AINT. TRAVEL & MEETINGS TRAINING EXPENSE MI SCELLANEOUS M I SCELLANEOUS I ,223.85 688.13 286.09 1 08.54 318.21 662.40 138.90 1 00.00 'l ,585 .21 199.91 624.r0 68.48 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 10't 101 101 619 621 64420 &250 64420 67500 65500 65100 67500 64420 67500 67500 65100 67500 67500 64420 64420 64460 64450 030 110 110 110 110 110 120 1?1 125 129 160 160 190 250 262 400 400 1 ,471.05 30.00 1 88.02 287.69 187.18 975'9 RENE ARIAS MISCELLANEOUS 97560 I,JATKINS AND BORTOLUSSI CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25011 97561 JAIl.lE GOMEZ DEPOSIT REFUNDS 25012 9756? PLAY I/ELL TEKNOTOGIES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25013 97563 SHERI.IAN CHAN M I SCELLANEOUS 25014 97564 CHETCHUTI & ASSOCIATES }.II SCELLANEOUS 97565 ALAMEDA COUNTY FIRE TRAINING OFF 25016 TRAINING EXPENSE 97566 CRESCENT CREATIVE CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 25017 , 100.00 10'l 36530 23,670,00 320 79300 220 300.00 101 22520 2,625.00 101 68010 2?0 1349 525.00 101 36630 300.00 101 36630 90;00 101 65200 250 4,450.00 621 &450 ??o 24950 2501 5 )) TOTAL $903,982.78 r 97558 ) $^"^\N'o (( NUMBER NAI'IE 97547 AT&T COII.IMUNICATIONS 9754E INDUSTRIAL PLUMEING SUPPLY UISC. SUPPLIES 97549 f,tls CAMPS CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97550 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97551 BOB FRUOEiIBERG DEPOSIT REFUNDS 97552 FLORA ROBELET CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97553 ER I C GATTI'IAN CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97554 THE BERKELEY CHESS SCHOOL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97555 AT&T I.JIRELESS COIIIMUNICATIONs 97556 CENTER HARDUARE I'tI SC . SUPPL I ES 97557 TURF Tn|E t,EsT tNc. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CITY OF BURLINGAI,{El,,ARRA}IT REGISTER 09/10/04 VEI'IDOR DETA I Lr*r Denotes Hand llritten Checks 23661 ACCOUNT 21.66 621 64150 160 46.05 619 64160 120 5120 8,440.00 101 68010 220 1372 23857 23875 23941 24151 ?4167 24169 24287 24640 24656 ?4722 20?.99 348.78 300.00 101 2?520 50.00 101 68010 220 1521 579.20 101 68010 220 1521 1.550.00 101 68010 ??0 1349 165.13 101 66100 160 65.92 619 54460 1e0 5130 950.00 't01 68020 220 2200 619 64460 ?20 5240 619 64460 220 5110 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 24.66 46.05 8,440.00 551.77 300.00 50.00 579.20 1 ,350.00 165.13 65.92 95 0. 00 ( CI TY OF BURLI}I6AI{E I.JARRAIIT REGISTER 09 t 10/04 VENDOR DETAI Lr*r Denotes lland lJritten checks ITUMBER NAI,|E 97532 CDL/ GOVERNT'iENT, INC. OFFICE EXPENSE 97533 ACCOUNT 31.18 '101 64420 110 21182 PAGE /r AMOUNl 3't .'18 '1,950.00 83. 19 70,n2.19 t34.76 426.00 I ,O11,14 62,65 200.35 ?1.26 785.00 14',1.20 952.00 21580 STAR COTFEE INC. 8LDG. & GRdJNDS I.{AINT. 21623 D. L. FALK CO}ISTRUCTIOII INC. CONTRACTUAT SERVICES 21647 HILLYARD I,I I SC. SUPPLIES 97537 V8 GOLF LLC CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21948 97538 BETIS TRUCX PARTS FIRE APPARAIUS I4AINT. 22111 97539 AUTO PRIDE CAR IJASH VEHICTE I'IAI NT. 22278 97510 CUTTERS EOGE FIRE APPARATUS I'IAINT. 22407 97511 L Ii]COLN EOUIPMEiIT I.I I SC. SUPPLIES 22529 97r42 VER IZON I.IIRELESS coMl,tuN I cAT I0[s 22593 22762 97511 OFF I CE DEPOT OFF I CE EXPENSE ?3153 97545 OFFICE TEAI.I t'I I SCELLANEOUS 23256 83.19 621 5445A 190 70,792.19 320 80370 220 534.75 101 6A020 120 2200 125.00 101 58010 220 '1784 1,014,44 ',t01 65200 203 62,65 101 65200 202 200,35 10'1 65200 203 ?1.26 101 58010 120 1114 /r5.30 10,l 580'10 160 1101 785.00 101 54150 031 141.20 101 58010 110 ',t101 952.00 101 65300 010 400 550 10't 36650 't01 36640 a7 28 JOSE I,4ONTES ilI SCE!lANE0uS }IISCELLANEO,'S OFF I CE I,iAX OTFICE EXPENSE I.i I SC. SUPPLIES 00 00 97534 97535 97536 ?04 281 )) 9fi46 23305 101 68010 110 1101 10'l 66100 120 490.15 21658 45,30 9751,-3 J II.I NANTELL r.ll scELLAllEous ) ( NUI.IEER NAI.iE 97528 97530 230 230 230 210 5150 21 21 21 21 21 21 PAGE 3 AtioultT 3,311.11 3,602.50 765.18 928.09 180.65 165.53 1 ,353 .?1 88.82 228.36 632.37 CITY OF BURLINGAiIEL'ARRAIIT REGISTER 09 t10/01 VEIIOOR DETAI L,*i Denotes lland t/ritten Checks ACCOUNT 97521 97522 PEII INSULA SPORTS OFFTCIALS CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97523 ETECTRO-iIOT'OIJ I NCORPORATED PUI.IP EOUIPiIENT REPAI R PUMP EOUI PME}IT REPAIR PUI,4P EOUI PiIENT REPAIR PROFESS IONAT & SPECIALIZED S PROTESSIOIIAL & SPECIAI.I ZEO S PiOFESSIONAL & SPECIALI ZED S PROFESSIOIIAL & SPECIAI" I ZED S PROFESSIO}IAL & SPECIALIZED S PROFESSIOIIAL & SPECIAL IZEO S PROFESSIONAT & SPEC IAL IZEO S VALLEY OIL CO, SUPPT IES 97527 DON DORNELL I,4I SC. SUPPLIES 3,602.50 101 68010 220 ,1787 765 , '18 620 15000 11007 157',11 15754 17531 19507 19617 19753 1976A 66210 69020 66520 64460 61460 64460 &460 &160 64460 64460 295 265 059 670 260 315 260 260 350 260 05 05 05 05 05 05 00 0.0 44 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 101 526 527 619 619 619 619 519 619 619 160 110 150 170 150 130 97521 97525 BPS REPROGRAPIIIC SERVICES HISC. SUPPLIES 97526 cAutoRlltA RocK & ASPSAIT, I C. STREET RESURFACTNG EXPENSE PENINSULA D I GITAL I'.IAGING I.,I I SC. SUPPLIES t{I sc. suPPLtEs . I,4I SC. SUPPLIES PROFESS IONAL & SPECIALIZEO S PROFESSI ONAL & SPECIALIZED S COIITRACIUAL SERVICES 392.73 77.67 81 .73 71,99 320 80880 120 320 80110 120 320 81130 120 320 80880 210 320 80900 210 320 80110 220 161.86 142.11 OEAII DESIGNS GC I'{ I SCEILANEOUS I.I I SCELLANEOUS 97529 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.65 326 80770 120 165,63 101 66210 226 1,353,21 7J0 69585 120 83.60 , .22 101 3't5't0 731 2?518 228.36 101 65200 220 EL CAI4INO CHARTER LINES INC iII SC. SUPPLIES ( 97531 SPORTS CHOICE UNI TORI,IS AND EOUIPI.IENT 523.93 101 68010 140 1892 523.93 ( 19047 20105 632.37 101 68010 120 1521 20845 ' CITY OF BURLINGAI'IEI.IARRANT REGISTER 09t10/01 VENDOR OETAI Lr*r Denotee HaM lritten Check8 NUI,48ER I,IAIIE 9751' STERICYCLE, INC. SUPPLIES 97516 iloEL L. } LLER, INC, SUPPLIES 97518 ACCOIJNT 234.00 101 6t200 112 09139 09199 1',I568 116&. 13720 325,00 620 15000 618 61520 210 614 64520 601 101 35220 101 65200 111 10'1 65200 r20 101 65200 202 101 6t200 203 '101 65200 250 101 65200 260 PAGE 2 AI.{OUNT 234.00 325.00 2,278,78 607.52 6,326.01 97517 ABAG . L IAEI LITY PROTESSIOIIAL & SPECIALIZED S CLAIt.IS PAYI{ENTS CHI ET EILL REI LLY MISCELLANEOUS I,I I SC. SUPPLIES ,.I I SC. SUPPLIES VEHICLE I,tAI NT. FIRE APPARATUS MAI}IT. TRAVEL E I'IEETINCS IRAI }I IIIG EXPENSE 156.21 81 .44 145.67 2.80 10.88 50.00 160.52 97519 97520 scH9AAB, tNC. OTFICE EXPENSE 37.80 101 64250 't'to BURLI NGA}IE POLICE OEPT OFFICE EXPENSE I{ I SC. SUPPLIES UNI TORII1S AND EOUIPMEIT col4r'ru I cAT I 0N s cot4ltu I cAT I0Ns EOUI PI,IENT I,IAI NT. GAS, OIL & GREASE DUES & SUBSCRIPIIONS TRAVEL & I.|EETINGS TRAI N I }IG EXPENSE PRI SO}IER EXPEIISE POLICE INVESTIGATIOII EXPENSE I'IISCELLANEO'S EOUIPI.IENT I.IAI NT. I'ItSC. SUPPLIES '101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 9U.02 893,80 984.66 497 ,85 56,47 780.09 89.66 290.00 215.99 51 .90 '150.00 291.16 76.00 676.91 287.50 65100 65100 65100 65100 65150 65100 65100 65100 65100 65100 65100 65100 65100 110 120 140 160 160 200 201 240 250 260 291 292 703 200530 65100 730 69571 120 37.80 09518 173.60 2,105.18 ))) ( SAiI I.iATEO UTIIOIJ HIGH I.I I SC. SUPPLIES il I sc. SUPPLIES 101 66210 222 526 59020 120 619 61460 1?O 5120 101 68010 120 101 68010 120 PAGE I AI,4OUNT 9, 200.00 2,878.17 433,275.20 I ,965,70 210.2, 734.50 708.00 160.62 839.32 216.91 296,060.15 5,237.56 19,57 CITY OT BURTINGAI.IEI.IARRANT REGISTER 09t 10t04 IIUIIBER NAiIE 97501 * PENINSULA CONRIDOR JOIIII MISC. SUPPTIES VENDOR DETAILr*r oenotes tland llritten Checks 20060 ACCOUNT 9,200.00 320 76350 120 23OO 97502 * AETIA I SCELLAIEOUS E}IPIOYEE BEIIETITS 21760 217 .01 2,661 .1t 130 20028 130 20022 97503 T TRAVELERIS CASUALTY & SURETY COiI 25010 CONIRACTUAL SERVICES 433,275.20 320 76010 220 97504 T STEELI{EAO 8RE}/ERY H I SCELLA}IEOUS 25018 1,965.70 731 22512 97505 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLII/GATIE TRAFFIC CO}ITROI. I.IATERIALS MISC. SUPPI.IES MISC. SUPPLIES 01676 03471 03587 n.11 10.26 126,58 't ,909.58 3,327.98 97508 BURL I}IGAI.IE STATIONERS OF FI CE EXPENSE I.{ I SC. SUPPLIES ?0.57 110.05 101 64200 110 '10'l 68020 120 2200 97506 EAYSHORE INTERNAT I ONAL TRUCKS TIRE APPARATUS I.IAI }IT. 01236 97507 BURI.INGAI.IE RECREAT IOII DEPT. RECREATION EXPENSES 01663 738.50 625 65213 203 708.00 101 10700 839.32 620 66700 260 216.91 619 61160 120 296,060.15 '26 69020 171 97509 ccs tlEsTERr/ POHER & TRAIIIING EXPEIISE 01857 97510 K & lll DISCOUI,/T LIGI{TIIIG & SUPP I.I I SC. SUPPLIES 02645 9751I SAN FRANCISCO U/ATER DEPT. !,ATER PURCHASES 03353 97512 123 1?? 97513 st/AP 0N T00ts sMA - I00LS 19.57 101 65200 130 ( 03961 298.08 10t 64350 120 298.08 (( 01025 97'14 I,IEST GROUP PAYIIENT CTR. I'II SC. SUPPLIES BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY Burlingame hrblic Library Board of Trustees Minutes August L7r 2OO4 I. Call to Order Secretary Carr called the meeting to order at 4:30pm II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Trustees Absent: Staff Present: Catherine McCormack, Dave Carr, Carol Rossi, Mary Herman, Pat Toft A1 Es6offier, Cit5r Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder IV V III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanirhously agreed to approve the. warrants. M/S/C (Rossi/ McCormack) Miuutes The TrusteeS unanimously approved the minutes of the July 2O, 2OO4 meeting. M/S/C (McCormack/Rossi) Correspondence and Attachments A. Monthly Statistics - The Trustees noted the success of the 4 "Family Night" Programs held during the summer. Total attendance for the 4 evenings was 740. Trustee Rossi mentioned that the schools will be having a "T!.rn off TV" week and suggested that the library host an evening children's program during this time. B. Easton Press Release - The City Librarian will prepare a press release on the Easton Opening for the local papers which will , include Easton's new hours. Magnets and bookmarks listing open hours for both Easton and the Main Library will be given to patrons as Easton opens. VI. . From the Floor Noae 48o Primrose Road' Bwhngame' CA g 4oro - 4o83 Phone (55o) s>8-z +z +' Fax (65o1 342-6295 t fr I VIII Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report 1. Summer Reading Program - 800 children participated this year. The Children's Librarian, Sue Reiterman, visited local schools and had a notice placed in the schools newsletters which helped to make the program such a success. 2. Easton Renovation Status - The exterior of the building is nearing completion. Railings need to be installed on the ramps. Preparation for landscaping will begin shortly. The interior walls need the final coat of paint. The floor should be refinished in the next few weeks. The contractor expects to turn the building over to the City August 21"t. 3. Express Check - New selfchecks will be installed in October at both the main and branch libraries. 4. Easton Opening Day Celebration - The Celebration will be held October 2"d from 2 PM - 5 PM. Mayor Rosalie M. O'Mahony will cut the ribbon signifying the official opening of the Easton Library. 5. Children's Mural - The City Librarian has placed the proposed mural for the children's room on hold until the Easton Library opens. B. Foundation Report - The next meeting will be held Thursday, September 16th 1. Easton Donor Reception - Honorary Members of the Easton Branch Campaign and donors who contributed $ t,000 or more through the 2OO2 Newsletter will be invited to a reception and tour of the Easton Branch on the evening of September 30ft' Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson and Horn, Professional Law Corporation, of Burlingame have graciously offered to sponsor the reception. IX. Unfinished Business New Business A. Public Art Project - The City Manager has proposed that that an art committee composed of one or two representatives from the Library Trustees and the Beautification Commission be created. He has requested that the City Librarian, Al Escoffier, and Park and Recreations Director, Randy Schwartz, oversee the committee whose goai would be to formulate a policy for public art on city property. The policy would provide guidelines for art works purchased by the City, as well as donations of art by a group, individual or an artist. Library Board of Trustee Minutes August 17,2004 X. 2 xII B. Art Donation to Library - Friends of the late Mayor and Councilwoman, Gloria Baron, would like to donate a bronze statue of a young boy reading a book to the Library in her memory. The Trustees present were pleased with the statue but wanted input from the two absent Trustees. Those Trustees present agreed that the decision to accept the gift should be determined by the Library Board. Trustee Carr noted that he would be happy to accept the statue but would prefer that that it be placed inside the Main library rather than at an outside site. C. Easton Budget - The Trustees unanimously approved the motion of Trustee McCormack to approve unrestricted expenditures from the Trustees' accounts to non-budgeted costs that may stil1 occur in the Easton renovation project. M/S/C McCormack/Rossi Announcements A. Employee Appreciation Dinner - Trustee Rossi and McCormack will Chair the event with a Foundation member. B. Easton Lunch - Trustee Rossi suggested that the Trustees and Foundation members determine alternate dates to bring lunch to staff who are preparing Easton for its opening. C. Trustee Dinner - The Trustees discussed possibilities of dates and locations for the dinner honoring Cecile Coar for her years of service as a Library Trustee and welcoming Pat Toft, as the new board member. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 5:30PM. M/S/C (Rossi/McCormack) The next meeting of the Library Board of Trustees will be held September 21, 2OO4 in the Library Conference Room. Respectfully Submitted, 6r/*rM Alfred H. Esco City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes August '17, 2004 2 XI CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA October 12,2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the October 12, 2A04, regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. il. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Boju6s, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Auran, Keighran, Brownrigg (a:rived at 7: I 0 p.m. and left at 9:35 p.m.) Staff Prese,nt: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; Susan Harris, Code Enforcement Officer; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell ilI. MINUTES The minutes of the September 27, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended, ltem2,1783 El Camino Real, page 5, second paragraph, line 4, change "old growth" to "mature" trees; the minutes were approved as amended. IV. APPROVAL OF'AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. YII. 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 commtssioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 1B.1257 CABRILLO A\rENUE, ZOttED R-l - APPLICATION FOR MITTGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO REPLACE EXSTING CHANNEL WALLS WHICH SUPPORT AN EXSTING GARAGE STRUCTURE (PETER HAASE, FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JUDY AND RICK KELL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. C. Vistica noted that he would like to discuss a design option on I 16 Bloomfield and requested that it be shifted to the action calendar. C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar (item lb, 1257 Cabillo Avenue) based on the facts in the staffreport, commissioners comments and the findings in the staffreport with recommended conditions in the staffreport and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (Cers. Auran, Keighran, Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedtres were advised. \-, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS October 12, 2004 1A. 116 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVTEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDruION (BOB KOTMEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JESSE GEURSE. DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT ERICA STROHMEIER C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:10 p.m. CP Monroe presented the staffreport including staff comments, the conditions of approval and resolution. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, architect, represented the project. He noted that he would answer any questions. Commissioner noted that the project is approvable as it is, but there is a lost opportunity which wanted to point out, could connect the stairway to the foyer at the intermediate landing- would open foyer and tie two together, might affect the exterior wall in a minor way. Architect noted discussed this option with client, decided wanted to keep tower as its own element and retain the vaulted ceiling in the room below, if follow suggestion it would affect the syrnmetry of the space below. Commissioner asked about the landscaping, only see four trees, Coco palms two at front and two at rear, these fiees are slow growing and big, would you be amenable to replacing them with four hees from the sheet hee list of a character which would provide screening and shade to the new building? Architect noted they would agree. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that this was a well designed project and moved to approve the application, by resolution, -with an additional condition to replace the four palm tees, two at the front and two at the rear with four tees \ taken from the street tree list which would screen the new structure front and rear and with the following conditions: I ) that the proj ect shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Departnent date stamped July 29,2004, sheets T.0 through A.3, A.8 and A.9 and September 20,2004, sheets L.l and A.4 through A.7; andthat any changes to the footprint or floor area ofthe building shall require and amendment to this permit; and that frue divided light windows shall be used throughout the house; 2) that the four palm trees, two at the front and two at the rear, shall be replaced with four trees selected from the street tree list which would screen the new stucture front and rear; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope ofthe 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 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 andbays arebuilt 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 Deparhent; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staffwill inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window t1pe, etc.) to veri$r that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shallbe included and approved inthe constructionplans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height ofthe roofridge and provide certification ofthat height to the Building Departrnent; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling -,Specialist's June 28, 2004 memos shall be met; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new consfruction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; anypartial or full demolition of 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 12,2004 a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; l0) that the applicant shall complywith Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Conhol Ordinance; and I I ) that the proj ect 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. Boju6s. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. ,1128 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH CONTI, CONTI-HURLEY ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT; NILES TANAKATSUBO, TSH INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN, ARCHTIECT; STEVE MERSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (s9 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staffreport October l2,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staffcomments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Gregg Hurley, architect, clarified that a covered porch is not being added, only the roofline will be changing above the existing porch, after working with the design reviewer the addition was completely redesigned, redesign keeps the charm and architectural style of the neighborhood, the proposed addition now matches the existing footprint, new roof slopes match existing, proposed windows are true divided light and match existing proposed second story looks like it is part ofthe original house, the modified roof slope above the existing porch is typical for this style, the existing bay window remains unchanged, steep roofpitch at front was kept to conhibute to the neighborhood style, and the detached garage is stylistic like house. The architect also noted that the windows were redesigned and made niurow to comply with the existing windows, windows in dormers on east elevation were changed to comply with egress requirements, shape of dormer vents were revised to be more traditional, openings in front porch were kept, and the wood posts for the porch at rear ofhouse are now compatible with the overall design. Architect summarized an email in support he received from Mark Silva, I 132 Oxford Road, noting that the revised design reflects the spirit of the steet and retains the charm of the neighborhood, complemented the Planning Commission and the design review process and noted that process delivered a better design. Further discussion: Commission expressed a concem with the 36' roofheight and its impact on neighboring single story house to the east, looks like it will tower over the single story house, have difficulty making the findings for the special permit for height. Architect noted that he spoke with Randy Hill, neighbor to the east, in his conversation Mr. Hill noted he is satisfied with the roof slope, he has a lot of glass block facing the new house, not going to change the glass block any time soon. Commission asked if true divided light windows will be used? Architect noted that windows as close to true divided light as possible will be used. Commission noted that this is a big improvement and the project now matches the neighborhood style. Commission expressed aconcernwiththe large frontwindow inthe livingroom and suggestedthatitneeds ernbellishment, appears large with grids, need to break down scale like the window above, suggest revising this window to make it look different, consider having one large window in the center with two smaller casement windows on each side. Architect noted that the existing window opening is being used. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Boju6s noted that this is a nice design, architect addressed the Commission's concems, height is appropriate to maintain design integrity, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the 3 \-, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 12, 2004 following amended conditions: l) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Departrnent date starnped September24,2004,Sheets A0.01 through A3.A2 site plan, floorplans 1 and building elevations; 2) that the living room window on the front elevation shall be revised to reduce its visual scale and reflect window pattern above and shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope ofthe first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 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; ifthere is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty ofperjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning De,parhnent staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to veriff that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions ofthe roofnot 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 ofthe roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Departrnent; 8) that the applicant shall comply udth Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official's memos dated June 7, 2004 shall be met; and l0) 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. Vistica. Comment on the motion: in regards to height, there is a great example of this steep pitch is at 1104 Vancouver Avenue, appeared tall on plans but when built it furned out verynicely, the height preserves the architecfural character of the house, area ofroof exceeding the height limit is reasonable and occurs towards the rear of the house, so impact at street will be minimal; would like to see the change to the front living room window brought back to the Planning Commission as an FYI item, can add as a condition. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 3.1512 HTGHWAY ROAD, ZOi\iED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDMION (JASSON DURHAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; J & M DESIGN, DESIGNER) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN Reference staffreport October 12,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission pointed out that the design reviewers' letter supports the project as proposed, but notes that it could be better with some additional refinement. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jasson Durhan, applicant and property owner, noted that he -started this process six months ago, tried to keep as much ofthe existing house, noted that he appreciated the design reviewers' comments and help with this project, it's a great design. Commission noted that the house looks much better; concerned with the window operation of second floor bay window at the front of the 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 12, 2004 house, don't think it will work, upper window corners will be impacted by the roof; applicant noted that the windows on the sides of the bay will be fixed. Commission noted that the applicant needs to notiff the Planning Departrnent if any changes will be required to the bay window to make it work for egress. Commission noted that the orange trees at the front of the property were not originally proposed, they will not do well here, suggest picking a tree from the Citls tree list, should be24-rtchbox size; applicant noted that there are many existing trees, will talk to his landscaper and choose a more appropriate tree. Commission noted that in his analysis the design reviewer discussed clipping the roof, did you considerthis option? Applicant noted that a flat roof creates problems and has a high potential of leaking, would rather not have a flat roof, only a small area exceeds the height limit. Commission suggested that the windows in the second floor master bathroom be moved in closer together, as proposed they look very tight against the roof eave; applicant noted that they can be moved in at least one foot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the house is well designed and moved to approve the application, byresolution, with the following amanded conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Deparhnent date stamped October 4,2004, sheets A-l through A-4, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, fooprint or floor area ofthe building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the two orange trees shown at the front of the property shall be replaced with tvro Z4-inch box size trees selected from the City's tree list; 3) that the two second floor master bathroom windows on the rear elevation shall be shifted closer together to avoid a conflict with the roof; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to 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 ofperjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Departrnent; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Deparhnent 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; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roofridge and provide certification ofthat height to the Building Departrnent; 8) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the constuction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Inspectot's and Recycling Specialist's May 24,2004, memos shall be met; l0) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes , 20Al Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and I 1) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: would like to see a condition added regarding the trees at the front ofthe property, orange trees to be replaced with fees selected from the City's tree list, the maker ofthe motion and second agreed; with regard to the height, the applicant would like to avoid a flat roof, will not have an impact since roof is sloping away from the sheet. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 5 \-, 4. October 12, 2004 3036 HILLSIDE DRTVE, ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A NEW DECK AT T}IE REAR OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGaT (WILLIAM CHIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEPHEN CHIN, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HUR C. Brownrigg recused himself from this item because he was not able to meet with the neighborbecause of business travel. Reference staff report October l2,2004,with attachments. Plr Htrin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staffcomments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the Planning Commission received a noticed for the Hillside Area Construction Permit; Plr Hurin noted that notices were sent to the Planning Commission, City Council and property owners with 100 feet of the property for the initial hillside area construction permit. Commission asked ifthe hillside area constuction pennit ordinance addresses privacy; CP Monroe noted that the hillside permit addresses obstuction oflong distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Stephen Chin, applicant and property owner, and William Chin, engineer, noted that he applied for a building permit in July, did not realize a permit was required to build a deck, stop work order was issued in July, was not told a hillside area construction permit was needed until September, addressed all comments from the various deparhnents, here only because of the concems expressed by the neighborbelow, she is concerned about seeing the underside ofthe deck through openings of existing foliage, willing to plant tees to fill in these gaps; adding lattice on the sides of the deck is not feasible, would like to plant groundcover on the ground below deck to help support the slope, the lattice would block sunlight and limit plant growth; would like to keep deck railing open, aestheticallywould match the existing deck railing above, a solid railing would block canyon view from inside his house and would not look nice,ihe existing deck on the neighboring house to the right on Hillside Drive has the ,u*, opr, 1 railing, their deck extends out further, can considerplanting vines on the posts and extending a lattice skirt from the top for vines if it does not look bad; do not want to look into neighbor's yard either, proposed deck will not change the view into her yard, view is already there with existing upper deck. Commission asked if the applicant is willing to plant vines on the post and railing? Applicant noted that he will consider planting trumpet vines on the posts and possibly add a lattice skirt from the bottom of the deck, would extend vine growthonto the skirt to blockview ofunderside ofdeck; requiredto plant onetree,will addoneortwomore to fill in holes. Designer noted that the deck is grossly over designed and safe. Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, representing herself and her mother, thanked the Commission for opportunity to express her concerns, live below the subject property, feel that the proposed deck will impact property value, perceived privacy and shadowing, submitted photographs of the deck in relationship to her property and angle from front door, deck is already half-built, her property is on a steep hillside, the deck may comply with setback requirements, but because the lot is so steep the deck looms over herproperty, it is oppressive, if trees are planted to screen the deck they will have to be tall, property is very close to hers, deck will cast a shadow into her front yard making it dark and gloomy, will make it di{ficult to maintain plants for lack of sunlight, already have plants in containers because they have to be moved to get sunlight; have lived in this house since 1978, went through the Burlingame school system, have an emotional investment in this property; there is some shrubberybehind the existing trees, concerned that if a tree dies will have full view of the deck; consulted a realtor about property values, noted that any view of the underside of a deck will turn buyers away, underside of deck is typically not maintained by homeowners, underside needs to be concealed to ease buyers anxiety, deck color changes to dark graywhen it gets old, additional trees will give - a sense of privacy, key is placement, type and maintenance, do not want to increase shadow on her property . photographs submitted show how the sunlight changes throughout the day, loose sunlight in corner because neighbors'tree is so close to property line; tried to negotiate with the applicant without impacting property 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes City of Burtingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 12, 2004 values, proposals disregarded because of costs or other issues, have a flowering eucalyptus, when neighbor first moved in they topped my tree to maintain their view, earlier this year the applicant stopped by to tell me that a tree cutter will be by the next day and asked if it was ok to trim the tree, told applicant needed some time to think about it, the next day the tree was trimmed without my permission; providing additional trees alone is not the solution, would like to see lattice and deck size reduced. Applicantnoted thathe thought theneighboragreedtotheheetrimming, additional frees offeredwouldhave amaximum growthheight of20 feet for screening, do notwanttrees to blockviews ofthe canyorl, deckwill not cast any more shadows than the existing house already does; neighbors' concern about the placement of the new trees near the property line is valid, agree to place them further into the yard, but will have to maintain a minimum distance from existing sewer laterals in rear yard. Commission asked if the applicant would be willing to plant three trees; yes, would prefer to plant a tree with deep roots to help hold the slope in place, with a maximum growth height of 15 to 20 feet,bushy and evergreen type. Commission noted that the City's tree list contains many examples with locations of trees planted throughout the City. Applicant noted that he could not guarantee the well being of the trees, will replace trees if they die, do not want to invade the neighbor's privacy, deck will not be accessible from the rear yard forprotection, rest of yard is exposed to intruders, have three small children, there is no yard space for them to play since the lot is on a slope. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: clarified that the applicant is offering to plant three trees in strategic places, bushy growth will provide privacy between the two properties, the owner at 1510 La Mesa Lane could also plant shrubs on her property, part of suburban living is that neighbors will be able to see into each others yards; visited the site, understand the neighbors' concerns with property value and loss of privacy, but can't make findings for denying HACP based on these issues. C. Keele noted that because there is no obstruction of long distance views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit, he moved to approve the application, byresolution, with the following amended conditions: l) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 10,2004, sheets I and2, and that the deck shall not exceed 443 SF in area or a height of 12'-0" above adjacent grade1,Z) thatthree 24-inch box size trees, selected from the City's tree list, shall be planted in the rear yard to complete the screen of the deck from the neighbor at 15l0 La Mesa Lane; the selected trees shall have bushy growth characteristics with a growth height of 15 to 20 feet; if any ofthese infill trees should die, they shall be replaced with new trees with the sirme growth characteristics; 3) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, or building envelope shall require an amendment to this hillside area construction permit; 4) that during demolition of the existing deck, site preparation and construction of the new deck, 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; 5) that demolition for removal of the existing deck and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to complywith all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management Distict; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Califomia Building and Uniform Fire Codes,200l 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 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. \., 7 \-/ 5. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 12,2004 753 ACACTA AYBNUE, ZONED R-l - CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT FOR A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE IN A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING A (REMY SUBRANT, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staffreport October l2,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, the historyof the activity on the site and the action alternatives for the Planning Commission. Commissioners asked staff what the city was thinking when they allowed a home occupation permit for this use when contractors businesses are prohibited in the R-l zoned. CP responded that the home occupation permit allows a contractor to use his home address for his license, to do book keeping and other administrative office work from his home, it does not allow all other aspects of the contracting business to occur at the residential location. Commissioner asked who did the five week observation, noted in the staff report. Code Enforcement Officer Harris noted that she and the City Attomey took tums during the 5 weeks. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Remy Sijbrant, owner of 752 Acaciaand contractor, noted that he has been a contractor for 9 years and has received no complaints, he is currently remodeling this house in a major way excavating living area below and adding a second story in addition he recently received a permit for a garage addition; he does not dispute that the activities noted were going on at the house; but they are consistent with the remodeling going on, should be looked at as a construction site not home occupation; employees need to come to do the construction. He cited parts of the municipal code which say the city cannot regulate tuck activity if the truck is less than a certain weight, and the city can't prohibit parking on the pubic sheet, a construction sign is allowed if there is building going on code allows 100 SF his sign is 2 SF. Commissioners asked number of questions and Mr. Sijbrant responded: Do employees ever come to this site, park and leave in a companyvehicle. Employees come and drop offtime sheets and pick up checks on Fridays and Mondays, have 16 employees, people not at this location daily, go the their projecfs address, leave trucks at job site; do not use debris boxes, instead load on to a kuck and remove daily, customers appreciate, seems to be a correlation between complaints and each time city inspects and signs offa part of the work. Commissioner noted Home Occupation Permit indicates that this is a secondary office, have primary business location in Millbrae, is this a residence? Yes. Can you park a vehicle in Millbrae? One Commissioner asked what was the status of the current building permits on the two houses, his and the one next door, he is working on. He noted all are current- 753 remodel will expire March 6,2005, garage will expire Decernber 15,2004;747 Acaciatwo permits one will expire April 11, 2005 and one December 5, 2004. Asked how work is progressing/ when finish 7 53 Acacia? He responded expect to complete garage by November l,2004andresidencebymid-November2004. Whenwillproject at747 Acaciabecompleted? Expect to finish the house in December 2004. Commission discussion with Mr. Sijbrant continued: Have you seen staffreport? yes. There seems to be a comprehensive list of violations logged and documented in that report. Neighbor letters are rich in detail which adds credibility to the complaints, need to review. How many trucks do you have on site? Three trucks overnight, park on site. Do people report to your house to get assignments to go to other work sites? Do assignments by cell phone, not from house. Is debris fansferred from truck to truck in front of the house? Yes, don't remember last time it happened. Do you have an employee who works out of the house? Yes a secretary, she inputs estimates, prepares payroll, handles personal issues with employees. Do workers -. come to site? Will be none when completed two construction jobs at end ofNovember and December. What business transactions do you do at Millbrae? All bills are paid, faxes, mainphone number is out ofMillbrae. Where do you store equipment/construction materials/tools that the company uses? ln Hayward, rent the 8 \-. City of Burtingame Planning Commission (Jnapproved Minutes October 12, 2004 bottom level of a commercial space. You store no equipment or assign no employees from Millbrae? Mr. Sijbrant noted when he goes to the project sites, he reassigns workers. Chair Osterling asked if any one else would like to comment: Steve Warden ,736 Acacia; Kim Quat, 757 Acacia, Michael Bogoslavski, T4T Acacia; Ron Bland, Mother lives at 750 Acacia,; Corie Engle, 1236 Bellevue. Speaking on behalf of 30 residents who have signed petition supporting revocation of home occupation permit, another set of pictures; should note workers assemble between 7 - 7:30 a.m, code enforcement officer does not get by until 8:00 a.m.; neighbors approached him and asked how to deal with problem because they cannot park in front of their houses, trucks double park in the street, tash being transferred on the street, serve on city commission reason why picked me to speak; there problems occurred before owner began working on the two houses, complaints back to 20A2; as recently as October 8 employee parked and left in companyvehicle, feel that the ownerhas violated at least three ofthe five requirements of the Home Occupation permit: neighbors have complained, one non-family inember work three days, now works full time; no regard for the code; want revocation, no suspension, because he will come back. Before this house wir a crack house, these are nice people tr:nng to get a job done, when built my house 10 years ago made a much bigger mess; have not observed workers arriving in pick up trucks, not up that early, know that there are construction workers there. Have lived on this block since 1974, family since 1958, people who lived there before did a lot of dnrgs, construction crew comes about 7 --7:30 a.m. to work on houses, not approached to sign petition, don't know why, most of the houses on the block have 2 or 3 cars park on street andindriveway. HaveobservedworkersassenrblingbetweenT-7:30a.m.anddriveoff,peoplecomeandgo all day; mother concemed that seeing a residential area turn into a business are4 park in front ofher house so she cannot, has to walk long distance, lot of confirsion early in the morning, concemed about the pattern seeing offices in residenti al are4 two kucks in the driveway with this business and 5 cars on the steet. Park in the space across the street, because it is available often, have relationship with the applicant, can park elsewhere, never aproblem parking on Palm. Mother's problem is that there is a Green BMW which has been parking in front of her house for a number of weeks. Neighbor noted her family has 5 cars, park on skeet in front of her house and across the street. Commission asked Mr. Sijbrant: Do you park on sheet? Never asked me to move my vehicles from the street, park two trucks in driveway, if late at night leave truck on street. You had a construction sign on site in 2002 and on ongoing construction? City attorney sent a letter and called, sign violation of home occupation, but have a building permit so construction sign is legal, got my first permit in August 2002. Do employees show up on Saturday and Sunday mornings to pick up vehicles and drive ofl? On employee Pedro goes to all the job sites, takes materials, comes and picks up truck with debris to dump. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: while Mr. 'Warden spoke as one for concemed neighbors, know a resident on steet, and there is a high level of anxiety regarding operating this kind of business at this location, the overlap of employees arriving/departing when small children are walking to school, do not believe this is an appropriate home occupation, disservice to neighbors, devalue property, has not met several permits for home occupation permit, cannot support continuation. C. Keele noted that code enforcement and neighbor logs are rich in detail, compelling, but applicant's explanation is credible as well; established that construction on the two properties will be completed in mid- December, moved to suspend the Home Occupation Permit to the end of the year to give the applicant an opportunity to complete the remodeling and reduce business activity in the are4 would suggest that the code enforcement officer monitor for 4 to 6 weeks and let Commission know if he conforns or violates the suspension, if so should be set on agenda immediately. Home Occupation permit should rernain suspended 9 \-, CITY OF BARLINGAME TEIA MONTH F,Y.200{ TSIS YEAR r.Y. 2003 IJAAT YEAR BUILDING INSPECTION DTFF gAliE IIONTE ,JASI YEEB DTIF valuatl,oD t $0 .0 $0 .0 s0 .0 $1,155,300 L2.4 $150,800 s0,l.- $3, 000 300.0 $o .0 $550 135,4 $0 .0 94X5,338 42.7 - s18,000 44 .4 $108, 088 67,6- $45, 000 20 .7- MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY SEPTEMBER 2004, DATE TO DA P6!!lt tyDG New Single Family New MulEi-FamiLy New corunercial. AIt,erat.lona -Res AIterat.lon6 -NonRes DemolitioD gwimmlng Pool slgTl Permlt.a FenceE Retoofing Repalrs Window Repl Mlscellalleous valuati.oD $1,130,00'O $o $o $1,300,0s0 $7s,3oo $12,000 $o $12, 3 00 $o 9238,403 $25, ooo $3s,0s1 $3s,67s ValuatloD $2, s93, 588 $o $o $4, 828, 150 i2 ,996 ,032 $13, s00 9o $2s .732 9o it ,267 , 806 $10s,800 $zls ,742 $67. 105 valuat,ton s1r360,000 9o $2, s00,000 94 , 1X5, 95s $3,086,300 $24,000 $50, ooo $43,4s0 $1,s00 $L ,J.73 t 422 $59,700 $189, 544 $106, oo0 * 3 0 0 29 4 8 0 4 0 20 2 d # 0 0 0 26 4 5 0 1 0 43 2 10 .L # 7 0 0 a7 20 L4 0 0 94 8 24 7 * 3 0 1 91 22 8 t 110 L2 26 6 r!t .o 100.0- t7 .3 43.8- 100,0- 40.8- 100.0- 8.0 51.8 13.8 36.7- TOTArJS..... -77 s2 | 864 ,779 92 $1, 898, 075 5O , 9 274 9L2,113,555 3OO SL2,72O,g}t 4.8- L0/0L/04 7 227 |4! lnvestments CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary September 30,2004 Par Market Value Book Value o/o ot Portfolio Term Days to Maturity YTM 360 Equiv. YTM 365 Equiv,Value LAIF & County Pool Federal Agency lssues - Coupon '19,250,564.07 6,000,000.00 19,250,564.07 5,991,420.00 19,250,564.07 6,000,000.00 76,24 23.76 1 974 719 2.588 2.745 2.624 2.783 lnvestments 25,250,564.07 25,241,984.07 25,250,564.07 100.00%232 172 2.625 2.662 Total Earnings September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Cur€ntY.ar 63,650.04 2@j25.05 Ays|..g.D.llyE lanc! 4,045,040.99 a0,721,1t1,4, Eilcllv€ Rrt ofRetum 2.6tttr 2.5E% of some of these is restricted by law (e.9. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds)./, er'o/ FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM1 ) SymRept V6.21 Report Ver. 5.00 Run Date: 1Oh312004 - 09:52 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments September 30, 2004 Purchase Date Par Value Stated Book Value Rate Moody's Page 2 CUSIP lnvestment #lssuer Average Balance Market Value YTM Days to 365 Maturity Maturity Date LAIF & County Pool sYs77 77 SYS79 79 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. S M COUNTY POOL Subtotal and Averago 1,774,923.77 17,475,640.30 1,774,923.77 17,475,640.30 1,774,923.77 17,475,640.30 1,680 2.720 1.680 2.720 23,045,046.9S 19,250,564.07 19,250,564.07 19,250,564.07 2.624 Federal {gency lssues - Coupon 312EX16Q5 513 3128X2NA9 514 3136F5TJ0 515 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP- FANNIE MAE Subtotal and Average 6,000,000.00 11117t2003 01130t2004 0412712004 2,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,996,880.00 2,993,910.00 1,000,630.00 2,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2.300 3.000 3.1 00 2.300 3.000 3.1 00 412 11117/2005 851 01/30/2007 938 04127t2007 6,000,000,00 5,991,420.00 6,000,000.00 2.783 719 Run Date: 10i 13/2004 - 09:52 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRepl V6.21 ))ve,, s.oo tot l.nd Asrtg. 2e,oa5paar 26:50,5a4.07 252a1pral7 25.2t0,56402 2.aa2 112 , (( CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Activity By Type September 1,2004 through September 30,2004 Transaction Date Page 3 CUSIP lnvestment # lssuer Beginnlng Balance Stated Rat6 Purchases Redemptlons or Wthdrawalsor Deposlts Ending Balance LAIF & County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. SYS79 79 S MCOUNry POOL Subtotal 1.680 2.720 8,275.62 1,000,000.00 s,000,000.00 0.00 25,242,288,45 4,275.62 6,000,000.00 19,250,564.07 Federal Agency lssues - Goupon Subtotal 8,000,000,00 6,000,000.00 Total 31,242,288.45 8,275.62 6,000,000.00 25,250,564.07 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM3) SymRept V6.21 Report Ver. 5.00 Run Oate: 10113D004 - 09:52 Month Number of Securltles Total lnvested CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Activity Summary September 2003 through September 2004 Yield to Maturlty Managed Pool Rate 360 Equivalent Equlvalent 365 Number of lnvestments Purchased Number of lnvestments Redoemed Average Term Page 4 Average Days to MaturltyEndYear September October November December January February March Aprll May June July August September 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 25,384,046,40 26,475,202.01 26,087,655.91 28,680,215.& 27,400,432.25 27,499,689.16 29,579,440.12 31,824.022.87 32,351,524.97 32,705,947.05 31,221,968.21 31,242,288.45 25,250,564.07 2.799 2.7'.!1 2.614 2.617 2.663 2.557 2.512 2.373 2.412 2,452 2.56'l 2.603 2.625 2.838 2.749 2.65',1 2.654 2.700 2.592 2.547 2.405 2.445 2.486 2.597 2.639 2.662 2.831 2.739 2.680 2.680 2.696 2.564 2.512 2.318 2.368 2.420 2.553 2.605 2.624 44 42 57 52 174 174 161 184 181 180 188 188 232 31 29 56 49 168 163 146 165 157 150 151 145 172 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Run Date: '10/13/2004 - 09:52 Average 4 28,900,230.55 2.577%2.613%2.584 0 0 143 122 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF PM4) SymRept V6.21 ) Reportver.5.00 ) ( CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Distribution of lnvestments By Type September 2003 through September 2004 ( Page 5 September 2003 October November December 2003 2003 2003 January February2004 2004 March 2004 Aprll 2004 June 2004 May July August September Average by PeriodSecurity Type 2004 2004 2004 2004 LAIF & County Pool 96.1 96.2 92.3 93.0 81 .8 81 .8 83.1 81.2 81 .5 81 .7 80.8 80.8 76.2 85.1% Certlflcates of Deposit . Bank Certificates of .S&L Gertiflcates of Deposit-Thrift & Ln Negotiable CD's . Bank CORP NOTES Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper - lnterest Beari ng Commercial Paper . Discount Federal Agency lssues - Coupon ao 3.8 7.7 7.0 18.3 18.2 16.9 18.9 .18.6 18.4 19.2 19.2 23.8 14.9Yo Federal lssues - Discount Treasury Securities - Coupon Treasury Securities - Discount Mlscellaneous Securities - Coupon Mlscellaneous Securities . Discount Non lnterest Mortgage Backed Securities Mlscellaneous Dlscounts -At Cost 2 Mlscellaneous Discounts -At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PMs) SymRept V6.21 Reporl Ver.5.00 Run Oate; 10/13/2004 - 09:52 t Bearing lnvestments CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management lnterest Earnings Summary September 30,2004 September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Page 6 CD/Coupon/Discount !nvestmonts : lnterest Collected Plus Accrued lnterest at End of Period Less Accrued lnterest at Beginning of Period Less Accrued lnterest at Purchase During Period lnterest Earned during Period Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses Earnings during Periods 0.00 45,633.33 31 ,716.67) 0.00) 45,000.00 45,633.33 48,883.33) 0.00) 13,916.66 0.00 41,750.00 0.00 13,916.66 41,750.00 Pass Through Securities: lnterest Collected Plus Accrued lnterest at End of Period Less Accrued lnterest at Beginning of Period Less Accrued lnterest at Purchase During Period lnterest Earned during Period Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses Eamings during Periods 0.00 0.00 0.00) 0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00) 0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: lnterest Collected Plus Accrued lnterest at End of Period Less Accrued lnterest at Beginning of Period lnterest Earned during Period 0.00 388,462.61 338,729.23) 152,372.60 388,462.61 382,460.16) 49,733.38 158,375.0s Total lnterest Earned during Period Total Capital Gains or Losses 63,650.04 0.00 200,125.05 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 63,650.04 200,125.05 Run Dale: I 0/1 3/2004 - 09:52 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM6) SymRept V6.21 . Reporl Ver.5.00 )) (( (( ( ( (( a (( 03BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary September 30, 2004 Par Market Value Book Value %ot Portfollo Term Days to Maturlty YTM 360 Equiv, YTM 365 Equiv.lnvestments Value Managed Pool Accounts 327,732.16 327,732.16 327 ,732.16 100.00 1.657 1.680 lnvestments 327,732.16 327,732.16 327,732.16 100.00%1 1.657 1.680 Total Earnings September 30 Month End tng Fiscal Year To Date Curent Ye3r 415.27 1.712.1a Av.ngo D.lly Bllanc. 345,732.,tG /t33,595.36 Enlcuv. Rd. ol R€tum 1.tl% 1.57% law (e.o,pas Tax,& Agency funds, Capital Piojects, and Enterprise funds)./, ef ol Director/TreasurerNava, Portfolio 03BD CP PM (PRF_PM1 ) SymRept V6.21 Report Ver. 5.00 Run Date: 10/'13/2004 . 09:53 I 1 1 CUSIP lnvestment #Issuer Average Balance O3BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - lnvestments September 30, 2004 Purchase Date Par Value Market Value Stated Book Value Rate YTM YTM Days to 380 385 Maturity Page 2 Maturity Oate 327,732.16 327,732.16 327,732.16 1.680 1 .657 1.680 1Local Agency lnvestment Fund Subtotal and Average 345,732,16 327,732.16 327,732.1A 327,732.16 1.657 1.880 1 Total and Average 345,732.16 327,732.18 327,732,18 327,732.18 1.657 1.680 Run Date: '10/13/2004 - 09:53 ) Portfolio 03BD CP PM (PRF_PM2) SyrnRept V6.21 Irt ver. s.oo_/ Managed Pool Accounts SYS82 82 ) t ((( Par O4BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary September 30, 2004 Market Value Book Value %ot Portfolio Term Days to Maturity YTM 360 Equlv. YTM 365 Equlv,lnvestments Valuc Managed Pool Accounts lnvestments 1 6,706,293.1 4 16,706,293.14 16,706,293.14 16,706,293.14 '16,706,293.14 100.00 16,706,293.14 100.00% 1.657 1.680 't.68011.657 Total Earnings September 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return , Dir 22,965.89 16,706,293.14 1.67e/o 68,282.07 17,118,338.69 1.58% / ac,/ay' Portfolio 04BD CP PM (PRF_PM1 ) SymRept V6.21 Report Ver. 5.00 Run Oate: 10/13/2004. 09:53 1 1 O4BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - lnvestments September 30, 2004 Purchase Date Par Value Stated Book Value Rate Moody'sCUSIPlnvestment #lssuer Average Balance Market Value YTM Days to 365 Maturlty Page 2 Maturity Oate Managed Pool Accounts SYS85 85 1.680 1Local Agency lnvestmenl Fund Subtotal and Average 16,706,293.14 16,706,293.14 18,706,293.14 16,706,293.14 1.680 16,706,293.14 16,706,293.14 16,706,293.14 1.680 ,| Run Oate: 10/'13/2004 - 09:53 Total and Average 10,708,293.14 1 8,706,293.14 18,708,293.14 16,706,293.14 1.680 1 Portfolio 04BD CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V6.21 ))^Ver. 5.00 @omcost Comcast Cable 1 2647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon, CA 94583 0ffice: 925.973.7000 Fax: 925.973.701 5 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava Finance Directorff reasurer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Mr. Nava: The purpose of this letter is to ensure that your cffice is informed of the programming services available to our customers residing in the rebuilt areas of your community. ln an effort to enhance the Hispanic programming package currently offered on the Digital service, Comcast will adjust the current programming line-up. Effective November 8,2004 we will make the following adjustments: These adjustments will not result in an increased rate to the package at this time. Customers will be notified of the adjustments via an ad in their local newspaper and through a separate mailer. lf you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Kathi Noe at (650) 289-6794. Sincerely, Mitzi Givens-Russell on behalf of Kathi Noe Director of Government Affairs and Franchising West Bay Peninsula Area October 1,2004 Action Channel Name Channe! Location Remove Utilisima 600 Remove VHUno 605 Remove HTV Mtisica 610 Add Casa Club TV 600 Add History en Espafrol 605 Add CineMexicano 610