Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2014.06.02 1 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 C I T Y C O U N C I L M E E T I N G A G E N D A Monday, June 2, 2014 PREVIEW OF POLICE OPERATION COMMAND CENTER TRAILER– 6:15 P.M. - CITY HALL PARKING LOT CLOSED SESSION – 6:30 p.m. – Conference Room A a. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda (Government Code §54957.6(a) b. Closed Session Community Forum Members of the public may address the Council on any item on the Closed Session Agenda at this time. c. Adjournment into Closed Session d. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6(a) City Negotiators: Leslie Loomis, Angie Rodriguez, Lisa Goldman, Glenn Berkheimer (IEDA), Employee Organization: AFSCME Locals 829, 2190 Note: Public Comment is Permitted on All Action Items as Noted on the Agenda Below and in the Non- Agenda Public Comment Provided for in Item 7. 1. CALL TO ORDER – 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 2 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 6. PRESENTATION a. Nine Sport Star Awards Presentation to Burlingame Intermediate School Students 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA - Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar. a. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes of May 19, 2014 and Budget Study Session Meeting Minutes of May 14, 2014 b. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Amendment to the Agreement with Caine Computer Consulting, LLC to Provide Information Technology Services to the City’s Police Department c. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Amendment of the City Attorney’s Employment Agreement to Provide a Salary Increase of 2.25% 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Adopt a Resolution and Hold a Public Hearing to Renew the Levy and Collection of Assessments for Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project for Fiscal Year 2014-15 b. Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Burlingame Municipal Code by adding Title 21 – Historic Resource Preservation 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Community Groups Funding for FY 2014-15 b. Adopt a Resolution Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to Provide Information and Promotion Services in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 3 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, May 12, 2014 b. Department Reports: Finance, April 2014 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City’s website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2014 CITY MANAGER’S FISCAL YEAR-END REVIEW NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2014 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG – GO TO “CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS” • CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLIN 1. 1 APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California May 12, 2014 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bandrapalli called the May 12, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Gum, Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Bill Meeker; Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Kathleen Kane III. MINUTES Commissioner Terrones moved, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 1, Roll Call, Commissioner Yie's name is misspelled; ■ Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), second bullet under Commissioner Terrones �— comments should indicate the building in Option A; ■ Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), third bullet under Commissioner Terrones comments should indicate the parking in Option C, ■ Page 2, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), second bullet under Commissioner DeMartini comments should indicate the parking in Option C; ■ Page 3, Item 1 (Community Center Master Plan), first bullet under"unknown speaker"should indicate "environmentally sensitive'; ■ Page 5, Item 2 (Historic Preservation Ordinance), fifth bullet should read "would prefer"; ■ Page 9, Item 5 (74 Loma Vista Drive), ninth bullet should replace "don't need the additional attic space"with "the eaves on the front and side do not line up",- 0 Page 14, Item 7(2532 Hayward Drive), additional Commissioner comments/questions should read "warrant a more significant variance;" ■ Page 15, Item 8 (1709 Ray Drive), last bullet under Mr. Besozzi comments should delete "to determine if story poles are required'; ■ Page 17, Item 9 (1514 Forest View Avenue) should indicate the motion was to place the item on the Action Calendar, Motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Sargent and Yie abstaining). Commissioner Sargent moved, seconded by Commissioner Yie to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2014 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 3, Item 3 (1709 Ray Drive), last bullet under Commission comments should replace "but not appears undersized"with "now appears undersized'; 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION-Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Page 12, Item 6(2747 Burlingview Drive), commission comments should add a bullet"the transom windows are not a primary viewing area",- 0 Page 16, Item 7 (4 La Mesa Court) should move reference to closing public hearing to the end,,. discussion on page 17. ■ Page 18, Item 8 (1139 Eastmoor Road), second bullet under Commission comments should read "the existing stoop has a nice character'; ■ Page 18, Item 8(1139 Eastmoor Road), last bullet under Commission comments should read"too much like an addition",- 0 Page 20, Item 10(2020 Hillside Drive), first bullet under Commission comments should add"despite the attic being walled shut",- 0 Page 23, Item 12(325 Chapin Lane), additional Commission comments should add a bullet reading "approval would be based on the analysis of the Page and Turnbull historical evaluation",- 0 valuation",■ Page 24, Item 13 (1545 Los Montes Drive), second bullet under Commission comments should indicate a 9-foot plate height,- 0 eight;■ Page 24, Item 13 (1545 Los Montes Drive), seventh bullet under Commission comments should indicate horizontal rather than vertical, ■ Page 25, Item 14 (1600 Trousdale Drive), Commission comments should add a bullet indicating commissioners would like to see balconies opening onto the courtyard. Motion passed 7-0-0-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2714 EASTON DRIVE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE TO CREATE NEW HABITABLE AREA IN AN EXISTING CRAWL SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (BILL CUNNINGHAM-CORSO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DIEBEL AND COMPANY ARCHITECTS ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner DeMartini noted that he had met with the brother of the property owner and had received a tour of the property. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commission comments: ■ Is it 6 feet for a crawl space to be included in the FAR? (Hurin: Yes) ■ The 4 foot overhangs are not contributing to the FAR. But are they included in lot coverage (Hurin: Yes, however the overhang at the front of the house is not added to the lot coverage since the existing landing underneath the overhang is already counted towards lot coverage.) ■ Revise Variance application to remove references to new 4 foot overhangs since they are not being included in the FAR calculation. ■ Revise Variance application to include discussion that mass and bulk is existing and alreadv- contributing to the FAR; could strengthen the argument for Variance. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Since entire lower floor has a ceiling height of 7'-7", is it considered habitable? (Hurin: In calculating FAR, any area with a ceiling height greater than 6 feet is included, whether or not it is conditioned.) _ Is there a minimum ceiling height for a bedroom? (Hurin: Needs to check, thinks it is 7 feet.) ■ Laundry room is large, looks like it could be used for something else. (Hurin: In cases where it is a laundry room, it is not counted as a bedroom for parking purposes. However, there are enough parking spaces on the property for it to be a bedroom.) ■ Can we comment on front elevation? (Hurin: This application is not subject to Design Review). Design could be refined, has a roof overhang and attached trellis; seems awkward. ■ What was the pre-existing condition? Was the ceiling height between 5-0" and 5-6"? (Hurin: Plan shows 5-0"; applicant provided history of use of space in letter.) Applicant focused on whether it was conditioned space or not, but real issue is ceiling height. ■ Applicant used real estate document to show this area was existing, however it shows a difference in the FAR square footages; please explain difference. ■ Skeptical whether this can be approved. Understands the bulk is there, but if the application had come before and requested to dig out 2 feet not sure it could be approved. ■ Letter says space is legally grandfathered in. ■ Applicant has written that the FAR should not apply to pre-existing space. Not saying that all pre- existing space should not have a right to a Variance, but should be clear for the record that it is not the case,we review each application on its own merits, this is not a precedence for future reference. ■ It would be different if the ceiling height was already greater than 6 feet. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. 2. 1312 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC.,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER MARK BARRALOZA PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Sargent moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Bandrapalli called fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:29 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE — STAFF CONTACT: BILL MEEKER Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014,with attachments. Community Development Director Bill Meeker presented the report. Commission questions: ■ What does it mean "consider adoption by title only"? (Meeker: To adopt, the Commission does not need to read the entire resolution. Just the title needs to be included in the public record.) 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jennifer Pfaff spoke on this item: ■ Ordinance has been a long time coming. Three significant properties had disappeared previously— the Donnelly Home, torn down in 1964 for parking; the Peninsula Theater (later Fox Theater) demolished in 1978; and the Old City Hall on Park Road 1970 for parking. This ordinance provides a process for preservation that was not in place before. ■ The use of the Mills Act varies significantly by community. Don't expect it to be very popular in the commercial district. In San Francisco believes there are only 4 or 5 Mills Act properties in the entire city. However, in San Diego's residential areas believes there are 800. Depends how it is advertised. ■ Not confident the 25% reduction in permit fee will be a draw, but it's a place to start. ■ Question: Ordinance defines applicable properties to those in the Downtown Specific Plan area, but what if a significant resource is moved outside of the boundaries? Is there a policy or process for the mover doing the restoration so they would also be eligible even if it is moved outside the area? ■ The Historic Society is a resource with lots of photos and materials, particularly for seeing what some buildings may have looked like prior to remodeling. Cathy Baylock spoke on this item: ■ Originally ran for City Council to get historic preservation ordinance passed. ■ Started in 1996 when four historical houses were going to be demolished. As the neighborhood gathered to try to save the buildings, found that Burlingame had nothing in place to protect its historic buildings. ■ Found that 14 of 20 cities in San Mateo County had historic property lists, many protected buildinc— from demolition, and several had Mills Act contracts. ■ Burlingame Downtown inventory adopted in 2010. Final step is to allow incentives for people who want to restore and preserve their buildings. ■ Amount of participation depends on how good the program is.The proposed Burlingame program is very straightforward and simplified. Hoping the simplicity should attract people. ■ Buildings that could benefit include the Gate structure that was subjected to fire and could be eligible for all sorts of tax incentives, as well as the post office building which has been indicated to be potentially eligible for the National Register. ■ At joint Planning Commission/City Council for many years an historic ordinance was an agenda item. 2004 was last year where there was a packet. ■ Already treating Burlingame Park as a historic district due to documentation provided to the City in 2009. Homes would not necessarily be incentivized because of property taxes and credits, but renovation projects would benefit from being able to use the alternative building code for historic buildings. ■ Hope it will be so successful and easy to use so it can be extended to Burlingame Park and other neighborhoods that would like to take advantage of the benefits available. Good to have a financial incentive in restoring a historic home. Robert Bachrach spoke on this item: ■ Important not to be too prolific with this historic program. ■ Given the growth the community will be seeing and the need for changes, has to have a planning process that builds a better community. Can't just call anything that is old historic. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. _ 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Staff comment: • Meeker: Believes if there is a property in the area that is identified as a potential historic resource and is eligible for either national, state or local registry, as a mitigation for an impact to a historic resource it could be moved outside of the district but it could still retain its historic significance because it originated within the district in which it was designated. Commission questions/comments: ■ Is intent to expand these programs to other areas? (Meeker: Up to the City Council as the policymakers. This is a first step. If there is success, perhaps the Council will consider expanding it further. Expect that once the program is implemented, will review in the annual joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting the success of the program to date. That could be an opportunity for the Council and Commission to engage in a discussion whether to expand further. Right now intent is to start with small step where an inventory is already in place and see how effective it is.) ■ Approval of applications sections—appears there are two sections that are at odds with each other: 21.040.060 Item 6, and 21.040.080 Item 1 d (Meeker: 21.040.060 relates to requests for certificates of appropriateness for modifications to designated resources; 21.040.080 speaks to actual designation process itself.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones moved to forward to the City Council a recommendation to adopt the Historic Preservation Ordinance, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council to adopt the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 4. 808 FAIRFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LENGTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR STORAGE FOR A NEW DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE(TORIN KNORR,ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; ROBERT BOSSCHART, PROPERTY OWNER)STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum had spoken with the next door neighbor. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission questions: ■ Though this is not subject to design review, there were comments about the windows. Would a comment about tinted glass be subject to review or comment? (Gardiner: No, the Commission is only reviewing a Conditional Use Permit and a Special Permit, and would be making those findings. The findings tend to be broader and more related to neighborhood compatibility, and not so much the design details.) 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Did not see a public notice sign posted on the property. (Gardiner: Signs are posted for Design Review applications only, not for use permits or special permits alone.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Torin Knorr represented the applicant: ■ Intent is to use the building to store a modest car collection. ■ Had a conversation with neighbors and had a survey done, and it turns out fences were not aligned to property lines. It was a benefit to both property owners to have it surveyed. The neighbors are fine with the location of the structure. Commission questions: ■ None Public comments: ■ None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: ■ Spoke with the neighbor to the right and he said he was fine with the project. He would be the most impacted. ■ Proposed use is consistent with the existing use, and is similar to other uses in the neighborhood, is consistent with the General Plan. ■ The addition to the length to the structure is consistent with the existing mass, scale and dominant characteristics of the existing house and existing structure. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions.- 1. onditions:1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 1, 2014, Sheets Al through A3, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory structure shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the existing attached garage that is part of the main dwelling shall remain accessible for parking vehicles; 2. that the detached accessory structure shall only be used for storage uses and shall not be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes; 3. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division's March 11 and April 14, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's March 13, 2014 memo, the Engineering Division's April 1, 2014 memo,the Fire Division's March 6, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division's March 6, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:58 p.m. Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5(4 La Mesa Court) for non-statutory reasons, and Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself because he has a quasi-business relationship with one of the neighbors. They both left the City Council Chambers. 5. 4 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW,TWO AND ONE- HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHRISTOPHER AWOYINKA AND SUZANNE MCGOVERN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 28, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Yie noted that she had met with applicant and visited 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner Gum noted he visited the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner DeMartini noted he met with the applicant, the designer, and the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court and 1510 La Mesa Lane. Commissioner Loftis noted he met with the applicant and the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane. Chair Bandrapalli noted she met with the applicant and with the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014,with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. He further noted that in response to a commissioner inquiry regarding the Grecian laurel trees proposed near the oak trees, staff checked with the City Arborist and project landscape designer, and the proposal is to use Catalina cherry trees instead. The City Arborist noted that the change would be acceptable in place of the Grecian laurels in his opinion. Forty-one (41) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ Did not have a chance to review new drawings. Is there an issue with taking action on drawings that have just been received, and that the public has not had a chance to review? (Kane: It is in the Planning Commission's discretion whether it is able to take action on the item.While the plans were submitted late, if the determination is that the changes would not worsen any of the conditions that the neighbors were concerned about, it would not be unlike the Commission approving plans with amended Conditions of Approval with FYI review. If the Commission is concerned about the proposed changes it could continue the item.) 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz represented the applicant: ■ Last-minute changes were made in response to the letter from the Forrests. ■ Tree retained for the neighbors across the canyon to protect their natural view. ■ Reducing the width of the house by 6 inches, to get to the 2 feet objective. ■ Library study window smaller, about half the size. Neighbor had said 30 inches would be acceptable. ■ Last-minute changes are in favor of the neighbors. ■ Addressed comments plus other concerns of the Forrests. Commission questions: ■ Concern at 1510 La Mesa Lane about light and amount of glass. Do you meet Title 24 by prescription or performance? (Raduenz: Performance). Do you know the proportion of glass to wall? (Raduenz: Does not know exact number, but can have it calculated if it is a Condition of Approval.) By performance, that means it has been analyzed by computer to ensure it will meet Title 24? (Raduenz: Correct. The Burlingame standard requires exceeding the Title 24 minimum by 15 percent). ■ Have you viewed the site from 1510 La Mesa Lane? (Raduenz: Viewed from road, not from the house. Keeping every tree except one that is in the house.) ■ The panoramic view photo submitted by the neighbor at 1510 La Mesa Lane shows story poles, but part of it is obscured by a tree. Is that the tree that will be retained? It looks like you can only see about half of the house since it is blocked by the tree. (Raduenz: Are keeping two out of the three oak trees.) ■ Are there plans to have black-out shades on the rear windows? (Raduenz: Yes.) - ■ The applicant said he could plant new trees to provide cover, and talk about retaining the bay tre (Raduenz: Depends on what kind of tree is being requested. Would be up for considering it. If the bay tree needs to be removed, could plant some fast-growing cover trees, though it will take some time.) ■ Is tree#9 remaining? (Raduenz: Yes. #9 is the bay tree.) ■ Result of the letters back and forth regarding the level of the patio? (Raduenz: Sunk it by 2 feet on the last submittal.) ■ Could come down to issue of glazing and light. If that is a go or no-go,would there be agreement to change amount of square footage of glass? (Raduenz: Would rather not. Submitted an anti-glare specification sheet, to be used as part of an approval.) ■ Would the window shades be black-out shades or a high-density micro shade? (Raduenz: A micro shade. Header height has been lowered so there will be room for an architectural soffit for the shades.) ■ Occupancy sensors in the main areas? (Raduenz: Yes.) ■ For reducing glazing, in the Living Room window could be raised. (Raduenz: Could be up to 2 feet, but would lose some of the architectural design. It is low to be able to see the living roof.) ■ Can there be a condition that specifies that neighbors cannot appeal? (Kane: City cannot do anything to change the appeal procedures—they are in the Municipal Code. Individuals may enter into private agreements that make sense to them, but the City cannot impose that as a condition.) Public comments: Barbara Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item: ■ Plans submitted one hour before the meeting. Not a thoughtful way to do things. Not respectful the neighbors who have spent dozens of hours trying to make it better. 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Had reached out to applicant right after last meeting so something like this would not happen. ■ This home must adhere to the Municipal Code and to the design guidelines— both, not just one. ■ The design guidelines clearly state that the Neighborhood Design Guidebook is equal in importance to building code research and zoning ordinance research. ■ Inadequate representation of how the house was moved. It was moved 4 feet closer from the original story poles. In revised plans the front of the house most critical to the impact to privacy and light was moved only 1 foot— only the back of the house was moved 1'/2 feet. Asking for 4 feet. ■ There is still such a blockage of sunlight, will be looking at a wall from the kitchen. The design guidelines say to include sensitive placement and height of buildings to avoid substantial blockage of existing sunlight patterns. ■ Has had an enlargement and addition of windows. Window across from kitchen keeps increasing in size; would like it eliminated. If it is returned to its original size (which could be an option)would like it fully frosted at a level 10. ■ Window placement should avoid direct views.When built their home they respected their neighbors. Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item: ■ Back yard retaining wall is 10 feet above the pool elevation. With the railing it is 13'/feet above, and 8 feet away from property line. Elevated back yard is about 1300 square feet. ■ Not maintaining the natural grade at property line as outlined in the design guidelines. ■ The design guidelines say to avoid using retaining walls to increase height above neighbors. ■ The design guidelines say outdoor spaces should not loom over neighboring properties. ■ Will be looking 13 feet into the air, will lose privacy. ■ Would like it lowered by 4 feet so it is below fence line. Currently railing is 3 feet above the fence. Tim Raduenz, project designer, spoke on this item: — d The oak trees will be retained. ■ The railing is the barbeque area at the other side of the property. The pool is 2 feet lower, in response to comments. ■ The side window is the size expressed in the letter (3' x 9'). It is completely glazed 100% in frosted glass. ■ 8 to 9 feet away from setbacks to the chimney overhang. ■ Pushed everything forward. It is a sloping site and the house is as far forward as can be, consistent with neighboring houses. Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item: ■ Glazing on the rear elevation is extreme and does not fit with a residential neighborhood. ■ According to Title 24, typical new single family residential construction has a conditioned floor area/glazing percentage within a 13-23% range, 17% average. ■ Did a study of a modern house on Margarita Avenue, and based on plans calculated ratio of 23%. Calculated 51% for the proposed structure, about 2'/2 times the glazing of the house on Margarita Avenue. ■ If calculated 23% glazing (same as Margarita Avenue example) and applied it to the proposed structure, would calculate at 984 square feet of glazing for the entire structure; proposed structure has 1,285 square feet of glass on the rear. The proposed structure has more glass on the rear than one house has on all sides. ■ Margarita Avenue house has 29% glass on the rear wall; the current project has average of 70%. It is more than twice the glazing as found on what appears to be a typical contemporary house. ■ Even on top level of the Margarita house (with most windows) the wall-to-window ratio is 38%; the upper level of the proposed structure is 73%. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Glazing is extreme for any residential structure and is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. ■ Appreciate the occupancy lighting sensors on the lower levels. Christopher Awoyinka, 4 La Mesa Court, spoke as the applicant: ■ Fourth visit to Planning Commission. ■ At last meeting concluded there were three main concerns to be addressed. Updated plans reflect the recommendations that were made at the last meeting. ■ Proposing to retain a bay tree to help provide the screen for 1510 La Mesa Lane. ■ Have reduced the overall width of the house by 2 feet, have dropped the lower terrace by 2 feet, and will keep the oak tree on the left corner and the bay tree. ■ Not thrilled with concessions but feels have spent enough time going back and forth on the project. Have given all that could possibly be given. ■ The Forrests at 6 La Mesa Court sold the vacant lot approximately a year ago. The marketing literature advertised property as an ideal opportunity to build a home with panoramic views. The property had been on market for one year already, so expect during that time neighbors would have had time to digest the changes that were to come. ■ Has done everything to meet neighbors half way. Has asked for the Commission to be fair and equitable. Robert Crow, 1512 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item: ■ Have written two letters to the Commission. ■ Not opposed to having a house on the lot. 4 La Mesa Court currently looks like a missing tooth. ■ Welcomes contemporary design —that is not an issue. — ■ Bronze siding is a step forward rather than the white stucco first proposed. ■ The problems are mass and glass. This is the wrong house for this site. ■ Applicants have never proposed more than marginal changes to the original proposal, as far as the mass and glass are concerned.. ■ Glass on rear face is 70%, but the top two floors will have the most impact, and those measure about 90%. ■ The house is intrusive and the amount of glass is problem for reflection and light source. Alex Kilgo, 1530 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item: ■ In the last meeting one of the commissioners said "something is wrong since there is nothing but negatives." This is not the case. ■ Have talked with the applicants and there have been concessions. ■ Other neighbors may not be able to come to the Planning Commission because they have small kids and it is not an opportune time to come to a meeting. ■ Supports project and believes there are a lot of other people in the neighborhood who are not in attendance to protest, because they are not against it. Jesse Zimmer, 1541 La Mesa Drive, spoke on this item: ■ Would be nice to have other kids in the neighborhood. ■ When there is an empty lot next door or nearby there is always a chance it will be built on. ■ Would be great to have home that would increase property values, that is modern and different from what else is already there in the neighborhood. _ There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Commission comments: ■ Disturbing to hear that both parties have tried to have a conversation, but it seems to never have happened. We would hope that issues could get sorted out by neighbors, because the proposed project appears to be legal in terms of the regulations including performing 15 percent better than Title 24. ■ There is plenty of evidence of concessions on the part of the applicant. ■ The pool had been further out, but was brought back in. Trees have been retained that were originally proposed to be removed; they still need to have room to build the house. ■ Initially the design was very bulky, but it was revised to step down the slope more. ■ Materials have been changed to blend into the environment more. ■ The remaining issue seems to be the amount of glazing. Not as much of an issue on the second level with the bedrooms since the shades will be drawn at night. ■ Some neighbors have sliding doors and balconies as well. ■ Feels close— it is a good project. Perhaps reduce some of the glazing on the back. ■ To expect there to be no change in the type of architecture over time seems unrealistic. ■ Topic of guidelines. Direction has been, if there is a place for contemporary architecture it will be in the hills. If not here, where? ■ Guidelines and code are not a science. Relies on interpretation. Everyone will not get what they want. Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing. Commission questions to the designer: ■ Confusion with front of the house: has said it has been pulled it back 2 feet, but neighbor mentioned it was only one foot at the front and 1'-6" at the back. Has it been pulled back 2 feet, or is it 2 feet in the back and 1'-6" in the front? (Raduenz: The overhang of the Living Room and bedroom below in the rear portion went 6 inches in, and the house was reduced in width by 1 foot. Then took another 6 inches out of the garage and kitchen. So the front corner of the house is set back an additional 1'- 6" and the portion of the library is set back 2'-0". Were concerned about the Living Room and the light source so was pushed back.) ■ What should the neighbors expect on the three stories of windows in terms of glazing and shades? (Raduenz: Anti-glare film used on apartment buildings in the region. It does not give a green or bronze tint, it is clear. Can share the specifications with the neighbors. Have provided sample of the frosted glass for the neighbors at 6 La Mesa Court.) ■ Comments about the amount of glazing in the back? (Raduenz: It is a modern house with a view. Neighbors have glass as well. Only concession would be to bring the Living Room windows up 18 inches—unfortunate because of the green roof. With the trees retained the only part of the house that will be seen across the canyon will be the kitchen bump-out.) (Awoyinka: Neighbors across the canyon are not facing the property head-on. Retaining the trees will provide screening.) Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Court, spoke on this item: ■ Have not had a chance to review the plans. Tim Raduenz spoke as the project designer: ■ Neighbors should have time to review the plans.Assumed they would have until the next meeting to review the plans. ■ Have responded to the requests in the letter with the revised set of plans. ._ 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Commission questions: ■ Is there an architectural motif that could break up the expanse of glazing, combining with other materials to reduce the amount of glazing? (Awoyinka: Everyone appreciates a good view. The neighbors have glass top levels for the view too.) Isako Hoshino, 1510 La Mesa Lane, spoke on this item: ■ Window areas are not comparable. Patio window area at 1510 La Mesa is 3 windows totaling 180 square feet. Proposed house has 1,285 square feet on the rear, and 414 square feet on the top elevation. ■ Not accurate to say 1510 La Mesa is all glass. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: ■ It is a beautiful house, but the standard is whether it fits into the neighborhood. This effects glazing, finish surfaces, envelope, etc. Though envelope needs to be stretched over time, is it by evolution or revolution? ■ Criteria are the design guidelines, which suggest a house that seems to fit into the existing neighborhood. ■ Applicant appears to be suggesting more time. Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz spoke as the project designer: ■ Was thinking there could be approval, and neighbors could review drawings. ■ Have done everything requested. Chair Bandrapalli closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: ■ There is a need for applicant and neighbors to meet face-to-face to discuss remaining issues. ■ Can review and discuss the changes that have been proposed. ■ Not sufficient to look at view from 1510 La Mesa from the driveway; needs to be from inside the house. (Kane: Commission cannot require people to meet or provide access to their private homes. It is the hope of the Commission that the parties will have a productive conversation but it cannot be required of anyone.) ■ It is in the interest of both sides to meet. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application to a date certain (May 27, 2014), by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion: ■ None. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2-0. (Commissioners Sargent and Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:12 p.m. Commissioners Terrones and Sargent returned to the dais. 6. 1139 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; MARC AND SUE WORRALL, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen(15)conditions were suggested for consideration.There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Una Kinsella represented the applicant: ■ Appreciated the comments from the design study session. Provided opportunity to coordinate with neighbors, and review details of the exterior. Resulted in positive changes. ■ Pulling porch details forward, making the columns more of a statement, and creating a covered entry had not been considered before. ■ Change to materials came about by wanting to have a more defined transition to help the materials to blend. Clients decided they liked the shingles better than the siding, and adding shingles and brackets to the rear elevation made the addition feel less elongated. ■ Wanted to make sure the profile of the rear elevation stayed as low as possible so that the neighbors on the other side of the creek would not be as impacted. Keeping the trees helps to define the privacy more. Commission comments: ■ Intention for the shingles to be natural, or stained?Homogeneous?(Kinsella: Homogeneous, similar color, though will look different on a shingle versus stucco. It will be a hardy cement board that will be painted.) ■ Changes are good. Changes to the front entry give it more presence. ■ Appreciate meeting with the neighbors. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: ■ Great looking project. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the design review application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 1, 2014, Sheets AO through A3, CS and L1, and including a note on the site plan ar landscape plan to show that the protected-size Oak Tree in the backyard shall remain; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff),- 3. taff);3. 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), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's February 24, 2014 memo, the Building Division's February 14 and March 25, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's February 14, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's February 18, 2014, and the Stormwater Division's February 26, 2014 memo shall be met; 5. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Side Setback Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project constructiory— plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by tl Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional,that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the_ property; 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Terrones moved to approve the Variance application, by resolution, with the following findings: ■ The addition is an extension of existing condition; ■ The garage will be substantially further back from the minimum setback. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:31 p.m. 7. 2501 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (NIMA AND ELLE PARIVAR, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GRANT LEE, MARTINKOVIC MILFORD ARCHITECTS ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Commissioner Sargent noted that he was not at the design review meeting for this item but watched the video, and also noted that he had previously owned property within 500 feet of the subject property but had sold it. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Grant Lee represented the applicant: 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Reduced the footprint of the entry stair, making it an L with a switch-back that terminates in an en' porch. ■ Engaged a landscape architect. Has a mix of low and higher shrubbery and plants, as well as trees. Commission comments: ■ Likes the house and the corner entry. It is very welcoming the way it is now. Understands the reasoning of why wanting to fill in to gain some more floor area and move the entrance, but from a design perspective it feels like the siding area with the big window is too busy. It's repeated in the back and looks like an addition. ■ Hillside Drive is a grand boulevard for Burlingame, so even though the entrance is being changed to Castillo it's still important what it looks like on the Hillside side. That elevation is prominent and needs more consideration. • Lots of railing on the new stairs. Railing looks very contemporary, seems out of step with the neighborhood. (Lee: Flat metal railing with a rectangular profile. Wanted to create something that was as minimal as possible. Not cable railing — it is a metal flat bar, about 3 inches x half-inch in profile.) Horizontal rail looks out of place for the character of the house. The code may also consider this rail a ladder, and the code does not allow building a rail that could become a ladder for people to climb on. ■ Board and batten is unusual for the area, seems "cabin-like." Could be very nice, depends how it's executed, does not want it to look like T1-11 siding. (Lee: Board and batten is part of the history of Burlingame. Wanted to break up the monotony of just having stucco; having the other forms and modules provides human scale, as referenced in the design guidelines.) ■ Landing seems too small at the top of stair, does not look functional. (Lee: Stair is per code. Landing has to to be at minimum the width of the stair.) - ■ Does not have issue with board and batten. Would it be homogenous color —just a change material, but a similar color palette? (Lee: Boards and batten will be the same color, but not the same color as the stucco. Will be using earth tones, with light khaki on the body of house, and a greenish color for the board and batten.) Should look like it is intentional with just a change of material to break down the massing, as opposed to being like a cabin where there was a stucco building and then a shed was added to the side. Colors will be critical to keeping it harmonious. ■ Existing stair is part of the main character of the corner lot. Does not need to be retained necessarily, but in replacing it something that adds a lot of character and charm to the corner is being replaced with something utilitarian with minimum width. The proposed stair has metal guard rails, whereas the existing stair has seat walls. A configuration with seat walls would allow a simple hand rail, more grand and open to the corner. Wouldn't replicate existing stair but would retain the character and charm. ■ Why the gap between the stair and the bump out of the Dining Room? (Lee: Extending the top landing would create something too massive. Also adding seat walls to the stair would create something that is more massive. Intent is to make something that is not about a massive stair. Have also added landscaping including new trees.) ■ Having gap between landing and Dining Room creates a tall wall with guard rail, but if the landing just ran to wall of Dining Room, would not need to have the guard rail. Proposed configuration is very tight. (Lee: Could share design studies that had been done.) ■ The metal rail and the board and batten will give it a more contemporary feel. Not sure how it will blend in with the existing house and neighborhood. ■ Railing feels industrial. ■ Stair takes away from the neighborhood. Landscaping is good, but existing stair is a great element and is being replaced with something that is not equal. Public comments: 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie moved to refer the application to a design review consultant, by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sargent. Discussion of motion. ■ None Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:49 p.m. 8. 1512 RALSTON AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DION HEFFRAN, APPLICANT; GLOBAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP., PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL MOYER CONSULTING ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum noted that he had spoken to the neighbor across the street at 1515 Ralston Avenue and he said he had no issues. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Dion Heffran represented the applicant: ■ Wrote letter, hoped people read it. Commission questions: ■ Is there a reason why did not want to meet with the design review consultant?(Heffran: Did not think anything would be gained by it. Felt confident the house would be harmonious.) ■ Issues with massing — it is a "straight-up" building. Helps to have brought down the height. ■ Details that were submitted —506 Warren Road in San Mateo example is a good-looking building. Can some of the details of that house be employed here? (Heffran: That is a more "ethnic" styled house; the proposal here is a more European-inspired design. The house on Warren Road has too much detail.) ■ Why does this house need to have the added foam trim under the gutter? (Heffran: Because the gutter is square. The gutter has a shadow line, and the step molding underneath the gutter makes it look nicer.) ■ The Warren Road house had a nice rake detail with the turned/rolled tiles versus the detail for this house. (Heffran: Can turn the tile in the front.) ■ Trying to figure out what's lacking in front elevation. Possibly small windows on the second floor gable, round-tile vents on the lower gable, timbers over the windows. These are the types of details could have been vetted with a design review consultant. T 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Does not see the love and care in the drawings for this project that are on the other houses that were shown as examples. (Heffran: It is an evolution, leans towards minimalism. Too many hous, in Burlingame are excessively adorned.) ■ Looks like a multi-family building rather than a single-family home. Could be from lack of detail. ■ Would be good to see some additional drawings with the types of details comparable to the other houses presented. (Heffran: Dislike overly adorned houses. Willing to make some adjustments but not going to have a dandy. The house on Warren Road is heavily adorned, the house on Jackling Drive is modestly adorned.) ■ Side elevation has no relief in the massing, looks like a layer cake. (Heffran: That is the elevation next to the parking lot. Can't see it from the parking lot.) ■ Other side that is visible from the neighboring property is also all one plane. Even with trellis, the massing is a uniform plane, not broken up. (Heffran: There is a two-foot cantilever, casting shadow during the day. Creeping fig will cut the color of the house in half.) ■ Trellises should be placed in reference to the windows. Looks like they are placed haphazardly;they should be placed the same distance from the windows so it has balance. (Heffran: Can adjust.) ■ Needs more windows on the second floor. (Heffran: Doesn't like the windows either, but needs to get ventilation outside the noise corridor of EI Camino Real.) ■ Side fagade with the brackets works best; front looks too bare. Even if it does not get more adornment, looks very utilitarian. Windows on second floor pushed to corners don't help the fagade, looks too much like a multifamily apartment. (Heffran: Had considered putting a balcony on the second floor corner with balustrades.) ■ Does the Living Room have a vaulted ceiling? (Heffran: No, the gable is a false front.) ■ Portion of the lower roof pitch that flattens out seems odd. ■ This conversation would be great to have with a design review consultant. Not fair to the other applicants waiting to have their projects heard, and cannot spend this amount of time on every project. Encourage meeting with the design review consultant—would be a great sounding board fr— discussing a minimalist design that still meets the guidelines and could be approved. ■ Think about the long side fagade with no windows. If exposed in the future it would not look good. Understands the security concerns, but not sure how eliminating windows on one side will be effective when there are windows just around the corner on the front. (Heffran: Daughter has been broken into twice — security is an issue. Perception of security is as important as reality. House is next to an unattended parking lot. There is a 6-foot fence and the foliage will remain.) ■ Revisions are baby steps, but it is so far away from where it needs to be to be approved. Point of the design review consultant is to assist in designing a project that can get approved, not to punish. Otherwise there will be a vote where the project gets denied. Public comments: Dave Lombardi, 1521 Ralston Avenue: ■ Lives across the street. ■ No security problem. Has lived there for 47 years. It's a wonderful neighborhood. ■ Need charm and character for the neighborhood. ■ The resident who expressed support is a short-term tenant; should talk to the owner. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. ■ Not clear whether the applicant will meet with the design review consultant. (Kane: Staff seeks to have a cooperative relationship between the applicant and design review consultant. However under Code Section 25.57.030(c), whether to refer to a design review consultant is solely within the discretion of the Planning Commission and does not require the participation of the applicant. TI, 18 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 becomes a moot point if the applicant does not support the analysis, and ultimately the applicant is in control of his application.) ■ The discussion here is the type that would be had with a design review consultant. This is not the forum for that level of discussion. ■ The changes from last time were small and incremental. If he does not meet with design review consultant, there would probably be multiple meetings. ■ Issue is whether applicant would agree with what design review consultant recommends, or what Planning Commission would want to see in order to approve the project. ■ If continued, would have an opportunity to go to design review consultant. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the application, with direction to the applicant to seek the advice of a design review consultant and for staff to identify a compatible consultant to serve as a resource. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion: ■ Is just a repeat from the last meeting. ■ Applicant has seen that what has been submitted is not approvable. ■ Would like to avoid having multiple meetings to review design. ■ Unclear whether applicant is willing to make changes sufficient for approval and still stay true to his goals. ■ If alternative is denial without prejudice, would not be too different from continuing. Would still allow applicant to bring back a project with changes. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-2-0-0 (Commissioners DeMartini and Sargent dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:36 p.m. 9. 1521 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; ROBERT AND JESSICA LAWSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson represented the applicant: • Has addressed the comments regarding the rear of the house. Have added a bay window and enlarged a window to break up the massing. ■ French doors and windows have been matched. ■ Trim on front of house is inspired by a Maybeck house (photo submitted as an exhibit). Original design was by a Maybeck apprentice, so trying to work with the Maybeck vocabulary. Finds design as submitted to be beautiful and in harmony with the overall house; not wanting to change it much. Commission questions/comments: 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Commission made 10 comments on the project before. Five were in regards to the trim, with concerns that the trim looked "spindly" but there have been no changes. Still has problem with t' trim. Not an issue of the size, since 8"x 8" is big, but where this occurs elsewhere on the house is . areas less than 8 feet tall. Concern is it is a prominent piece of the front elevation, and it is more than twice the height. It is not an issue of the bulk or trim itself, it is how it is applied to the elevation that makes it look"spindly." (Robertson: It is unusual and not a common motif, but love how it looks. It is complementary, harmonious and dramatic—aesthetically pleasing.) • Likes the big window, but not convinced by the trim. ■ Are timbers embedded in the stucco? (Robertson: Will be surface-mounted, bolted from the back, embedded with stucco. It is not bolted to the surface; it is put on first and the stucco is applied around it. Will be applied as shown on Page 2.) ■ The trim looks like stilts. • Likes the picture submitted with the deep overhang and the horizontal treatment, but that's not what is being proposed. (Robertson: Can't do it like that. Have tried many renditions, and this stood out as being an unusual aesthetic, balanced and harmonious.) ■ Changes to the doors are good. ■ The proportions are not harmonious. Maybe add another horizontal member below to give it a sense of support and bring it into scale. ■ If the "stilts" timbering were removed the skinny windows would be more special. ■ Other changes are fine. It's just this one element. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chair Bandrapalli re-opened the public hearing. Jessica Lawson spoke as the property owner: ■ Tried a lot of things and didn't like any of them. Likes this one. Commission comments: ■ In the photos submitted, the posts are less than 8 feet tall. They are nicely proportioned. The trellis and carport are great features, but all of the posts are in the 7-8 foot range. The element here is twice as tall, but would not want to have to go to 16-inch pieces of wood just to get the same proportions. ■ Intrigued with suggestion to add some horizontal members, though could end up looking like a Tudor house (Lawson: Tried that, tried it with a balcony and with doors on the side, windows on the side. We have tried everything.) ■ If referencing Maybeck could try corner windows, and replicating the vertical slot windows to help with the proportions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. ■ Rare to have a design feature that evokes such strong and unanimous feeling across the Commission. ■ It is the proportion, and also that it looks stuck on. ■ It is a discreet item so does not warrant engaging a design review consultant. ■ Continue the item with direction to reconsider the specific design element. 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Commissioner Sargent moved to continue the application by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Another option would be to approve it with direction that the element be revised to frame the window rather than extend to the ground. ■ Would not serve the applicant if it got pulled later, requiring another meeting. Continuing the item would be cleaner. Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:57 p.m. 10. 1300 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A NEW COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY (PILATES AND BARRE STUDIO) IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (BRIAN SWARTZ, APPLICANT; SETH BROOKSHIRE, DESIGNER; ERVIN EPSTEIN, JR. ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission questions: ■ Does the Broadway BID represent the businesses in that area? (Kane: Is defined by geographical area, consisting of current businesses as of a date and time when an assessment is done. It is the tenant businesses rather than the landlords who contribute. The group represents all tenants within the geographical boundaries.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Annabelle Jones represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: • Closing at 5:00 p.m. ratherthan 6:00 p.m. on Fridays would be helpful in terms of parking impacts.A lot of parking at 5:00, but by 6:00 it is all taken. Concern about impact on restaurants on Friday nights. All other conditions are fine. (Jones: Friday classes will end at 6:00, and those who are not staying for dinner or shopping will be vacating their spaces. Also anticipate a lot of people will walk there. Classes end at 10 minutes before the top of the hour.) ■ Hope people walk to the studio, as well as the restaurants. Public comments: Brian Swartz represented the applicant: ■ When we met with the BID,they said if anything they want the business to be open more. It will be a complementary clientele who will then go to dinner, and bring more economic activity to the area. 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION-Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Robert Cutler represented the property owner: ■ When the previous tenant moved out, put the space on the market and 90 percent of the applican,- were restaurants. Not something the owner wanted - he has a restaurant in the building already. ■ Prospective retailers found the premises too large. ■ Property owner thinks this will be a good fit. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. ■ OK with 6:00 p.m. ending time on Fridays. ■ Supporting Variance: Support of neighboring businesses that would be impacted by the parking, findings of parking study, and direction to employees to park in certain parking lots. ■ Supporting Conditional Use Permit: Will add benefit to the local area and neighboring businesses. Commissioner Sargent moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the commercial recreation use with classes(group fitness instruction studio) shall be limited to 3,907 SF of the existing commercial building at 1300 Broadway, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped April 7, 2014, sheets Al.1 and A2.1; 2. that the business owner shall direct employees of the group fitness instruction studio to park in Public Parking Lot R and T; 3. that the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance shall apply only to a group fitness instruction studio and shall become void if the group fitness instruction studio ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or fr -- replacement; 4. that all activities associated with the group fitness instruction studio shall occur indoor only; no portion of the exterior of the site shall be used for activities associated with the group fitness instruction studio; 5. that the group fitness instruction studio may only be open for business Monday through Thursday from 5:30 a.m.to 8:00 p.m., on Fridayfrom 5:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Saturdayfrom 6:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m.; there shall be a maximum one full-time and three part-time employees on site at any time; 6. that the maximum number people on site at any one time shall be 27 persons, including the employees and customers; 7. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 8. that the conditions of the Building Division's April 10, 2014 and March 14, 2014 memos, the Fire Division's March 24, 2014 memo and the Engineering Division's March 27, 2014 memo; 9. that interior demolition or removal of the existing structures 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; 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ None Chair Bandrapalli called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 515 MARIN DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR FIRSTAND SECOND STORYADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT DOMENICI, APPLICANT, DESIGNER, AND PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERIKA LEWIT All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Planning Manager Gardiner briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: ■ How does the Special Permit relate to the FAR nonconformity? (Gardiner: In this instance the FAR is a net zero change. It is above the maximum, but it is not an increase. The request on this application is for a Special Permit, which has different findings than a Variance.)(Kane: In other applications requesting Variances, Variances have heightened findings. The question with nonconformity is whether changes are being made that are consistent with the district regulations. Since the nonconformity section was enacted, provisions for Special Permits were added that have somewhat permissive and design-based criteria. They don't rise to the level of a Variance.)(Gard iner: With a Variance a hardship needs to be demonstrated, whereas a Special Permit is more focused on architectural design, particularly for purposes of being more consistent with either the design of the house or the pattern of the neighborhood. There is not a hardship, but there does need to be a demonstrated ratio nale.)(Kane: Whether the Special Permit requested fits with the district regulations is something the Planning Commission determines.) Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. Rob Domenici represented the applicant. ■ Wanting to improve the house. Not planning to change the front, except for improving windows and a new roof. Commission questions/comments: 23 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION-Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Application says existing house encroaches 21 square feet into the declining height envelope, and addition would encroach 16 feet. Is the 16 square feet being added to the 21 square fec (Domenici: The 21 feet is existing. Just trying to follow the same line on the house, and the sarT,- roofline.)(Gardiner: The 16 square feet is in addition to the existing 21 square feet, and would be from continuing the line of the existing wall plane.) ■ It's a good project-the rear elevation is improved, and the addition is tucked in in a way that it feels like it was there to begin with. ■ The Special Permit is supportable because there is no net effect from the street.There is already an encroachment and it's just the wall plane that is being continued and not adding mass into the envelope. ■ Roof plans are inconsistent from one drawing to another. In one place the rear roof is shown as a hip roof, in another it is a gable. There is some confusion to how the new roof hits the existing roof. (Domenici: Has included some photos taken from the neighbor's house showing how the roof works. Has held off on getting structural drawing until decided if the idea will work.Will tie together once the structural drawing is prepared.) The idea of extending the line seems like the right idea.) ■ Do the second floor windows look into the neighbor's currently, and will that change with the addition? (Domenici: Currently there is just one window facing the neighbor's driveway. Will be working with the next door neighbor- he submitted a letter in support of the project.) Public comments: ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when completr- Discussion: ■ Needs to come back on Regular Action to review the roof plan. It is a strange existing condition, and may work fine but needs to look at it again. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Bandrapalli 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 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:27 p.m. 12. 50 LOMA VISTA DRIVE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; CHRISTOPHER J. KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014,with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. 24 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 James Chu represented the applicant: ■ Single-story house. Rear trellis is counted towards floor area. Commissioner questions: ■ Would the location of the garage in back right corner make it less likely it will be used? Will the parking pad in the front be retained? (Chu: No, the parking pad would not be retained. The garage is placed in the corner to buffer from noise from Interstate 280. There is a long driveway providing a lot of parking, and there is a door from the breakfast nook/kitchen so it will be used.) ■ With the French doors to the porch, would that be an extension or entertaining space? (Chu: Wanted some cover with the porch.) It is very solid with the thick walls and not as inviting as it could be. If it was opened up it might get used more. ■ Single-story house with great scale. ■ Massing is nice, and is broken up with the wood siding and stucco. ■ Arches are the only things out of place, feel out of character and massive. Ranch houses surrounding have a pattern of clean, simple posts for the porches. Could do that and still achieve the sense of enclosure— maybe double-up some columns. ■ Likes the trellis in the back. Perhaps that could influence the porch. Christopher Knightly spoke as the property owner: ■ Most homes in the neighborhood are single-story. ■ Wants the arches to break it up; everything else is square. ■ Covered porch is not for entertaining; entertaining will happen in the back. ■ Don't wear shoes in the house, so covered porch area provides place for shoes. Not too bulky, gives a bit more privacy. ■ Something other than square lines and horizontal siding. Commission questions/comments: ■ It is drawn as a really thick wall. Is that the intention? (Chu: Yes, that is intentional.) ■ There is an odd passageway between the front porch and side porch beside the dining room. It looks narrow. Public comments: ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. ■ Charming project, well done. OK with the arches. ■ Arches could be done well if the applicant feels strongly about them. Not opposed to the arches, except for their lack of adornment. They are big stucco pieces,while the rest of the house is refined with finer wood siding, shutters, finer trims, small eaves, small gutters. The arches are bulky. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: 25 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION-Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ None. Chair Bandrapalli called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:40 p.m. Commissioner Terrones noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 13 (1517 Chapin Avenue) because he has a business relationship with the property owner, and Agenda Item 14 (1321 Paloma Avenue) for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers. 13. 1517 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., DESIGNER AND APPLICANT;ZERS BEAUTY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014,with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. James Chu represented the applicant: ■ Has spoken to neighbors at 1515 Chapin Avenue. They have some concerns with views from one of the bedrooms of the proposed house into their master bathroom. Can plant some privacy screening- The driveway is wide (over 11 feet) so can plant directly in front of the window. Also proposii frosted glass in the bedroom of the proposed house. Commission questions/comments: ■ Cedar headers over the windows-are they painted? (Chu: They could be painted. Typos:they are not 8xs- should be 1 xs.). Should be painted to match the trim. ■ House is very well massed. However with French chateau architectural style it is odd to have arts and crafts brackets. ■ Is shrubbery along the driveway on the subject property or neighbors' property? (Chu: The shrubbery is not on plan -just on the rendering. Would be a 6-foot stucco wall along the property line, as shown on the Landscape Plan.) ■ Rendering is great for showing the massing of the house. ■ The side door to the foyer is on the right side, but the driveway is on the left. Would the side door be used? (Chu: The door leads to a patio area.) Public comments: Bob Gilligan, 1518 Burlingame Avenue, spoke on this item: ■ Has the house directly behind. ■ Detached garage of proposed house will back up to theirs; backyards will back up to each other too. ■ Proposed house has a deck on the second story looking out over the back yard. ■ Would make sense to flip the design on axis so that the detached garage of the new house is on the right side of the lot, so the garages would be offset and provide a buffer. Would provide mo privacy in the yards. 26 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 ■ Very large house for the neighborhood, so this might be an improvement to the design. Chad Altbaier, 1515 Chapin Avenue, spoke on this item: ■ Agrees with previous comment about changing the garage location, although the driveway as shown has value for providing space between the houses. ■ Privacy is main concern: has a large bay window on the second floor with the bathtub and shower in the window area. Has a very open view right now.Appreciates offer to add landscape screening and frosted windows; not sure what other options are available. ■ Will be a spec home so the new buyer may decide to do something else. ■ Wants to protect mutual privacy. Bedroom#4 would look directly in line with the bay windows of the master bath next door, separated by about 20 feet. ■ Concern over construction noise during the day. ■ Large house, takes up a lot of the lot. Might look overwhelming for the lot. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: ■ One neighbor would like to flip house to the other side, but this would move house closer to the other neighbor. Sometimes there is a pattern where most of the houses have the driveway on one side. ■ If flipped house and put the driveway on the right side, of the four protected trees would need to take out all four. According to the arborist report two of the trees appear to need to be removed, but would be painful to remove all four. Would like to save the two big trees. ■ If the driveway and garage are kept where they are, there could be more landscaping and screening at the back fence. There is a fair amount already. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Loftis. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Bandrapalli 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 6-0-1-0(Commissioner Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:57 p.M. 14. 1321 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RETAIN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE) (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PATRICK GILSON, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent reported that he had discussed the project drawings with the project designer but did not discuss the merits of the project. There were no other ex-parte communications. Reference staff report dated May 12, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description, and reported that a letter in support of the project was received after preparation of the staff report from the property owner at 1320 Paloma Avenue. There were no questions of staff. 27 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 Chair Bandrapalli opened the public comment period. James Chu and Patrick Gilson represented the applicant. ■ Replacing an existing craftsman house with a new craftsman house. Commission comments: ■ The existing house looks nice from the outside — is it in disrepair? In terms of the architectural detailing, it is the one house on the block wouldn't want to lose. Though it is small. (Gilson: Yes— termite damage, and the back portion of the house is in disrepair. The beams under the house are rotten. When purchased the home was not planning to tear it down, but when consulted with the structural engineers it would not allow what wanted to achieve.) ■ Take pictures before tearing it down; maybe somebody will be inspired to build something like it. (Gilson: Has neighborhood support.) ■ What are stone pillars sitting on the front porch sitting on? (Chu: They are sitting on a concrete slab.) They look better on the rendering, where there is a low wall in front. (Chu: Blue stone wall in front.) Stone wall in front helps give the stone pillars meaning in the design. ■ Lighthouse-style chimneys in stucco don't fit with the rest of the house. In rendering they are shingle; which seems better. ■ On the front fagade above the gable on the right-hand side there is a gable over the stairway. It looks blank—maybe a clerestory window over the stairway. (Gilson: Had considered a window there initially but it would be difficult to clean.) ■ Likes the flanges at the bottom. Maybe taper stone bases under columns similarly,so they don't look so chunky and blocky. — ■ It looks like part of the building encroaches into the declining height envelope. (Hurin: Dormers a an exception.) ■ House seems big compared to the other homes on street. However there are some other larger homes on the street that were approved that will be built, and it blends in well. (Chu: Has support from both adjacent neighbors.) Public comments: ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Bandrapalli called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:08 a.m. Commissioner Terrones returned to the dais. 28 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes May 12, 2014 COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT ■ Noted that there will be a community meeting for the Housing Element Update on Tuesday, May 20th at 7:00 pm at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue. The meeting will look at potential opportunity sites and new housing policies. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of May 5, 2014: ■ The Sunrise Senior project at 1818 Trousdale Drive has entered into a settlement agreement with the City, under which the building permits are extended in exchange for certain guarantees of completion dates and construction milestones,with penalties that accrue for missed deadlines. The contractor has been meeting with the Building Official and construction is planned to commence in the next few weeks. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bandrapalli adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Will Loftis, Secretary 29 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary April 30, 2014 Par Market Book % of Days to YTMIC YTMIC Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF & County Pool 41,595,341.99 41,586,837.82 41,595,341.99 50.74 1 1 0.280 0.284 Certificates of Deposit- Bank 3,500,000.00 3,533,139.72 3,500,000.00 4.27 1,396 972 1.234 1.251 CORP NOTES 1,000,000.00 993,410.00 1,000,000.00 1.22 1,096 1,039 0.740 0.750 Commercial Paper- Discount 1,000,000.00 999,164.00 997,334.88 1.22 269 137 0.362 0.367 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 34,909,654.50 34,688,217.38 34,878,644.84 42.55 1,631 541 0.990 1.004 82,004,996.49 81,800,768.92 81,971,321.71 100.00% 771 287 0.629 0.638 Investments Total Earnings April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 40,281.88 401 ,693.29 Average Daily Balance 81,961,664.78 79,235,545.41 Effective Rate of Return 0.60% 0.61% Pursuant to State law, there are su cient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and availa ifity of some of th funds i restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). 7 cAkTL AUGUS NE, NANCE IRECTOR/TREASURER Reporting period 04/01/2014-04/30/2014 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 05/14/2014 - 09:37 - .,. - . , - ,. -PWPRF_PM1)-7.2.5 Report Ver. 7.3.1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 1 Portfolio Details - Investments April 30, 2014 Average Purchase Stated YTM/C Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 365 Maturity Date LAIF & County Pool SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 07/01/2013 36,425,621.24 36,435,572.97 36,425,621.24 0.233 0.233 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 07/01/2013 5,169,720.75 5,151,264.85 5,169,720.75 0.640 0.640 1 Subtotal and Average 41,585,685.06 41,595,341.99 41,586,837.82 41,595,341.99 0.284 1 Certificates of Deposit - Bank 02005QT862 728 ALLY BANK UT 12/05/2012 250,000.00 250,663.28 250,000.00 0.750 0.760 218 12/05/2014 02587DSF6 756 AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION 08/22/2013 250,000.00 253,842.75 250,000.00 1.900 1.900 1,574 08/22/2018 05568P4S3 753 BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA 08/16/2013 250,000.00 252,207.00 250,000.00 1.400 1.400 838 08/16/2016 17284CUXO 763 CIT BANK 12/04/2013 250,000.00 251,580.43 250,000.00 1.450 1.450 1,313 12/04/2017 20451PCL8 755 COMPASS BANK 08/21/2013 250,000.00 252,787.25 250,000.00 1.800 1.800 1,573 08/21/2018 2546710E8 702 DISCOVER BANK 06/06/2012 250,000.00 255,725.30 250,000.00 1.800 1.800 1 ,132 06/06/2017 321086FJ4 734 FIRST NATIONAL BANK 02/13/2013 250,000.00 249,739.75 250,000.00 0.400 0.400 469 08/13/2015 33764JYJ8 750 FIRST BANK OF PUERTO RICO 08/16/2013 250,000.00 251,224.98 250,000.00 0.900 0.900 838 08/16/2016 36161TAQ8 704 GE CAPITAL FINANCIAL 06/08/2012 250,000.00 253,908.50 250,000.00 1.350 1.350 769 06/08/2016 361570EL7 703 GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK 06/08/2012 250,000.00 255,735.18 250,000.00 1.800 1.800 1,134 06/08/2017 38143AUG8 701 GOLDMAN SACHS BANK 06/06/2012 250,000.00 255,725.30 250,000.00 1.800 1.800 1,132 06/06/2017 48125TGH2 774 JP MORGAN CHASE 03/10/2014 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 1.000 1.000 1,774 03/10/2019 59012YZ91 730 Merrick Bank 12/21/2012 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.550 0.550 235 12/22/2014 78658AAZ1 731 SAFRA NATIONAL BANK 12/31/2012 250,000.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.600 0.600 609 12/31/2015 Subtotal and Average 3,500,000.00 3,500,000.00 3,533,139.72 3,500,000.00 1.251 972 CORP NOTES 89236TBD6 773 TOYOTA MTR CR CORP 03/05/2014 1,000,000.00 993,410.00 1,000,000.00 0.750 0.750 1,039 03/05/2017 Subtotal and Average 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 993,410.00 1,000,000.00 0.750 1,039 Commercial Paper - Discount 46640QJF9 769 JP MORGAN SECURITIES 12/20/2013 1,000,000.00 999,164.00 997,334.88 0.357 0.367 137 09/15/2014 Subtotal and Average 997,334.88 1,000,000.00 999,164.00 997,334.88 0.367 137 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133EAA81 711 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 07/31/2012 2,000,000.00 1,989,640.00 1 ,998,000.00 0.780 0.803 1,005 01/30/2017 3133EAE38 716 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 08/08/2012 2,000,000.00 1,985,580.00 1,998,000.00 0.820 0.842 1,096 05/01/2017 3133ECE91 733 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 02/01/2013 1,000,000.00 998,510.00 1,000,000.00 0.400 0.400 641 02/01/2016 3133ECHS6 735 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/12/2013 1,000,000.00 984,200.00 1,000,000.00 1.030 1.030 1,411 03/12/2018 3133802CO 710 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 07/26/2012 1,000,000.00 998,510.00 1,000,000.00 1.050 1.050 1,182 07/26/2017 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 05/14/2014 - 09:37 - - - _ .. :. - - - - - PM (PRF_PM2) 7.2.5 . Report Ver. 7.3.1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments April 30, 2014 Average Purchase Stated YTM/C Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 365 Maturity Date Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133805K9 713 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/08/2012 654,827.25 654,873.09 654,172.42 0.720 0.745 830 08/08/2016 3133805K9 714 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/08/2012 654,827.25 654,873.09 654,172.42 0.720 0.745 830 08/08/2016 3133804V6 718 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/14/2012 1,000,000.00 995,730.00 999,300.00 1.000 1.014 1,196 08/09/2017 3133804V6 719 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/05/2012 1,000,000.00 995,730.00 1 ,000,000.00 1.000 1.000 1,196 08/09/2017 31338OMF1 720 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2012 1 ,000,000.00 990,460.00 999,500.00 1.000 Aaa 1.010 1,236 09/18/2017 31338OMF1 721 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2012 1,000,000.00 990,460.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 Aaa 1.000 1,236 09/18/2017 31338ONTO 722 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/27/2012 1 ,000,000.00 989,450.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 1.000 1,245 09/27/2017 313381W68 732 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/30/2013 2,000,000.00 1,995,700.00 2,000,000.00 0.750 0.600 90 01/30/2018 3130AIC63 771 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/26/2014 1,000,000.00 998,580.00 1 ,000,000.00 1.250 2.171 148 03/26/2019 313OA15W4 772 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/27/2014 1,000,000.00 999,540.00 999,000.00 0.875 0.909 57 03/27/2017 3134G44N5 741 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 05/28/2013 1,000,000.00 980,312.50 1,000,000.00 0.750 0.750 392 11/28/2017 3134G43S5 744 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 05/15/2013 1,000,000.00 989,770.00 1,000,000.00 0.625 0.625 379 05/15/2017 3134G46D5 746 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 06/12/2013 2,000,000.00 1,964,100.00 1 ,989,000.00 1.200 1.757 42 06/12/2018 3134G4EF1 748 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 08/13/2013 1,550,000.00 1,553,193.00 1,550,000.00 1.000 1.000 104 02/13/2017 3134G4FA1 751 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 08/27/2013 1,000,000.00 1,002,343.70 1,000,000.00 1.000 1.000 118 02/27/2017 3134G4NZ7 768 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 12/27/2013 1,000,000.00 1,002,060.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.887 57 12/27/2018 3134G4V39 770 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 02/28/2014 1 ,000,000.00 999,120.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 2.008 119 02/28/2019 3135GORQ8 723 FANNIE MAE 11/15/2012 1,000,000.00 989,250.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 1.000 14 11/15/2017 3136GOZ61 724 FANNIE MAE 11/14/2012 1,000,000.00 988,690.00 998,500.00 0.900 1.001 13 11/14/2017 3136GO6M8 726 FANNIE MAE 11/27/2012 2,000,000.00 1,974,260.00 2,000,000.00 0.900 0.900 26 11/27/2017 3136GO6Z9 729 FANNIE MAE 12/13/2012 2,000,000.00 1,991,940.00 2,000,000.00 0.650 0.650 43 12/13/2016 3136G1KS7 736 FANNIE MAE 05/15/2013 1,050,000.00 1,047,942.00 1,050,000.00 0.500 0.500 14 08/15/2016 3136G1BT55 761 FANNIE MAE 11/19/2013 2,000,000.00 1,983,400.00 1,989,000.00 0.850 Aaa 1.015 1 ,194 08/07/2017 Subtotal and Average 34,878,644.84 34,909,664.50 34,688,217.38 34,878,644.84 1.004 641 Total and Average 81,961,664.78 82,004,996.49 81,800,768.92 81,971,321.71 0.638 287 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:.05/14/2014 - 09:37 PM (PRF PM2) 7.2.5 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Cash April 30, 2014 Average Purchase Stated YTM/C Days to CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 365 Maturity Average Balance 0.00 0 Total Cash and Investments 81,961,664.78 82,004,996.49 81,800,768.92 81,971,321.71 0.638 287 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 05/14/2014 - 09:37 - _ - PM (PRF_PM2) 7.2.5 f ( � CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Investment Status Report - Investments Page 1 April 30, 2014 Stated Maturity Purchase YTM/C YTM/C Payment Accrued Interest Current CUSIP Investment # Issuer Par Value Rate Date Date 360 365 Dates At Purchase Principal Book Value LAIF & County Pool SYS77 77 LAIF 36,425,621.24 0.233 07/01/2013 0.230 0.233 09/30 - Quarterly 36,425,621.24 36,425,621.24 SYS79 79 SMPOOL 5,169,720.75 0.640 07/01/2013 0.631 0.640 09/30 - Quarterly 5,169,720.75 5,169,720.75 LAIF & County Pool Totals 41,595,341.99 0.280 0.284 0.00 41,595,341.99 41,595,341.99 Certificates of Deposit - Bank 02005OT862 728 ALLY B 250,000.00 0.75012/05/2014 12/05/2012 0.750 0.760 01/05 - Monthly 250,000.00 250,000.00 02587DSF6 756 AMEXCN 250,000.00 1.90008/22/2018 08/22/2013 1 .874 1.900 02/12 - 08/12 250,000.00 250,000.00 05568P4S3 753 BMW 250,000.00 1.40008/16/2016 08/16/2013 1.381 1.400 02/16 - 08/16 250,000.00 250,000.00 17284CUXO 763 CITBAK 250,000.00 1.45012/04/2017 12/04/2013 1.430 1.450 06/04 - 12/04 250,000.00 250,000.00 20451PCL8 755 COMPAS 250,000.00 1.80008/21/2018 08/21/2013 1.775 1.800 02/12 - 08/12 250,000.00 250,000.00 2546710E8 702 DISCOV 250,000.00 1.80006/06/2017 06/06/2012 1.775 1.800 12/06 - 06/06 250,000.00 250,000.00 321086FJ4 734 FIRST 250,000.00 0.40008/13/2015 02/13/2013 0.395 0.400 03/01 - Monthly 250,000.00 250,000.00 33764JYJ8 750 FPR 250,000.00 0.90008/16/2016 08/16/2013 0.888 0.900 09/16 - Monthly 250,000.00 250,000.00 36161TAQ8 704 GE CAP 250,000.00 1.35006/08/2016 06/08/2012 1.332 1.350 12/01 - 06/01 250,000.00 250,000.00 361570EL7 703 GE RET 250,000.00 1.80006/08/2017 06/08/2012 1.775 1.800 12/08 - 06/08 250,000.00 250,000.00 38143AUGB 701 GOLD 250,000.00 1.80006/06/2017 06/06/2012 1.775 1.800 12/06 - 06/06 250,000.00 250,000.00 48125TGH2 774 JPCHAS 250,000.00 1.00003/10/2019 03/10/2014 0.986 1.000 09/10 - 03/10 250,000.00 250,000.00 59012YZ91 730 MERRIC 250,000.00 0.55012/22/2014 12/21/2012 0.542 0.550 01/13 - Monthly 250,000.00 250,000.00 78658AAZ1 731 SAFRA 250,000.00 0.60012/31/2015 12/31/2012 0.592 0.600 06/30 - 12/31 250,000.00 250,000.00 Certificates of Deposit - Bank Totals 3,500,000.00 1.234 1.251 0.00 3,500,000.00 3,500,000.00 CORP NOTES 89236TBD6 773 TOY 1,000,000.00 0.75003/05/2017 03/05/2014 0.740 0.750 06/05 - Quarterly 1,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 CORP NOTES Totals 1,000,000.00 0.740 0.750 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 Commercial Paper - Discount 466400JF9 769 JP MOR 1,000,000.00 0.35709/15/2014 12/20/2013 0.362 0.367 09/15 - At Maturity 997,334.88 997,334.88 Commercial Paper - Discount Totals 1,000,000.00 0.362 0.367 0.00 997,334.88 997,334.88 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133EAA81 711 FFCB 2,000,000.00 0.78001/30/2017 07/31/2012 0.792 0.803 01/30 - 07/30 1,998,000.00 1 ,998,000.00 3133EAE38 716 FFCB 2,000,000.00 0.82005/01/2017 08/08/2012 0.830 0.842 11/01 - 05/01 318.89 1,998,000.00 1 ,998,000.00 3133ECE91 733 FFCB 1,000,000.00 0.40002/01/2016 02/01/2013 0.395 0.400 08/01 - 02/01 1,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 3133ECHS6 735 FFCB 1,000,000.00 1.03003/12/2018 03/12/2013 1.016 1.030 09/12 - 03/12 1,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date. 05/14/2014- 09:37 - PM (PRF_PMS) 7.2.5 Report Ver. 7.3.1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Investment Status Report - Investments Page 2 April 30, 2014 Stated Maturity Purchase YTM/C YTM/C Payment Accrued Interest Current CUSIP Investment # Issuer Par Value Rate Date Date 360 365 Dates At Purchase Principal Book Value Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133802CO 710 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.05007/26/2017 07/26/2012 1.036 1.050 01/26 - 07/26 1 ,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 3133805K9 713 FHLB 654,827.25 0.72008/08/2016 08/08/2012 0.735 0.745 02/08 - 09/09 654,172.42 654,172.42 3133805K9 714 FHLB 654,827.25 0.72008/08/2016 08/08/2012 0.735 0.745 02/08 - 08/08 654,172.42 654,172.42 3133804V6 718 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.00008/09/2017 08/14/2012 1.001 1.014 02/09 - 08/09 138.89 999,300.00 999,300.00 3133804V6 719 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.00008/09/2017 09/05/2012 0.986 1.000 02/09 - 08/09 722.22 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 31338OMF1 720 FHLB 1 ,000,000.00 1.00009/18/2017 09/18/2012 0.996 1.010 03/18 - 09/18 999,500.00 999,500.00 313380MF1 721 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.00009/18/2017 09/18/2012 0.986 1.000 03/18 - 09/18 1,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 31338ONTO 722 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.00009/27/2017 09/27/2012 0.986 1.000 03/27 - 09/27 1,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 313381W68 732 FHLB 2,000,000.00 0.75001/30/2018 01/30/2013 0.592 0.600 07/30 - 01/30 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 3130A1063 771 FHLB 1,000,000.00 1.25003/26/2019 03/26/2014 2.141 2.171 09/26 - 03/26 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 313OA15W4 772 FHLB 1,000,000.00 0.87503/27/2017 03/27/2014 0.896 0.909 09/27 - 03/27 999,000.00 999,000.00 3134G44N5 741 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 0.75011/28/2017 05/28/2013 0.740 0.750 11/28 - 05/28 1 ,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 3134G43S5 744 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 0.62505/15/2017 05/15/2013 0.616 0.625 11/15 - 05115 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 3134G46D5 746 FHLMC 2,000,000.00 1.20006/12/2018 06/12/2013 1.733 1.757 12/12 - 06/12 1,989,000.00 1 ,989,000.00 3134G4EF1 748 FHLMC 1,550,000.00 1.00002/13/2017 08/13/2013 0.986 1.000 02/13 - 08/13 1,550,000.00 1 ,550,000.00 3134G4FA1 751 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 1.00002/27/2017 08/27/2013 0.986 1.000 02/27 - 08/27 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 3134G4NZ7 768 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 1.50012/27/2018 12/27/2013 1.861 1.887 06/27 - 12/27 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 3134G4V39 770 FHLMC 1,000,000.00 1.50002/28/2019 02/28/2014 1.981 2.008 08/28 - 02/28 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 3135GORQ8 723 FNMA 1,000,000.00 1.00011/15/2017 11/15/2012 0.986 1.000 05/15 - 11/15 1,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 3136GOZ61 724 FNMA 1,000,000.00 0.90011/14/2017 11/14/2012 0.987 1.001 05/14 - 11/14 998,500.00 998,500.00 3136GO6M8 726 FNMA 2,000,000.00 0.90011/27/2017 11/27/2012 0.888 0.900 05/27 - 11/27 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 3136GO6Z9 729 FNMA 2,000,000.00 0.65012/13/2016 12/13/2012 0.641 0.650 06/13 - 12/13 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 3136G1KS7 736 FNMA 1,050,000.00 0.50008/15/2016 05/15/2013 0.493 0.500 08/15 - 02/15 1,050,000.00 1 ,050,000.00 3136G1BT55 761 FNMA 2,000,000.00 0.85008/07/2017 11/19/2013 1.001 1.015 02/07 - Quarterly 1,989,000.00 1 ,989,000.00 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Totals 34,909,654.50 0.990 1.004 1,180.00 34,878,644.84 34,878,644.84 Investment Totals 82,004,996.49 0.629 0.638 1,180.00 81,971,321.71 81,971,321.71 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 05/14/2014-09:37 - PM (PRF-PMS) 7.2.5 � ( f CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 1 Activity Summary April 2013 through April 2014 Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity April 2013 35 69,183,983.73 0.776 0.786 0.312 0 1 795 354 May 2013 37 70,546,268.22 0.758 0.768 0.296 3 3 801 347 June 2013 37 76,535,268.22 0.718 0.728 0.289 1 1 762 309 July 2013 37 78,561 ,781 .53 0.749 0.759 0.311 3 0 782 291 August 2013 44 79,230,070.86 0.609 0.618 0.316 7 2 766 295 September 2013 43 83,226,881 .21 0.620 0.628 0.305 1 0 740 280 October 2013 43 74,659,335.08 0.630 0.639 0.316 0 1 784 298 November 2013 43 74,648,335.08 0.699 0.709 0.313 1 1 791 291 December 2013 45 80,645,669.96 0.673 0.683 0.301 3 1 762 270 January 2014 44 80,687,473.61 0.669 0.678 0.292 0 0 761 257 February 2014 45 79,691 ,013.93 0.616 0.625 0.300 1 2 748 286 March 2014 47 81 ,942,513.93 0.639 0.648 0.302 4 1 771 299 April 2014 46 81 ,971 ,321 .71 0.629 0.638 0.284 0 0 771 287 Average 42 77,809,993.62 0.676% 0.685% 0.303 2 1 772 297 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date05/14/2014-09:37 PM (PRF_PM4) 7.2.5 - - Report Ver. 7.3.1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 1 Distribution of Investments By Type April 2013 through April 2014 April May June July August September October November December January February March April Average Security Type 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014 2014 by Period LAIF & County Pool 52.0 51 .0 53.5 52.2 51 .9 53.0 50.3 50.3 51 .5 51.5 52.2 50.7 50.7 51 .6% Certificates of Deposit - Bank 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.9 4.1 3.9 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.3 3.8% Certificates of Deposit - S & L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift & Ln Negotiable CD's - Bank CORP NOTES 1.2 1 .2 0.2% Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper - Interest Bearing Commercial Paper - Discount 1.2 1 .2 1 .3 1 .2 1 .2 0.5% Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 40.5 41 .6 39.6 41.2 44.0 43.1 45.4 45.4 43.3 43.2 42.5 42.6 42.6 42.7% Federal Agency Issues - Discount Treasury Securities - Coupon Treasury Securities - Discount Miscellaneous Securities - Coupon Miscellaneous Securities - Discount Non Interest Bearing Investments Mortgage Backed Securities CAMP-Managed Pool Accounts Municipal Bonds 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.8 1 .3% Miscellaneous Discounts -At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts -At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 05/14/2014 -_09:37 - _ _ - - PM (PRF_PM5) 7.2.5 Report Ver. 7.3.1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 1 Interest Earnings Summary April 30, 2014 April 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 392.81 326,148.01 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 85,718.26 75,712.70 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 56,056.47) ( 103,539.53) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 30,054.60 298,321.18 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 2,500.00 Earnings during Periods 30,054.60 300,821 .18 Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected 0.00 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: Interest Collected 28,807.78 117,158.14 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period -16,286.02 -16,286.02 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 2,294.47) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 10,227.29 100,872.12 Total Interest Earned during Period 40,281.89 399,193.30 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 2,500.00 Total Earnings during Period 40,281.89 401,693.30 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 05/14/2014 - 09:37 _ - PM (PRF_PM6) 7.2.5 . . Report Ver. 7.3.1